by philewing on July 12, 2012
FARNBOROUGH, England — How does flying the F-35 Lightning II stack up against older-model fighter jets? We asked two of its most experienced pilots that very question after their presentation this week at the air show.
July 12th, 2012 | Air Force, F-35 Watch, Fast Movers | 1782998 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fdefensetech.org%2F2012%2F07%2F12%2Ff-35-pilots-compare-it-to-the-jets-of-yesteryear%2FF-35+Pilots+Compare+it+to+the+Jets+of+Yesteryear2012-07-12+21%3A52%3A05philewinghttp%3A%2F%2Fdefensetech.org%2F%3Fp%3D17829
Previous post: When a HUD Won’t Cut It, Pilots Turn To Helmet-Mounted
Next post: King Air 350 Grows Into ISR Mission
Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.
{ 98 comments… read them below or add one }
Comments about how these guys are shills in 3…2…1…
This is another disgusting attempt by LockMart to bamboozle our leaders into buying something we don't need! The public is being swayed by these obvious corporate shills. I wonder how many millions of dollars changed hands for this testimony… LockMart probably threatened their families or something… The F35 doesn't even look cool, so it's only logical that it doesn't perform well. End of story.
You can stop impersonating me now. Everyone knows I will only comment on this website with this account from now on.
Troll
It looks gorgeous!
Thank you for giving yourself away, majr0d.
Wasn't me but I like the rent free condo in your mind. :)
Wow. You make a count down for when someone will call the pilots corporate shills, then the fake Black Owl gets on and calls them "corporate shills" right at the same time your count down ends and in reply to YOUR post. Did you honestly think I wouldn't catch that? You legitimately suck at everything you do and you're still being affected by the mind game I played on you here: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/15/f-35-by-the-num…
I have lost all respect for you. We're done here.
LOL, can't believe you're referencing the thread where you didn't know the difference between a CH46 and CH47? Does wonders for your credibility and the way you handled your ignorance is a beacon of maturity. Faking a screen name (if it's faked) is much more up your alley.
Yeah, YOU're pilot material (sarcasm). Keep the barista gig.
.8… .7….. .5…. .2 ……. .05….. .025….
ok I'll bite, reminds me of new car salesmen that say:
"with a single push of a button this car will parallel park itself"
"with car is so self-aware, with camera's everywhere, that it will brake automatically for you if it see a hazard and it'll even know if you are feeling drowsy…when it does the a n al probe will activate"
I wonder if the F-35 will have the anti-drowsy feature they obviously left off on the F-22 ;-D
The title of the article is a bit misleading. Except for the guy saying he had to do more work in the Harrier, they didn't really compare the F-35 to other planes. The first pilot spent his entire soundbite talking about the situational awareness systems and the second pilot about the push-button landing system. Nothing really controversial to discuss. You couldn't give the guy an umbrella while you made him talk in the rain?
^TMB. Finally devoted the 5 minutes it took to get an account like all the other cool kids.
I know what you mean!
Doesn't the US Military forbid umbrellas?
I think all of the technologies that these pilots are talking about are great. Boeing is already proving that the F-35-style sensors and systems are able to be added to the Super Hornet. They already added a detailed glass ****pit as well as IR sensors about the aircraft for spherical scanning and missile/laser warning. My question is how difficult would it be to add the software from the F-35B to an upgraded Harrier III?
Adding those sensors to an Super Hornet is going to make the airplane expensive enough that you might as well go the full route and buy an F-35C. Look at how much a Block 60 Viper costs relative to a Block 50, or the F-15SE to a normal E model.
As far as the Harrier III goes, I think you should worry about designing first before you start thinking about software…
No, it would not make the Super Hornet that expensive. Not even close. The Super Hornet unit cost has actually gone down as production has ramped up. Even the addition of the AESA radar didn't increase its price that much. Not only that, but Boeing's upgrades are slightly lower tech and give nearly the same performance as the F-35 sensor suite. The IR sensors for the Hyper Hornet are just IR scanners with the information being added into a large glass ****pit display for the pilot. They aren't extremely expensive IR camera's connected to a helmet that requires large amounts of high resolution data transferred from every camera to feed it to the pilot (the helmet/IR camera system also doesn't even work properly at the moment despite the billions of dollars poured into it). The Super Hornet's production has fully matured now and adding such tech advances would increase the Super Hornet's unit cost, but not by much. We would still save ridiculous amounts of money since we wouldn't have to pay for the $100 billion dollar acquisition cost of the F-35C or the obscene cost of operating the F-35C fleet with each jet costing well over $51,143 dollars per flight hour since it will be more expensive than the F-35A figures. The actual cost per flight hour figures Lockheed has refused to release for the F-35C and F-35B. The F/A-18E/F is only a little over $18,000 per flight hour on average for the USN and the F-16 is $22,500:
http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/07/09/f-35-…
For the F-15SE you still get the option of having it in a stealthy configuration or having it switch to a non-stealthy heavily armed death machine that is even better at air-to-ground than the Super Hornet all at $100 million dollars, which is still half the cost of an F-35A. That's still very good, but I'd prefer it if the USAF got the F-35A and a small number of Silent Eagles.
A Harrier III wouldn't be too difficult to design. It would certainly be much easier and cheaper than the F-35B. Here's a British assessment on making a Harrier III. Apparently the British already made a few Harrier III draft designs before signing up for the F-35B with us: http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/JSF_HarrierIII….
why do you just guess?
it's reported by sweetman the naysayers friend, that the f-35a is 12% more than the f-16.= $25.2
the RAAF costs the f-35a at $21,000
The RAAF doesn't currently have the F-35A.
Harrier is a turd. Non super sonic, high kill rate (of its pilots) week payload and maintence nightmare. How long do you think a combat airframe can last? I'm not talking B-52, I'm talking turners and burners…
Boeing's upgrades have never even flown on an airplane before, after all this talk of not believing Lockheed's "sales brochures" you sure are quick to believe Boeing's. You would see a huge spike in cost if you start putting that stuff on a legacy airplane because you aren't just upgrading whats already in there, you're putting things on the airplane that were never there. Add the cost of an advanced targeting pod (ATFLIR, SNIPER XR, whatever), all your IR sensors, and the most advanced passive detection suite in the world (which would be next to impossible) to the airframe cost of the Super Hornet, and you'd end up with a hefty pricetag. There's a reason that the new versions of the Strike Eagle (F-15K, F-15SG, F-15SA, etc) cost over 100 million dollars, and that reason is electronics. In my aircraft design courses back in school, we used the rule of thumb that per pound, avionics are 6 times the cost of the airframe and twice the cost of the engine. I'm also skeptical that they will be able to fit all the supporting equipment into the Super Hornet to run all of that fancy new stuff, the Super was criticized during development for its lack of expansion room and I imagine the problem hasn't gone away.
The reason why you see the most recent F-35's costing so much is because the original LRIP-5 order was for 42 jets, with all the long term lead items associated with their construction, however the contract was reduced to only 32 airplanes, so you get a spike up relative to the LRIP-4 numbers, which were coming down. The realistic costs for an F-35A right now sit a little above 100 million dollars per jet. Yes it is more expensive than a vanilla Super Hornet, but as I've said before, you get what you pay for. And that $54,000 dollar per flight hour is a guess from Winslow Wheeler, not an actual number. While the F-35C will probably cost more money per flight hour than the SHornet, I doubt it will be that dramatic of an increase. Also I highly doubt that the F-16 costs more to fly than the SHornet, I wouldn't mix each service's accounting methods there.
I'm not sure if you linked me to the right article on the whole Harrier III thing, I didn't see anything in there about BAe actually doing any serious design work, it read more like a thought experiment. Irregardless, sure you could make a Harrier III, but that's just what it would be, a slightly higher performing Harrier. If you want something that can lift more and still go fast and maneuver, you won't do any better right now than the Lift-Fan system and the F-35B. And before you say that the Lift-Fan doesn't work or whatever, left me point out that in the 791 flights of the B-model so far, 70% percent of them started with a short takeoff, and over 40% ended with a vertical landing.
I'm not a huge fan of Lockheed these days or how the JSF program seems to be playing out, but as it stands, the whole program is still a way better alternative in terms of performance and capability than upgrading 4th generation fighters. As much as I would like to see some new Vipers or Eagles to freshen up the fleet, its time to move on.
During the competition to win the federal AF/Marine/Navy/Foreign contract, Lockheed's prototype met all criteria, including being able to land vertically without the engine exhaust getting sucked back into the intake and killing the thrust. Boeing's did not; plus it looked like a flying pig.
I think it's no accident that virtually all American combat planes that were successful were also beautiful. The F-22 is gorgeous. Granted, the F-117 was a flying brick, but then, it's also gone, having created a pathway to the future. The F-35 is not as good looking as the F-22, and not as good, at least relative to air superiority. The C-5 is now up to the 'M' version, and will be flying up through 2040 (75 years), the C-130 is half way through the alphabet, still being manufactured and upgraded. The F-104 was designed in 90 days in 1954 and served in frontline military forces through 2004, and STILL holds the world speed record on the deck – 973 mph (knots? I always forget). It actually exceeded 1000 mph on an earlier run, but the timing eqpt. crapped out. The Super Constellation flew from London non stop to SF, and holds the record for longest time in air – just under 24 hours. Non refueled. All of these planes were and are beautiful, and they were successful. Boeing has the 787, which is stupendous, so the company can build planes, but guess what? It came in WAY over budget and time.
isn't there a saying that "if it looks good it probably flys good" or something like that.
well, what looks good to some people may look horrible to others.
how do you reconcile that?
Great post. I have been waiting for someone to punch holes in BlackOwl's ridiculous arguments for a while now.
Japan’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced that it has agreed to buy 4 Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) at a cost of $128.61 million each, an increase of $3.7 million over the $124.83 million price negotiated last December. The four aircraft are scheduled for delivery in Fiscal Year 2016.
A formal letter of offer and acceptance (LOA) was signed in Japan on 29 June and includes four conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variants of the F-35, spare parts, and two simulators for a total of $756.53 million. Although the base price of the aircraft itself increased, the cost of the spare parts and two simulators dropped from an initial estimate of $258.48 million to $240.83 million, a significant savings for Japan.
It feels so good sometimes, destroying F-35 haters.
Copy and paste the link before the anti-F-35 guys bann or sensor me http://defense-update.com/20120704_japan-formally…
Read that article again. That's the cost "negotiated." Not the actual per unit cost of the jets.
Okay, here’s the first BIG DIFFERENCE between the Hyper Hornet and the F-35C. The Hyper Hornet has had very little money actually put towards it because Boeing wants a customer to fund the upgrades. That’s why no version of it has flown. The F-35 has had obscene amounts of money pumped into it by us and our allies and it still doesn’t work. It doesn’t trap a wire or fly vertically without breaking apart. The software doesn’t work, the helmet doesn’t work. It hasn’t even done live weapons testing or spins yet.
Here’s the second BIG DIFFERENCE: the technical challenges with making a Hyper Hornet are a lot easier and a lot cheaper than making any fully functional F-35 variant. Adding IR scanners about the Super Hornet is not that expensive or difficult and the Russians already did it with the Optical Locating System on the MiG-35. The reason the avionics for the Hyper Hornet won’t be nearly as expensive as the F-35’s is because they aren’t nearly as complex and a vast majority of the R&D for them has already been done, ironically by Lockheed. The stealthy weapons pod won’t even affect the unit cost because it is not part of the aircraft itself (unless you count the small software additions needed for the pod of course). The IRST mounted under the nose is literally the same exact one that the USN is making for the nose mounted fuel tank IRST. In that sense the IRST is already in the works. The Hyper Hornet will be cheap because it all uses OFF THE SHELF technology to make in order to get nearly the same performance as the JSF. That's also why the AESA radar didn't increase the unit cost that much. And the Super Hornet clearly has the necessary room and extra cooling for these upgrades. If you think the Super Hornet was criticized for lacking room for upgrades you should mention the paper thin weight margins on the F-35 that make adding upgrades almost an impossibility.
You are giving me your own false numbers for the F-35A, which is at $172 million per unit and climbing: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/m…
The price is still going UP. You’re explanation for the cost increases doesn’t even make sense because the costs are related to terrible DESIGN FLAWS that LM still hasn’t managed to fix. Those are what are making the F-35 prices so expensive and that is because the problems are related to, just like you mentioned, the avionics. The cost per flight hour of the F-35C hasn’t been released because it is obscenely higher than the Super Hornet and the Navy is already showing signs that it wants to pull out of the JSF program. If they weren’t much higher than the Super Hornet LM would have definitely released them and the PR team for the JSF program would be all over it.
As I said to you before, you should stop arguing about the cost of the F-35C vs. the Block III Super Hornet because there is NO WAY to get around the acquisition cost of the F-35C, which is sitting at around $129 billion dollars for the USN. For $100 billion dollars we could make 1494.7 Super Hornets. Lets say we don't make that many because we don't have enough carriers for that. Say we only make 600 additional Super Hornets so that our total Super Hornet fleet is a little over 1,100, which is literally over 3x the amount of F-35C’s the USN would purchase if it went through with the program. That's still $60 billion dollars ($89 billion in actuality) in savings that we could use buying fuel, buying aircraft weapons, making cruise missiles, developing long range anti-radar missiles, keeping our ships afloat, paying off our debt to China, etc… The F-35C does not provide nearly the capability that it cost EVEN IF IT ACTUALLY WORKED. Not even close.
Again we could easily make a slightly better performing Harrier III and that’s all we need. We don’t need "something that can lift more and still go fast and maneuver," especially at the cost of performance in the CAS role and definitely not at the cost of $291.7 million dollars per unit. I will still say that the lift fan doesn’t work because those numbers mean nothing to me. How often did they have to do maintenance on the lift fan during those flights and what type of maintenance was conducted? Was the lift fan replaced at any time during those flights? Why does LM still say that the only fixes they have are temporary fixes?
"The Hyper Hornet has had very little money actually put towards it because Boeing wants a customer to fund the upgrades."
And yet no takers? Maybe that's for a reason…
"The stealthy weapons pod won’t even affect the unit cost because it is not part of the aircraft itself (unless you count the small software additions needed for the pod of course). The IRST mounted under the nose is literally the same exact one that the USN is making for the nose mounted fuel tank IRST. In that sense the IRST is already in the works."
And therein lies the secret to selling a cheap airplane, not including the stuff you need to actually fight a war in the cost. The cost of the F-35 includes the IRST, the DAS sensors, the passive suite, the EW package, internal weapons bays, etc. You seem to think I'm saying that the F-35 is cheaper than your beloved SHornet, I'm not, but the fact is the difference in price for capability is alot closer than you seem to think. And because that stuff is already in there, you don't need a huge weight margin to upgrade, the hardware is already in place.
"You are giving me your own false numbers for the F-35A, which is at $172 million per unit and climbing: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/m…
The price is still going UP."
Read that article again, specifically the part about how many airplanes were planned for LRIP-5 and how many were bought. Up to LRIP-4 the costs were decreasing, but when you slash the buy for short term savings, you drive costs up in the long run.
"I will still say that the lift fan doesn’t work because those numbers mean nothing to me."
So the fact that 70 percent of the nearly 800 flights made by the 4 B-models at Pax river involved the lift fan means nothing to you? The problems with the B-model have nothing to do with the fan concept. One issue was the clutch that connects the fan to the F135 overheating which was solved years ago in a redesign. The other was for the actuators that open the doors and that was due to poor quality control from a sub contractor. Insurmountable problems indeed…
"As I said to you before, you should stop arguing about the cost of the F-35C vs. the Block III Super Hornet because there is NO WAY to get around the acquisition cost of the F-35C"
Yes we know, the F-35 is more expensive, no one is arguing that it isn't. What you don't seem to understand is that buying more mediocre fighters from the last generation isn't the solution to the problem. Its not like the Navy is getting rid of all of its old Super Hornets anytime soon. Does something need to happen to keep the Carrier Air Wing relevant? Yes. Is the solution buying yesterdays airplane? No
First off, why did you dodge my questions about the lift fan? I'm not talking about the fan concept. I'm talking about the F-35B's fan cracking during operations. Was the lift fan replaced or not during these flights? How many times? What type of maintenance was done on these F-35Bs? These are critical pieces of information. Why won't you answer my questions?
And here's the most important question: Does LM have permanent fixes for all the problems associated with the F-35B engine in order for it to work perfectly? After over a decade of development and billions of dollars why don't they?
"And therein lies the secret to selling a cheap airplane, not including the stuff you need to actually fight a war in the cost."
The Super Hornet has been doing combat ops without that stuff and it did just fine. It already has internal jammers, but the EA-18G takes that to a whole new level. Again, the Super Hornet actually works. The F-35 doesn't. Why does the F-35 still not work?
Since the F-35 has no margin for upgrades I guess we can be certain than no new technologies will come out worth adding to fighter aircraft within the next 40 years or so it is expected to operate. Do you see the nonsense in that?
"the fact is the difference in price for capability is alot closer than you seem to think."
No it isn't. With $89 billion dollars in savings for nearly the same performance per unit and 3x the aircraft it REALLY isn't.
Btw, does something need to happen to keep the Carrier Air Wing relevant? The answer: not much because our pilots and our planes are badasses.
It's not just the USN that's losing faith in the JSF program. Now the USAF is spending money upgrading old F-16's and extending their service life for the long run. READ THIS ARTICLE: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/13/f-16-vipers-sun…
Also read the quote at the bottom: “It’s the systems not the aircraft that’s going to make the [F-16] relevant,” McConnell said.
I did answer your question about the lift fan, it isn't "cracking" as you seem to think. The issues with it involved air loads on the doors and actuators causing them to crack, not the fan itself. Again it was a quality control issue from the the subcontractors who build the actuators. They've been flying the B with the fan on for years now and they aren't replacing fans every week like you seem to think.
And the SHornet has been doing combat ops over Afghanistan and Somalia, hardly a high threat environment. I'm talking about if you wanted to go into someone's airspace that has their air defense act together…
As for upgrades, most of the ones we'll be seeing on the F-35 will involve software rather than new hardware, and those "paper thin" weight margins really apply only to the B-model, which is still able to meet its requirements.
Also, upgrading fighters doesn't mean the Air Force is "losing faith" as you seem to think. The USAF's fighter force is only getting older and something has to be done until F-35A's can start filling squadrons. Besides, they've been talking about upgrading to "Platinum Vipers" and "Golden Eagles" for years now, this is not a new development.
As for the CAW, I'm sure they're just great if you stumble inside that 300 mile ring where the Super Hornets can get to without tanker support, but the point is that isn't enough anymore.
You seem to think that I believe the F-35 is the answer to all these problems, but it isn't. Buying more 4th generation airplanes and assuming they can get the job done in the future, however, is an even worse idea.
I fail to see any evidence of the lift fan being fully fixed. If it is that's the first time I've heard of it. Also it isn't just the lift fan that's breaking. There are cracks appearing in its inner bulkheads and many other parts of the jet are showing wear and tear much too early. This jet is literally falling apart when it flies: http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/…
If you read that whole article you would also see the massive host of other problems that still need fixing and that article is less than a month old. And you STILL didn't answer my question. What types of the maintenance did they perform on the F-35Bs? You said they aren't replacing the lift fan every week, but how often are they replacing it? Does LM have permanent fixes for the F-35B engine for it to work perfectly? What's holding them back?
As for someone who has their "air defense act together," You forgot to mention the crucial place the Super Hornet did go that had an air defense system: Libya! Why are you leaving this out of the SHornet's combat record?
And, NO, I know for a fact that the paper thin weight margins apply to all of them. The weight margins are what were sacrificed to fix the first problems found in testing and they've already started to run dry. You don't know jack about the upgrades we'll be seeing with the F-35. They haven't even been made yet. You're not thinking outside of the box. What if there is a new directed energy weapon that we could attach to a fighter's undercarriage and the F-35 doesn't have the spare space, power, cooling, or weight margins to accommodate it? What kind of Aeronautical Engineer are you?
Yes, it does mean that the USAF is losing faith in the F-35A. Why else would they take some of their already limited defense budget for tac air and spend that money upgrading F-16s when it could be spent on fixing the F-22 and the F-35A is DESPERATE? Why don't they just put all of their money towards F-35As or F-22s? Don't they plan on those fighters satisfying our defense needs in the long run? Instead they're upgrading F-16s the for long run too? There is only one answer to the question.
Also why are you still using the same losing arguments that you used in our last debate on DoDbuzz? I already explained to you that the F/A-18E can hold 14,950 pounds internally. The conformal tanks for the Block III Super Hornet bring that to 18,450 pounds, which is not too far away from the 19,750 pounds on the F-35C. The difference in range is negligible. It's like you just forget this stuff right after I say it to you.
I'm saying that the evidence is obvious that buying the F-35 is not the answer and is in fact the WORST decision we could make. Buying proven, low observable 4th generation fighter jets and giving them the new systems as well as better long range-high speed anti-radar missiles will be able to handle the future SAM threats and any future fighter threats very well. Much better than a platform that relies entirely on stealth, which is a weakening technology as our enemies make better counter-stealth devices.
It also looks like that's where we are going anyway since recently a Presidential Commission came out recommending to replace half of the F-35 buys with 4th gen jets and cancel the F-35B: http://seekingalpha.com/article/717171-congressio…
(By the way this article is very recent, yet for some reason they mentioned the F-14. I have no idea why they did that.)
Can't say its cheaper as it hasnt been funded.
I'll repeat my comments from the "Navy Won't Bite Just Yet On F/A-18 Refinements" thread:
"I don't understand the point of the F-35B. Everything I've read tells me it would be a good – maybe even great – STOVL strike fighter…but why do the Marines need a strike fighter? I would think they'd have a much more urgent need for a real AV-8B-replacement CAS platform. Something that can fly low and slow and lay down a lot of 25mm, rockets, cluster bombs, ATGMs, etc. The 35B has half the cannon ammo of the Harrier and doesn't seem geared towards low and slow anything, or persistent loiter, or lots of ordanance. I could see a few fighter variants to protect the gators (or for the UK's QE-class carriers), like the Harriers that were made AMRAAM-capable, but I have to agree that some sort of "Harrier 3" (or, in my dreams, a revived OV-10!) would be better suited for USMC CAS needs. But that's just the musings of a former ground pounder…"
…although upon further reflection, if we were to develop a "Harrier 3" for the USMC's CAS requirements, the unit cost for the the few remaining 35B's needed to defend our gators and to fly from the UK's carriers would probably be cost-prohibitive…but if the Harrier 2 was able to be morphed from a great CAS platfom into a decent strike fighter, I bet a Harrier 3 could too…
Marine doctrine is different than ours. Not only does Marine air provide CAS (the best/most responsive there is), they also feel they must be able to influence air superiority over the MAGTF. They don't even rely on the Navy completely for this mission and considering they may have to operate from a gator for a short period of time without carrier or air force cover it makes sense.
Considering how the Army lost the CAS mission and has suffered evr since I don't blame the Marines one bit for jealously guarding their air missions. Slippery slopes do exist. Look what happened to the army with the C27. We started the program to replace Hurons and Sherpas. The Air Force took it over promising to operate the planes and is now seeking to mothball the whole C27 fleet because C130's can do the job. Well, C130s don't do inratheatre logistic runs unless the Air Force decides the mission is important enough which is an additional bureaucracy to convince vs. when the Army owns its own intra theatre fixed wing lift assets.
Valid points all. Too bad we just can't act like we're all on the same side…
Your perspective is skewed. The Hornet is capable enough right now to probably handle most any air force in the air – TODAY.
The military is looking 10-30 years down the line, when Russia's oil money (ours) generates gen 5 fighters; when China's consumer spending money (ours) fields a pair of gen 5 fighters; when India's fledgling design studios and manufacturing base fields a good gen 5 fighter.
The Hornet is yesterday's technology, and in only five years it will be dead meat to the F-35 and will already be in trouble from Chinese advances in air defenses, plus air power.
The AF/Navy/Marines will have to fund some development of our legacy aircraft so as to extend their lifespans to meet anticipated and large delays in their replacement. As much as you dislike the -35, it was from the outset the one, single design that flew. Boeing's could not land vertically, and was a flying outhouse.
As to replacement, maintenance on the F-35. From the outset, the program and design have been fluid and changing. In these early production examples, Lockheed is of course constantly taking them apart, examining the parts, looking for wear, cracks, defects, anything that would later cause either crashes or large amounts of upgrades to the fleet.
http://topfighterjets.blogspot.com/p/f-35-lightni… – Read this as well about F35 Power
I wish we would stop pissing away so much money on tacair period. If anyone read Greenert's piece about how he sees all the parts fitting together the role of the F35C in the USNs eyes is very different. Bottom line is the 2400ish # the DoD keeps quoting isn't going to happen. The damn this is too expensive to buy and the cost per flight hour is ridiculous. We are going to buy the F35, just a hell of alot less than 2400ish when its all done.
That's probably why they haven't used that number for years. It's 1,785 total.
This plane is old news. If the public has seen it. Its been flying for 15-20 years. Your not paying for the f35. Your paying for the next gen that you have not seen yet. Figured all you guys would know this by now.
If not come back in 15 years and we will talk some more. Need proof? Go google earth NAFB and see 25 F35's sitting out on the tarmac on ready status.
Yea I hear thier have a team of alien pilots rescued from UFOs flying them.
Its alwasy funny to hear thwe claims of secretly amazing things the F-35 can do that we dont know about. Well what we know is it cant fly very well, cant launch many weapons well and cant fullfill real world missions.
But maybe when the alien technology is fully integrated things will improve LOL
We do?
I thought that we knew it was the only survivable fighter available in the West for at least 10 years.
Okay, here’s the first BIG DIFFERENCE between the Hyper Hornet and the F-35C. The Hyper Hornet has had very little money actually put towards it because Boeing wants a customer to fund the upgrades. That’s why no version of it has flown. The F-35 has had obscene amounts of money pumped into it by us and our allies and it still doesn’t work. It doesn’t trap a wire or fly vertically without breaking apart. The software doesn’t work, the helmet doesn’t work. It hasn’t even done live weapons testing or spins yet.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/07/12/f-35-pilots-com…
Defense.org
——————————————————————————————————————–
The F-35 Lightning II is making good progress through flight testing this year, a top Lockheed Martin official says. Most of the biggest challenges faced by the programme should be well on their way to being fixed by the later part of the year.
One major issue that has recently popped up on the US Navy's F-35C variant is that the aircraft's tail-hook has had to be redesigned. That is because the existing design has failed to catch an arresting cable during trials. Lockheed is working on a new improved hook design that should fix the problem.
"We have modified the hook pointwith a lower center of gravity," says Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice president for F-35 programme integration and business development. Additionally, "we've redesigned the hold-down damper."
I will also add that so far the fix is working and the new design has caught a land hook.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-pr…
http://defense.aol.com/2011/10/18/f-35b-sea-trial…
No falling apart here. Your making this to easy
>I will also add that so far the fix is working and the new design has caught a land hook.
So did the previous failed design. So claims that it's working are havent been tested yet. Just another example of the inherent dishonest of F-35 shills.
great comment.
Sorry to give Jessmo a negative vote accidentally. Thumbs up.
it would help if the right prices are used
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/com…
BY2012 $M
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $134.5 M
The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $109.1 M
Average F-35A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M
Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5
Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M
>it would help if the right prices are used
Yea it would, wouldnt it. But instead you cherry picked the lowest cost you could find. Whos going to pay for the non-recuring costs the development costs and everything else you missed out on – your fairy godmother ? LOL
try reading the link, or look up what PAUC and APUC means, they inculde what you said was missed as a combined price for the A, B and C
F-35A: US$197 million (flyaway cost, 2012)
F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)
F-35C: US$236.8M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)
I'll give you one shot at guessing where I got these from.
I guess you got it from wiki. from someone that doesn't know how budget docs work
finally, a sensible cost documentation for the F-35.
We need the F-35 to be fully completed and the production line to be rolling out battle ready jets before it can be considered sensible.
No doubt old F-105 thunderchief pilots will tear up with the F-35 because the performance of the two is about the same.
Buts it's good to the the F-35 is so easy to fly. You dont want to waste an expensive highly trained pilots in an aircraft where a SAM lockon is a death sentance because the aircraft kinematics are so poor.
Oh yea I forgot no SAM will ever lock onto a F-35 no AAM will ever be fired against one because they are magically INVISIBLE. LOL
The F-35 is closer to the F-16 in performance than the F-105. Not that you're interested in facts or anything.
It has the same wing loading and thrust to wieght ratio as a F-105 but "it performs just like F-16" LOL
The F/A-18 has almost an identical combat wing loading as the F-105, as does the F-16. As for thrust to weight, the F-35 is in the same class as both of those airplanes.
Fun fact: Aircraft performance is more complicated than two numbers.
Agreed. F-35 pilots have reported the aircraft handles and flies almost the same as the F-18E/F. At minimum it should be as survivable as the current 4th gen aircraft.
USMC needs the F-35B badly. The Harrier has been out of production for years and there are no new airframes. USMC has been buying everyone elses Harrier's and parts just to keep theirs flyable.
When you can get a Hyper Hornet to fly off and land on a Gator let me know, otherwise F-35B is all the Corp has.
Just hilarious, the F-105 "lead sled" was such a poor performer in Vietnam that it had to be removed from combat due to excessive losses.
Thefact that we are building aircraft that cant go up a 60s era MIG-21 is a scandle.
the F-35 is the most advanced jet on the face of the earth
but it broke the bank, and it'll be outdated in less than a decade
either way the West will be bankrupt very soon, the F-35 will be ancient history, and it'll be the rise of the machi… er, drone
yep, we seem to want the gold platted version when silver will do just fine and be
1/4 the costs
Name any 4th gen fighter with 1/4 the unit fly away cost of the F-35?
Well in March the F-35B was $291.7 million per unit and the Super Hornet Block II last had a listed unit price of $66.9 million per unit, which is less than 1/4 of the B-model's cost.
you need to qualify what unit cost, if it's TY or BY $, if it's a full production price or a LRIP etc
RE: Coming from the other side of it, It’s always aeolsutbly baffled me why people consider their income to be something so deeply personal that it’s unforgivably rude to ask about it. I’ve seen people who are willing to divulge intimate details about their sexual fetishes or health problems who blanch at the thought of putting their income range on an anonymous survey. What’s the deal? Can anyone explain this to me? Please, I am genuinely puzzled. Maybe it’s just a generational divide.By the by, as people seem to be having difficulty with this whole incomes thing, lemmie help you out a bit. The median household income in King County is $53k year at last I checked.The per capita is $29k.According to wikipedia, for the city of Everett, the median household income is about $40k and the per capita is about $20k.From my admittedly rough calculations that means the 50th percentile of incomes in Everett can afford approximately a maximum of about $200k on a mortgage at todays interest rates. Once again, rough calculations. So you may want to readjust your thinking on what is affordable . You could assert that the 50th percentile has no business owning a home and should rent, as I have seen it not stated but implied on these forums before. In that case, we could bump it up to the 60th or 70th percentile and say that the prices are bang on, but that creates a simple supply and demand problem. If you are arbitrarily reducing the percentage of the population that should be able to afford a home, to say 30% to pick a random percentage, you had better make sure that there are only homes available for 30% of the population and a **** of alot of rental space. Otherwise supply exceeds demand and prices will have to come down. I think it’s important that people get over their (baffling, to me) squeamishness about incomes and start really looking at what kind of money people make around here. Presuming everyone is about like me is foolish.
I am thumbing up all the pro-F-35 comments and thumbing down all the anti-F-35 comments.
It's no secret that the F35 is a larger chunk of change than we'd like it to be. F35B, for example, is looking to replace the Harrier, correct? I'd venture to say that replacing the Harrier with a brand new platform is worth the cost.
Marines are having to buy other countries old stocks of Harriers for parts. That's not good. Harriers are, what… Vietnam era? There's no way a Harrier can be combat effective on the modern battlefield. And I'm not talking about OEF. I'm talking if we got into a fight with a legit Mil instead of fighting pissed off farmers.
Sure it has a large payload and can even fit a light bomber role. But do we really need that in this day and age? The payload/loiter perks were great for the 90's and early 00's, of course. But with drones and sat's running the surveillance that loiter time isn't really needed. Speed and precision will be the name of the game in the next conflict.
I hate the cost of the F35, don't get me wrong. I'm not much a fan of the single engine. I wish it had more payload. But the fact that it's a brand new aircraft that can do the same tricks as the Harrier, and then some, is a pretty big plus. Harrier had a great run. Will go down as one of the greats in history.
This is just one of those rare occasions where need outweighs cost. And I think top brass knows that, despite how stupid they're portrayed as being. Just wish that cost wasn't so gargantuan.
For that price it better be easier to fly than the Harrier.
Not sure if this link is one that I missed and is therefore a repost. If it is not, then I guess its got some good information on it; unless you are one of those that believes everything put out by LM is BS. http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/4844/07-11…
I'm one of those people in the middle here. I hear all this stuff about how this aircraft is a waste of money and we should scrap it. First off, I DO want to see this aircraft succeed. I DO hope that this works as advertised and more, although if it doesn't work, then yes, scrap it.
As far as WHY it is costing so much and why we can't afford it, here are a couple of REAL solutions that will at least help: Since our Dollar is so WORTHLESS, quit printing so much then it wouldn't take a mountain of trees to cut down to print enough dollars to buy something. Second: maybe if we weren't subsidizing the rest of the world's defense (Europe, Japan, Korea, Afghanistan,etc.) we would have more money to put into OUR own Defense.
As far as the F-35 replacing the A-10, AV8B, F-16, & F-18 – The A-10: No way anything could replace that except an upgraded A-10. The AV8B – Yes, I can see it replacing that. The F-16 & F18, not sure the jury's still out on that.
I would like to see the Air Force do away with their version and adopt either the B or C model. They need to get away from fighters that need long runways to take off, all the enemy has to do is take out the runway and the whole squadron is grounded.
I do know that the F-35 is progressing and I would like to see them test it at the next level – which is against other aircraft.
Here's what they have so far: https://f35.com/building-the-f-35/testing/f35b.as…
I revel in what BRASS had to say – I was around the SKUNK WORKS when the F-35 was being developed. He is right on target in every aspect. This aircraft is designed to make the pilot's job easier when evrything about him is turning into a personal nightmare regarding bogies. It allows him to concentrate on the job at hand, eliminating the bad guys, while not having to worry about constantly scanning his guages for aircraft problems. …as far as the comments about a black box or the display failing and everything is lost, there is something called redundancy – and at the SKUNK WORKS we didn''t work to the 3 sigma level of probability we worked to 4. ….as for the didplay, you don't think we put redundancy into that also – - that if it went out the pilots would be blind as to their guages and such, give me a break. This gives the pilots the abilityt to, and please BRASS allow me to quote you "I wonder how we keep essential skills and the split second decision making skills that are necessary. We live in an age where our defense and government computer systems suffer millions of attacks in one day
so the only difference between the F35 and platforms like the F16 18 and 15 are the avionics? Why are we spending so much money on a new platform again?
Welcome to my world…
The cost is the last item on the table will this aircraft fufill the need's of all the service's which the military has asked for as I can't see the gov't going back to the drawing table.
The US. has more at stake then their other member's as the fleet of plane's they plan on replacing is overwhelming to say the least.
I as a Canadian feel our view's are of no importance for the amount of plane's our country is talking about are less than a drop in the bucket soo if they decide to opt. out so what. I have no idea what these aircraft will be used for aside from having the same type if in another conflict make's it easier to service at that time.JSF.is the program.we will be part of.I don't envey you america's.
I'd really love to get an idea of how the F-35 actually handles compared to other fighters. Ive never seen it doing anyting all that impressive in videos ect. Not even a minimum radius turn. Just want an idea of how maneuverable it is.
does that mean you accept that it was reported that the f-35a will be 12% more than the f-16?
RAAF doesn't have f-16 either
Jane doesn't see that as relavent http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-…
Gripen is no competition for F35, please, apples to apples…
I'm not sure what "Presidential Commision" that article is refering to, since the only one that recomended cancelling the F-35B came out in 2010 and they obviously aren't following that. The delay that the article is refering to is when Congress decided to cut back on the amount of concurrency jets bought through 2015 (hence the drop in numbers in LRIP-5 I talked about). But there was no call about buying more 4th generation fighters in the meantime. The reason that article mentions the F-14 (and thinks the F-16 is still built by General Dynamics) is because that is a site about the economy, not combat aircraft or even the military, and the author doesn't have a clue.
As for the bulkheads cracking, that was found in a lifetime fatigue loads test of the F-35B. They aren't finding cracks in the flying airframes at all, and the A-model is almost completely done with its fatigue testing for its entire lifetime. The B-model's bulkhead cracking was fixed over a year and a half ago by the way. Just because an article is recent doesn't mean the information is current, especially when it is not written by an aerospace professional. As for the buffeting, this is a common issue in fighters with twin vertical stabs. Even the original Hornet had issues with excess buffet from the strake vortices striking the tails, to the point that they were getting cracks within the first few years of service. The Raptor had the same issues, as did the Super Hornet and the Eagle. And the helmet is well on the way to being fixed, and the pilot's are happy wearing it.
The weight margin is there for the STOVL variant because it is the most weight critical version in terms of bringback and short takeoff. There is no hard "weight limit" for the other versions. I guarantee you that no "upgrades" will attach to the undercarriage of any airplane, and the F-35 has no issues with expansion room.
Just having fuel weight doesn't equate to the same range. A good rule of thumb is that half the fuel you're carrying externally is used to offset the drag of having to carry it. I'm sure conformals are a little better, but you don't get something for nothing. I didn't forget what you said, it just shows an underlying lack of understanding when it comes to how airplanes work. The Super Hornet barely beats out the Legacy Hornet in range, and strapping drag onto its back isn't going to fix that problem overnight.
The F-35 doesn't rely only on stealth, and it can benefit from everything else you have listed that will help the imaginary Super Duper Hornet. The Air Force has been forced to do something about its tactical fighter fleet because of delays in the JSF program, hence the upgrades to the Viper fleet (only about 30%).
You're going to have to show me a link or something for the fixes on the F-35. I refuse to just take your word for it and the JSF's PR team hasn't shown the same exactly.
Of course the helmet is well on the way to being fixed. That's why they're making a second lower tech helmet right? NO. That makes no sense. The helmet's not even close to getting fixed.
You can't guarantee me anything about the upgrades in weapons or aircraft systems for the next 40 years. You can't see the future. The F-35 has terrible issues with expansion room. All you are giving me is your word and that's not good enough for me. NOT AT ALL.
The Super Hornet has a significant range increase over the older Hornets since it holds 33% percent more fuel and it has almost the same airframe. All the Super Hornet pilots I have talked to and many of the accounts of Marine Hornet pilots that flew the Super can attest to that. The conformal tanks are very low drag and are designed to create more lift. I already know that the fuel weight doesn't equate to an increase in range but you are not taking into account that the Block III Super Hornet can use the weapons pod to carry ordinance and have low drag with nothing under its wings. You also aren't taking into account the EDE engines with enhanced endurance for the Super Hornet that allow it to maintain the same performance with less fuel consumption. The Block III Super Hornet will not have a significant range difference with the F-35C.
And, No, the F-35 can't benefit from everything else that I listed on the Block III Super Hornet because it doesn't have the room for it. It's not as flexible in operations as the Super Hornet is and it doesn't carry nearly as much ordinance. Once you mount ordinance on under the wings then it basically becomes an F-16 in terms of performance that costs 3x as much. Not only that, but if we buy the F-35 we will not have enough money to make all those systems or enough of those systems to matter because we'll be too busy paying for the obscenely high operating cost of these jets that do in fact rely on a technology that is becoming increasingly vulnerable with enemy advances in electronics. The F-35 relies entirely on a technology that could easily go out of fashion in the next decade. A technology that is extremely expensive and is not worth its price in capability. The F-35 price is STILL GOING UP as the flaws are fixed and there is no way that 1 F-35C is worth 3 Block III Super Hornets.
I refuse to continue this any further until you ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. What types of the maintenance did they perform on the F-35Bs? You said they aren't replacing the lift fan every week, but how often are they replacing it? Does LM have permanent fixes for the F-35B engine for it to work perfectly? If not then why don't they? When will the F-35C trap a wire? LM has had over a decade and billions of dollars. We should be seeing some results by now. You also don't seem to understand that every time you call the Block III Super Hornet imaginary, I'm just going to call a fully functional F-35 far more imaginary because that's the truth.
Stop feeding the troll.
"You're going to have to show me a link or something for the fixes on the F-35. I refuse to just take your word for it and the JSF's PR team hasn't shown the same exactly."
Well, here is an article from a few months ago where the Marine Commandant himself (an legacy Hornet driver and all around good guy) details the issues and solutions to the F-35B problems.
http://defense.aol.com/2011/11/18/marine-commanda…
Here's an article about the helmet and how the fixes work.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120508/DEFRE…
And just for kicks, here is an article that suggests (from Navy sources no less) the F/A-XX will be a variant of the F-35C (blasphemy!)
http://defense.aol.com/2012/07/13/navy-may-buy-mo…
As for expansion room, I haven't heard anything about the F-35 not having the room for expansion. Cooling budgets are another thing, but that's what you get with all those electronics on a VLO airframe. But since we're all about sources now, here's a transcript on a Congressional hearing about the SHornet, in which it is revealed that the airplane has less than 6 cubic feet of expansion room (compared to the 21 promised). Also it shows a range increase of only 8 percent over the legacy Hornet, which is one of the shortest legged 4th gen fighters out there. On top of that, it shows a marginal at best improvement over the legacy Hornet in terms of performance.
http://tinyurl.com/7v5lny9
"The Super Hornet has a significant range increase over the older Hornets since it holds 33% percent more fuel and it has almost the same airframe."
You mean the same airframe that weighs 39 percent more empty? The similarities between the SHornet and the legacy Hornets is mainly superficial aft of the cockpit. And I can guarantee you the 2% decrease in SFC that the F414EDE is offering isn't going to make much of a difference. Again, you don't get something for nothing in aerodynamics, more lift equals more drag, look at a drag polar.
"And, No, the F-35 can't benefit from everything else that I listed on the Block III Super Hornet because it doesn't have the room for it. It's not as flexible in operations as the Super Hornet is and it doesn't carry nearly as much ordinance. Once you mount ordinance on under the wings then it basically becomes an F-16 in terms of performance that costs 3x as much."
Last time I checked 18,000 was more than 17,750, which means the F-35C can carry slightly more ordinance than the Super Hornet. So it ONLY is on the level of the best performing 4th generation fighter in the world, while still carrying avionics decades ahead of its contemporaries? How were we so blind…
"The F-35 relies entirely on a technology that could easily go out of fashion in the next decade."
Well physics doesn't really work that way, and while I'm sure radar will get better and stealth's advantages will degrade, I don't think it will ever "go out of style". Did camoflauge go out of style after radar and FLIR was invented?
"I refuse to continue this any further until you ANSWER MY QUESTIONS"
There's no need to yell (or abuse Caps Lock). I think I have answered all your questions that there is public information available to discuss.
I'm not saying the F-35 is god's gift to tactical aviation, but at least have your facts straight when criticizing it. The Super Hornet is doing a good job right now, but we really need something a bit more Super for the coming years.
I also guess you have nothing to dispute the PAUC,APUC and the average A<B<C flyaway from the DoD SAR link that I gave
You might want to read the first article again. It says that those fixes are ready for testing. They aren’t permanent fixes that they know for certain work. The age of an article actually matters in the case with the F-35 and the first one was made Nov 18, 2011. It merely says that the Marine Commandant is confident that those fixes will work. It never says that the fixes actually worked. The JSF’s PR team hasn’t said that those fixes worked by now, which means that they failed. That article was also made on the same day as this one: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-cra…
As for the helmet fixes: It has been four months since those fixes were proposed and all that has happened since then is that LM has decided to make a second lower tech helmet. What does that tell you?
The last article doesn’t mean anything. It merely says that the Navy might purchase F-35C’s or make a new aircraft of its own under F/A-XX. Basically it’s saying that the Navy made F/A-XX so it could do whatever it wants to do. Smart thinking on the Navy’s part.
Do you realize how awful all those articles you gave me made the F-35 look? That just shows how long it’s been since people have been trying to fix the jet and have failed.
You’re going to reference a Congressional hearing made in 1999 about fighter jets as accurate data? Do you realize how little they know of tactical air?
Here’s the real data for the combat range:
Hornet Range: Combat: 1,089 nautical miles (2,003 km)
Super Hornet range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 km)
There is a 186 nautical mile increase in the combat range. All navy and marine corps pilots have said that this was not only significant, but enough for a vastly new array of combat operations. That 186 mile increase was all that was needed for them to do what they wanted to do. This could easily be increased with the conformal tanks to make it near equal to the F-35C. Not only that, but the conformal tanks also give the Super Hornet more options: If the Super Hornet Block III has the conformal tanks and one centerline mounted fuel tank it has the same range as a Block II with three tanks under its wings. This will free up all its under wing weapon stations to carry more ordinance a greater distance. It’s also a heck of a lot more cost effect than operating an F-35C, which we don’t even need.
“F-35C can carry slightly more ordinance than the Super Hornet. So it ONLY is on the level of the best performing 4th generation fighter in the world, while still carrying avionics decades ahead of its contemporaries? How were we so blind…”
The avionics aren’t decades ahead. They don’t even work. Let’s think for a second here. We are paying 3x the cost of one Super Hornet to get one aircraft that has an ordinance load in the range of the best 4th gen fighter, yet once you mount ordinance on the outside of the F-35C it has no stealth and decreased performance. Three Super Hornets are much better than that without question.
“Did camoflauge go out of style after radar and FLIR was invented?”
Camouflage was never so expensive to the point where a buyer could get three more solders for every one camouflaged solder. Get a better similarity.
The F-35 isn’t all that much better than a Super Hornet. For that kind of money we should be getting something a whole lot better. Not something “a bit more” Super. I’m saying we should have gotten the equivalent of a Navalized F-22 for that money and we didn’t get anything like it. The need for this jet is also questionable because we don’t have an enemy with anything better than our current set up and they won’t be able to make one even equal to it for a very long time. The SAMs it was designed to defeat are getting better at countering stealth and need to be taken out more rather than dodged. The F-35 was made with the arrogant idea that our enemies wouldn’t be able to counter stealth technology and it is clear that they are getting closer to doing that so a bulk of the billions spent on these jets was useless.
I’m done debating with you. You have not answered any of the questions that I have asked and you have failed to provide any proof of those fixes for the F-35. Not even close. If anything you just proved how right I am. The ultimate truth is that these F-35 jets are not reliable, they are relying on an expensive technology that can possible be countered in the next decade, their performance is not anywhere near being worth their price in other useful capabilities we could afford, and they are absolutely NOT EVEN CLOSE to being fixed in any way, shape, or form. We’re done here.
yet another excellent response full of facts and figueres and sources. Keep them up.
The F-105 was thrown at properly designed SAM defenses in an attritional fashion. Losses were to be expected.
Not like we're bombing a technical in the desert, as in today.
You keep on stating that based solely on 2 figures that the F-35 is no better than the F-105 in spite of being told that wing load and thrust to weight ratio alone are not indicators of an aircrafts performance and also in spite of pilot testimonial that it flies (surprise!) like other fighters. If you're going to hate on the F-35 based solely on a comparison to the F-105 you're going to have to do better, not even Blackowl (possibly the biggest F-35) hater here has never tried to argue that the F-35 flies like and F-105. According to an interview w/Italian pilots involved with the F-35 program its performance envelope falls somewhere in between an F-16 and and F-18. http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186349,0…
The F-105 was never meant to be a great fighter. Tac nuke dropper was the orginal mission. Not my choice to play with in those days. I'll take the Crusader any day over it. Even a Mirage III.
The reason they haven't said anything about the cracks is because they aren't a big deal. They anticipated the problem and fixed them extremely quick, and every B-model after BF-4 has the redesigned part, and the first 4 jets have a fix that lets them continue flying.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/arti…
They don't have to tell you everything they accomplish in a big PR video you know… Cracks happen all the time in airplanes, but you never hear about them because they are so commonplace. There are numerous structural "band-aids" on everything from the F-16 to the F-22. It is impossible to predict all the possible stress concentrations and profiles on a part, which is why we do inspections at regular intervals on our airplanes.
They're keeping the alternate helmet because they are being careful, if you read the bottom of that article, you'll see this quote from Admiral Venlet: “I’m not going to let go of that alternate until I’ve got demonstrated performance of the one I really want”. The current helmet works just fine in most of the functions and flight conditions, there are just a few that need to be worked out. If they got the JHMCS to work, I'm sure they can get the F-35 helmet to work.
"Here’s the real data for the combat range:
Hornet Range: Combat: 1,089 nautical miles (2,003 km)
Super Hornet range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 km)"
You forgot the part where that range is clean with 2 AIM-9's on the wingtip stations. You won't do much "combat" with that loadout. Try the Super Hornets actual combat radius of 390nm for a hi-lo-hi mission profile with a useful payload. Straight-line ranges are misleading because you rarely fly to the target and turn right around. Combat radii include a KPP specified amount of time over the target in combat (Commonly a certain amount of time in afterburner at a combat altitude).
"The F-35 was made with the arrogant idea that our enemies wouldn’t be able to counter stealth technology and it is clear that they are getting closer to doing that so a bulk of the billions spent on these jets was useless."
So the Russian's and Chinese have invented a way to make stealth airplanes obsolete? Then explain to me why the J-20 and PAK-FA are stealthy designs. Like I said before, yes radar is getting better, but stealth is here to stay.
"The avionics aren’t decades ahead. They don’t even work. Let’s think for a second here. We are paying 3x the cost of one Super Hornet to get one aircraft that has an ordinance load in the range of the best 4th gen fighter, yet once you mount ordinance on the outside of the F-35C it has no stealth and decreased performance. Three Super Hornets are much better than that without question."
The BAC-111 CATB has been flying with the F-35 mission systems for years now, even participating in combat excercises with Raptors and whatnot. It's working just fine. And when I said the best 4th gen fighter, I meant the F-16. Compared to a Block 50 Viper the SHornet is a dog, so I think a similarly loaded F-35C would easily give a Super Hornet a run for its money. And it's not three times the cost, we've already been over why the LRIP-5 batch was more expensive.
"You’re going to reference a Congressional hearing made in 1999 about fighter jets as accurate data? Do you realize how little they know of tactical air?"
All the facts in that briefing are from GAO reports and official flight test data (you can look them up on the GAO website if you're curious). And in 1999 the airplane had been in full production (not LRIP) for 2 years already. Not much has changed airframe-wise since then. I'm just trying to point out that the Super Hornet is not that stellar of a performer compared to most other fighters of its generation.
If you want to ignore everything I've been politely trying to inform you on, be my guest. I've just been producing sources that show that the JSF program isn't in nearly as much trouble as the internet seems to think, but you choose not to believe them. Its obvious that your mind is already made up, and no amount of good news will change it.
Have fun with your remaining time at USNA, hopefully one day you'll get to see how fighter aviation really works.
Sir Sapo, I'm still trying to form an opinion on the F35. Appreciate your knowledgeable posts and more evenhanded treatment of the F35. It's pretty hard to get to the truth as there are so many haters out there praying and rejoicing over bad news. The F35 may be a mistake but it's not getting a fair eval on the internet.
The same phenomena exists around the Osprey and was also popular with the introduction of the Blackhawk which carried the moniker the "Crash Hawk' for over a decade even after being proven in combat on Grenada. It's cool to be cynical.
I hate to say it but both you and Blackowl have gotten one basic fact wrong about both planes, neither one carries a single ounce of ordinance and even if they did who cares which one can carry more pieces of legislation enacted by a municipal authority. Now if we're talking about ordnance then that's an entirely different matter.
Ha, good point riceball, I stand corrected!
Thank you, I think the major difference between the JSF program and prior procurement endeavors (besides scale) is the level of media exposure. Its easy to get a skewed perception of how things are going when no airplane has been scrutinized during development so publicly before. The layman has never heard of the crippling gun exhaust flameouts in the prototype A-10, cracks in the prototype F-15's stabilator, or the carrier landing difficulties of the original S-3. However if you ask anyone about the F-35, they'll be able to tell you all about the hairline cracks in the fuselage, or the tailhook issues because every stumble is spotlighted by the media.
It's good to make up your own mind and read all you can on the airplane, just be careful of your sources. I've found that when you see a really negative or a really positive story about the jet, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Good historical perspective on the Blackhawk, I think the same can be said for a lot of (now proven) military tech, like the Abrams and F-117.
I've flown the F-35C simulator when Lockheed came to the Academy and advertised the JSF to us. A former Super Hornet pilot was the spokesman for the group and he said the F-35C handles like an F-16. It felt like it handled the same as the F-16 sim.
I think Itfunk is referring to this article, which draws some similarities between the performance of the F-35 and F-105: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/fea…
The article claims that when the F-35 has weapons loaded under its wings it will have less maneuverability than the F-105. Judging from this I assume that the F-35 has the maneuverability of an F-16 when it has an internal load only and it might have less with weapons loaded externally. That's just my thinking process anyway. They didn't mention what weapons they were talking about in terms of a full external load so I just never mentioned it.
So I decided to do some in depth reading on this and I've found some problems. Using the PAUC, APUC average still incorporates estimating future anticipated costs, which in terms of the F-35 makes the numbers you just gave me useless because the F-35 hasn't been fully fixed yet and no one knows how much the fixes will cost. Using the PAUC and APUC costs is definitely one of the more accurate ways of determining the cost of an aircraft, but for the F-35 those numbers could very easily change within the span of a few months as testing advances. Those will be much more accurate numbers when the F-35 is fully completed and the production line has a battle ready aircraft. Also, the amount of units purchased keeps decreasing because some of our allies have decreased the number of F-35s they want to buy. The recent F-35's the services purchased were in the price range of the numbers I used.
This article is two years old, but it still applies to this situation: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/fea…
Keep in mind that the total acquisition cost is still around $400 billion dollars, which is over $100 billion per model for each service.