F-35 - Another News Article - NO politics Please !

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Sorry if I dragged the tone down a bit, but it all just seems so utterly ridiculous to me.

[mhaselden]

It would be helpful if you would articulate why you find it so utterly ridiculous and what aspects of the F-35 make it so different, at the large programme level, from other aircraft? You present a lot of pithy pejoratives but offer no explanation of what prompts your statements. There's plenty of reasoned input here from people with multiple perspectives on this programme...I'd just like to see some more substantive comment from you so we can all be educated. There are undoubtedly multiple facets to this programme, some of which are good, some bad. I find it helpful to understand other people's thoughts and then, collectively, try to understand which concerns are real and which are froth (and a number of concerns related to the F-35 are just that...froth).

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Tricky without breaching the 'No Politics' rule, but to sum it up.....The cost.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

And the spiralling costs continue to climb ever higher: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2016/02/09/us-air-force-defers-45-f-35as-over-next-five-years/80063480/

[mhaselden]

And the spiralling costs continue to climb ever higher: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2016/02/09/us-air-force-defers-45-f-35as-over-next-five-years/80063480/

That article has nothing to do with problems within the F-35 programme. The USAF has determined that it can't afford the full complement of F-35s it was planning to buy next year because of other priorities (like funding the B-2 replacement, C-130 udates, F-22 updates etc etc).

The reduction in production volume automatically results in an increase in the price-per-airframe because there are fixed costs associated with all production activities (eg updating the production line to the latest version, updating test procedures, facilities and other overheads etc etc).

So...yes, the price-per-airframe for the USAF is increasing but that's not the fault of the F-35 itself, nor does it reflect negatively on the programme. It's simply a factor of the USAF not having enough $$$ to do everything that it wants to do.

[Antoine]

(and a number of concerns related to the F-35 are just that...froth).

We've already seen it's not specific to the F-35.

[-Neu-]

And the spiralling costs continue to climb ever higher: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2016/02/09/us-air-force-defers-45-f-35as-over-next-five-years/80063480/

Except that the USN is going to take up 60% of that production capacity with an acceleration and increase of its F-35C purchase over the next five years. If Singapore or Canada finally order, or Japan or SK increase their purchases, there will be more than what the present plan's capacity will allow.

If you want to see the cost decline, go to the source: The Selected Acquisition reports. You can see on page 41 (and 61) that the aircraft and engine costs has been steadily declining, which, again, is as was planned in 2011. Since then we've seen less than 5% variance on the costs, with the contracts since 2014 becoming fixed price. That means LM is basically now completely responsible for any overrun that may occur.

Why is the F-35 cheaper than other options? its because of the scale. Through my work, I've visited a number of major manufacturing facilities. The problem with the current generation of fighters is that many of them suffer from low production levels: perhaps one, two or three aircraft built a month. Although most final assembly is done by hand on all fighters, the legacy aircraft require more of it because there is no financial sense to invest in automation. The Eurofighter has a related problem: its inflexible workshare arrangement basically broke up a lot of work into smaller chunks, which diluted any potential economies of scale and learning curve effects that could be obtained by its larger fleet size. the F-35 with the current funding levels outlined in the article you cite is being produced at 10~12 aircraft a month: that provides tremendous advantages for the program. By 2018, there will be more F-35s produced then every other Fighter from the west combined. So they invest now in the automation, which will have an effect later on. I often show this example because Its very telling:

Basically what you see here is a major fuselage piece being drilled robotically on a large jig. AFAIK, similar work of this scale is done by hand for the other aircraft. From what I saw of the Eurofighter, they use automatic drilling on a smaller scale in the same area, which is less efficient. This is apparent across the entire production effort. And the logistical set up will cost less going forward. Basically F-35 users will employ a logistics system that is more akin to best practices from the civil airlines industry, using predictive systems rather then time limited parts life.

So much of this program is basically clouded in misinformation or outright lies, which as someone said above, is just the reality that defence programs go through. Peel back that veneer and you see a program that is finally righted and a becoming increasingly successful as it is put through its paces.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

[Driver66]

Possibly he realised all those zeros on the purchase price related to real money ( which is borrowed ).

The lady seemed calm in a crisis, put her in charge ( of the entire program ).

Please this isn't political I just think the F-35 is ugly and very expensive.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Driver66

[Alan P]

This is really getting very childish now. Videos of fainting generals being levered to make cheap jokes. Great work, guys.

So the F-35 is ugly? Completely subjective. I think Lightnings, Harriers and Phantoms are ugly. It's simply a matter of opinion.

As for expensive - successive contributions from Giorgio, mhaselden and Neu have been very patiently trying to point out what cost vs economy of scale actually looks like. The nations committed to the F-35 are going to produce 2400 of these aircraft. That is about five times the entire planned production run of the Typhoon, 12 times that of the Rafale, five times that of the F/A-18E/F, and three times that of the Su-27. It's about half the number of F-16s, the best-selling western fighter jet ever produced in 30 years of manufacture. When you consider the capabilities added, in fact multiplied, in the F-35 programme, you can't pretend that there is any real cost comparison on a like-for-like basis.

So not only is the F-35 adding multiple new technologies and capabilities (which in today's world cost a LOT of money) but we are also building many more of them than any current modern fighter programme. The cost is regarded as worth it. Cost must be measured against scale and value. And there is more than enough factual evidence contained in this thread alone (never mind the various other threads on this topic on Britmodeller alone) to inform people to a level beyond silly jokes.

Al

Edited February 16, 2016 by Alan P

[Agent K]

Those types were, by comparison with the F-35 project, budget price special offers.....Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and extraordinary costs demand extraordinary performance, IMHO.

This inadequate, ill-conceived aircraft will prove to be the single biggest waste of money in human history.....Again IMHO.

You really should get a Senior position in a defence ministry or the Military Aerospace sector, although I'm assuming you're qualified and working at that level already with such insight? with thousands of the worlds best engineers working on this project and you could have saved them $Billions.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

You really should get a Senior position in a defence ministry or the Military Aerospace sector, although I'm assuming you're qualified and working at that level already with such insight? with thousands of the worlds best engineers working on this project and you could have saved them $Billions.

Oh my.....What a shining wit you are!

In answer to your query, no I'm not involved in any of those 'professions'.....I'm just one of the poor mugs paying for the bloody thing (along with you, your children and your childrens' children).

Humour or any kind alternative perspective is clearly not welcome amongst you 'well-informed types', so I'll leave you to your 'enlightened' discussion.

[mhaselden]

Unfortunately you're not offering an alternative perspective. You're simply repeating your opinion. We're all entitled to our opinions but simply regurgitating the same thing with nothing to back it up doesn't advance understanding of the real-world problems faced in large, hi-tech programmes (and making snarky comments about those who do want to learn and share isn't an endearing trait).

For a truly alternate perspective - latest from the USAF's own news release (a daily email digest) is that retaining the A-10 (a step much-lauded by many) will actually cost much more than currently is the case because the USAF is suffering a shortfall of maintenance personnel. So...they're turning to contractors to back-fill the gaps in legacy platforms like the A-10. Not only will this cost more, it may exacerbate the manpower issue because the existing blue-suit maintainers may jump ship for a better-paid contractor position. There's no such thing as a free lunch and even long-in-the-tooth platforms like the A-10 can bring unexpected cost increases.

Edited February 16, 2016 by mhaselden

[Homerlovesbeer]

There's no such thing as a free lunch and even long-in-the-tooth platforms like the A-10 can bring unexpected cost increases.

Maybe not a free lunch however Heston is offering free dinners here in Australia

Heston Blumenthal to open free pop-up restaurants in Melbourne

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/heston-blumenthal-to-open-free-popup-restaurants-in-melbourne-20160214-gmtt7m.html#ixzz40NhVd1IC

Edited February 17, 2016 by Homerlovesbeer

[Alan P]

Humour or any kind alternative perspective is clearly not welcome amongst you 'well-informed types', so I'll leave you to your 'enlightened' discussion.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Like much else you've contributed to the discussion so far, I disagree.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Alan P

[Jas Madahar]

I think the debate is how long will manned aircraft be used as air defence? With increased air technology with regards to drones, will we need manned fighters? Let's cut our losses and buy F18's as the Eagle is too much fighter for our needs and the F16 does not meet our requirements. Or we could purchase Russian or even French. But the disaster that is the carrier fleet needs more consideration.

[-Neu-]

I think the debate is how long will manned aircraft be used as air defence? With increased air technology with regards to drones, will we need manned fighters? Let's cut our losses and buy F18's as the Eagle is too much fighter for our needs and the F16 does not meet our requirements. Or we could purchase Russian or even French. But the disaster that is the carrier fleet needs more consideration.

We will have manned fighters for another generation. Just this month the USN announced that UCLASS, the most advanced UCAV program in the world, had its capabilities cut down to the barest minimum: its going to be a aerial refueller. What's really not well understood is that developing a true UCAV remains technically exceptionally difficult. Basically imagine the F-35's avionics development (specifically data analysis capabilities), and then you still need to write a code to write the AI. Its decades away from replacing people. Even if we start deploying autonoamous capabilities, you're still going to have man in the loop, and the F-35 will be a critical part of that structure. That's a major focus of its capabilities, which no other aircraft possesses.

Edited February 17, 2016 by -Neu-

[Jas Madahar]

We shall see.

[mhaselden]

I think the debate is how long will manned aircraft be used as air defence? With increased air technology with regards to drones, will we need manned fighters? Let's cut our losses and buy F18's as the Eagle is too much fighter for our needs and the F16 does not meet our requirements. Or we could purchase Russian or even French. But the disaster that is the carrier fleet needs more consideration.

Interesting thoughts. I don't think there's any way we'd buy Russian - that would give Putin tremendous political influence over our military operations (ie Putin doesn't like what we're doing so he places an export ban on spare parts, for example). The Poles are suffering exactly this issue at present with their MiG-29 fleet due to sanctions and counter-sanctions related to Russian activities in Ukraine.

Neither the F-15 nor F-16 meet the UK's needs as neither is carrier capable.

For a French option (presumably Rafale) or the F/A-18, we'd need to change the QE-class carriers to be CTOL platforms which will be very costly, even assuming we could get out of the F-35 programme without paying heinous costs to the other partner nations. Also, with the F/A-18, we'd be purchasing an aircraft that the USMC is retiring in favour of the F-35...which doesn't quite seem sensible if we want to remain in the forefront of operations.

[alex]

well, changing an existent carrier to CTOL is tremendously expensive. The best thing would have been to build 3 CTOL carriers together with the French, so every country had one carrier in service with the third as "spare", whenever one is in the dock, or for training purpose. But I guess this discussion is a bit too late now. I'm always a bit amazed how europe still hasn't learned what economy of scale means... and still everyone ends up with a national, but in the end a similar solution as the others.

Alex

[vtecjack]

I wouldn't be surprised that in a few years time the QE class carriers will be operating UAVS alongside the F-35 ,UAVs are something BAE has been working on .

[Max Headroom]

I wouldn't be surprised that in a few years time the QE class carriers will be operating UAVS alongside the F-35 ,UAVs are something BAE has been working on .

I have a pet theory that manned aircraft will be paired to a UAV working symbiotically. You could double squadron strength at a stroke.

Trevor

[mhaselden]

And with offboard cueing and data sharing, that's extremely likely with platforms like F-35. Imagine a formation of F-35s, with each manned platform supported by a pair of "missile shooter" UAVs that also enhance situational awareness using their own sensor suites, including sense-and-avoid. The ability for a large number of targets to be passed rapidly from one F-35 to another, and hence shared across the formation, would be tremedous.

Edited February 18, 2016 by mhaselden

[sloegin57]

And with offboard cueing and data sharing, that's extremely likely with platforms like F-35. Imagine a formation of F-35s, with each manned platform supported by a pair of "missile shooter" UAVs that also enhance situational awareness using their own sensor suites, including sense-and-avoid. The ability for a large number of targets to be passed rapidly from one F-35 to another, and hence shared across the formation, would be tremedous.

Interesting - been around for a while but may partially solve the USAF's F-35 problems :-

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/us-air-force-might-buy-72-new-upgraded.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/02/b52-and-b1-bombers-will-be-converted.html

But weren't there similar discussions/criticisms/complaints a lifetime ago, regarding something called the F-111. So are we repeating history.

Dennis

[Shane]

Interesting - been around for a while but may partially solve the USAF's F-35 problems :-

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/us-air-force-might-buy-72-new-upgraded.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/02/b52-and-b1-bombers-will-be-converted.html

But weren't there similar discussions/criticisms/complaints a lifetime ago, regarding something called the F-111. So are we repeating history.

Dennis

The first story was discredited about two days after it was published. The second is accurate, and the way of the future. Modern militaries (as opposed to old farts like me with wistful memories) call it PCAS - persistent close air support. No more low slow and vulnerable ground attack aircraft with big guns, but large aircraft with big loads of small high precision munitions like SDB loitering behind the FEBA. Calls for CAS get much faster response, the likes of SDB are more accurate and less liable to cause collateral damage and the risk to the most expensive assets - aircrews - is reduced.

But we'll still miss the "Brrrrrtttttt"

Shane