Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is up with the F-35? Part II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
    With the F35 starting to perform it seems some people have started to forgot how bad the F35 program is. 108 aircraft not combat capable without more money and a projected final cost of 1.45 TRILLION Dollars. The promise of a 3 in 1 aircraft with all the bonuses that was supposed to bring didn't really work out. The success of the F35 cannot be used to guage the overall program as the F35 was going to be successful regardless due to the open taxpayer cheque book. If I had 1.45 Trillion dollars I think I could develop a school bus into just as capable a fighter as the F35. The US taxpayers needs to be angry about this so it doesn't happen again.

    I'm also a bit concerned with the F35 being a bit of a one trick pony. The unremarkable flight performance attributes seem to overlooked because of data/sensor fusion power it has. What happens if in the next war somebody works out how to nullify that? It may be unlikely but if it can be built it can be broken. With the the number of aircraft being purchased roughly halved from what was initially planned straight away you've got a 50% cut in overall capability.

    I'm a bit emotional after reading about the 108 aircraft not combat capable without more money so please excuse my ramblings.
    I don't see the big deal here.

    ~1/3rd of the F-22 fleet is reserved as training birds and not combat coded. Same goes for F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, etc. The F-35 fleet will need a lot more than 108 aircraft reserved for training based on the planned production numbers. Why spend money bringing early production training aircraft up to a spec they don't require when you can put it towards additional combat birds instead?

    Do you consider the F-35's flight performance unremarkable? It meets or exceeds the speed, agility, and acceleration of a combat loaded F-16 or F/A-18 while carrying significantly more fuel to boot. Sure a clean F-16 will outrun an F-35, but throw a couple 2000 lb JDAMs, AMRAAMS, gas bags, and targeting pods on it and suddenly the F-16 is the sluggish one.

    VLO characteristics aren't a feature that can just be nullified. Improvements in radar, computer processing, and increasing use of other types of sensors will slowly increase the ranges at which stealth aircraft can be detected and tracked. But these same improvements will also MASSIVELY increase the detection and tracking range against 4th gen aircraft, leaving stealth incredibly important going forward.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 30 Oct 17,, 18:36.

    Comment


    • There's an interesting article on the F-35's weapons in the latest Airforces Monthly magazine. While I don't like to give too much credit for such mags, they do raise a few good points. They compare the quality of current european-made weapons, such as the dual-mode Brimstone and the Meteor, ASRAAM and ISIS missiles, as well as a crop of other air-ground missiles. Meanwhile the USAF is stuck with the old 120 and the re-re-re-revamped Sidewinder, while an equivalent to Brimstone won't be up untill the 2021-23...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
        They compare the quality of current european-made weapons, such as the dual-mode Brimstone and the Meteor, ASRAAM and ISIS missiles, as well as a crop of other air-ground missiles. Meanwhile the USAF is stuck with the old 120 and the re-re-re-revamped Sidewinder, while an equivalent to Brimstone won't be up untill the 2021-23...
        Brimstone is essentially just a Hellfire with a laser/mmW seeker. The US already has stocks of Hellfire missiles with each variety of seeker and a variety of warheads.

        ----------------------------------------------------

        Meteor vs AIM-120D isn't very clear cut although I'd personally give the nod to the AIM-120D. Both feature datalinks for mid-course updates, LOAL capability, and advertise long range (100 km+ for Meteor and ~180 km for AIM-120D).

        Meteor can throttle it's ramjet to optimize fuel burn based on the distance of the encounter to preserve energy for the terminal engagement, and using a ramjet for propulsion allows it to pull oxidizer from the atmosphere rather than storing it internally, which increases the efficiency of it's motor.

        This isn't necessarily an advantage over the AMRAAM and it's more traditional rocket motor however.

        The AIM-120D's rocket provides a clear advantage at short ranges due to it's ability to get the missile up to speed in seconds. For WVR engagements and HOBS shots the AMRAAM is a no-brainer.

        What about long range BVR engagements? You may think drag would cause the AIM-120D to continually bleed energy as it closes on it's target until it is left with little to maneuver with. This isn't true however.

        The AIM-120D flies a lofted trajectory into the upper atmosphere for long distance shots. At very high altitudes, drag is almost non-existent so the missile can coast along with minimal loss in velocity while gravity serves to ensure that the rapidly descending missile has very high energy to maneuver with as it dives and approaches the terminal engagement. This lofted trajectory also gives the AMRAAM's seeker a great top-down look at targets that might otherwise try to minimize their RCS from the front or rear aspect...

        Unfortunately Meteor can't copy the AIM-120's flight profile as it is forced to stay in the draggy lower atmosphere where sufficient oxygen exists to feed the ramjet motor. The Meteor also suffers from a heavy ramjet motor that stays on the missile even after burnout, and quite a bit more drag than an AMRAAM due to the necessity of an air intake that disrupts the otherwise clean dart shape.
        Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 30 Oct 17,, 21:54.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
          I don't see the big deal here.

          ~1/3rd of the F-22 fleet is reserved as training birds and not combat coded. Same goes for F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, etc. The F-35 fleet will need a lot more than 108 aircraft reserved for training based on the planned production numbers. Why spend money bringing early production training aircraft up to a spec they don't require when you can put it towards additional combat birds instead?

          Do you consider the F-35's flight performance unremarkable? It meets or exceeds the speed, agility, and acceleration of a combat loaded F-16 or F/A-18 while carrying significantly more fuel to boot. Sure a clean F-16 will outrun an F-35, but throw a couple 2000 lb JDAMs, AMRAAMS, gas bags, and targeting pods on it and suddenly the F-16 is the sluggish one.

          VLO characteristics aren't a feature that can just be nullified. Improvements in radar, computer processing, and increasing use of other types of sensors will slowly increase the ranges at which stealth aircraft can be detected and tracked. But these same improvements will also MASSIVELY increase the detection and tracking range against 4th gen aircraft, leaving stealth incredibly important going forward.
          I understood the article to mean that 108 aircraft were pre-production models that were pushed out the door for political reasons. Not really ready for anything except to make the program look better.

          The F35 may meet or exceed (barely) f16/18s but those planes are 40 years old. The F35s airframe design had to carry the liftfan setup which compromised its flight performance. If the airforce and navy had tailor made aircraft I see nothing stopping those designs from exceeding the raptor's performance. For 1.45 Trillion dollars the F35 should be able to outperform the F16/18 whilst carrying an f16/18 under each wing. Look at the engine the F35 is powered with. It's basically the same size and weight as the the f16s but produces dam near twice the power. Everything built today is 1/4 of the weight of what it was 40 years ago. Why is the F35 so fat? Plus only half the aircraft planned are going to be built. For 1.45 Triiiiiiiiillllllllllliiiiiiiiiioooooooon dollars.

          Basically I can't help but think what could have been. Three brand new aircraft each tailored to the requirements of the service it was built for. A super raptor for the airforce and navy plus a super harrier that could take off vertically whilst fully loaded. I could have the three pictures of them on my wall and kiss them good night before I went to sleep.....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
            Basically I can't help but think what could have been. Three brand new aircraft each tailored to the requirements of the service it was built for. A super raptor for the airforce and navy plus a super harrier that could take off vertically whilst fully loaded. I could have the three pictures of them on my wall and kiss them good night before I went to sleep.....
            Wouldn't even need 3. Note that the F-18 is serving in multiple land-based air forces with only diferent electronics, as local request them. So you could make 1 conventional plane for the USAF/USN, and a Harrier 2.0 for the USMC. I wonder what the RN/RAF would choose then?...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
              Wouldn't even need 3. Note that the F-18 is serving in multiple land-based air forces with only diferent electronics, as local request them. So you could make 1 conventional plane for the USAF/USN, and a Harrier 2.0 for the USMC. I wonder what the RN/RAF would choose then?...
              Now there's an interesting question. What would a Harrier 2.0 actually look like?

              Looking at just the F35B and ignoring the abortion of a program that created it you'd have to say it's not bad. Were there any requirements that the A and C models had that would compromise the design for just the marines? Only thing I can think of is the Cs carrier landing structural requirements. It's a pretty big step up from the Harrier. Maybe the B model is the super harrier.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                Now there's an interesting question. What would a Harrier 2.0 actually look like?

                Looking at just the F35B and ignoring the abortion of a program that created it you'd have to say it's not bad. Were there any requirements that the A and C models had that would compromise the design for just the marines? Only thing I can think of is the Cs carrier landing structural requirements. It's a pretty big step up from the Harrier. Maybe the B model is the super harrier.
                I'd say Mach 1 would always be a start. Getting the strike plane to the target ASAP is always a priority, afaik. After that? Some stealth (cause it's all the fashion now), better payload and range.

                Comment


                • I understood the article to mean that 108 aircraft were pre-production models that were pushed out the door for political reasons. Not really ready for anything except to make the program look better.


                  Ummm....no.

                  They were not "pushed out the door for political reasons." They are part of what in the Acquisition world is known as the LRIP....Low Rate Initial Production. Here is the formal definition as explained by the Defense Acquisition Guidebook:


                  Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Quantity

                  The minimum quantity of the product needed to provide production representative test articles for operational test and evaluation and efficient ramp up to full production. LRIP for Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS) programs and other software systems is typically limited deployment or limited fielding. The preliminary LRIP quantity is determined at the Development Request for Proposal (RFP) Release Decision Point and updated/confirmed at Milestone B. The LRIP quantity for a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) (with rationale for quantities exceeding 10 percent of the total production quantity documented in the acquisition strategy) shall be included in the first Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) after its determination. The LRIP quantity shall not be less than one unit. The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), following consultation with the Program Manager (PM), determines the number of production or production-representative test articles required for Live-Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E) and Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) of programs on the DOT&E Oversight List. For a system that is not on the Oversight List, the Operational Test Agency (OTA), following consultation with the PM, shall determine the number of test articles required for IOT&E.


                  Sources:

                  •DoDI 5000.02
                  •Defense Acquisition Guidebook

                  See also:
                  •Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP)




                  Note the bolded sections from the excerpt from the DOD Acquisition Guidebook 5000...it is our bible.


                  A PM can procure up to 10% of his total projected buy of items during LRIP. He does this for 2 reasons:

                  a. To provide test articles to the user community and appropriate test commands to conduct real live operational testing of the item. Note that it has to be procured in unit sized lots...that is so it can be operationally tested. In operational testing an item is put in the hands of an real unit and run through its normal paces.

                  b. To allow the vendor to test and modify his production line and capabilities in order to meet full production.

                  Just Google LRIP F-35 and you will see a series of incremental contracts have been awarded by start stepping LRIPs. For a system of this complexity that is normal.

                  What a lot of critics do not want to recognize are:

                  1. The F-35 program is falling exactly in line with what the Acquisition Guidelines are set to do...put a capable weapon system in the hands of the warfighter.
                  2. The incremental approach allows the PM to mitigate his program risks on a system which is pushing new technologies.
                  3. The most different thing to do in acquisition is to get varied computer software systems to successfully integrate and work seamlessly. It is crushingly difficult. The F-35 is pushing so many boundaries in this area.

                  Many of the issues with the F-22 arise from them NOT following the rules like PM JSF is doing.
                  “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                  Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                    I understood the article to mean that 108 aircraft were pre-production models that were pushed out the door for political reasons. Not really ready for anything except to make the program look better.
                    They are early production models that are setup as testing/training aircraft. They'd require further upgrades to be brought up to combat standard, but don't need those upgrades to function in a testing/training capacity. The F-35 fleet needs a lot more than 108 aircraft for training squadrons anyway so they'll get used harder than the combat coded jets will.

                    Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                    If the airforce and navy had tailor made aircraft I see nothing stopping those designs from exceeding the raptor's performance. Everything built today is 1/4 of the weight of what it was 40 years ago.
                    What kind of performance? Speed? If that's your measuring stick why don't F-22s outperform F-4 Phantoms built in the 1950s? Super high speed isn't so much a technical challenge, it's a design choice that requires a lot of trade offs that often aren't worth it. That being said, the F-35's combat performance is significantly better than it's predecessors. Let me illustrate.

                    Imagine another jet of your choice (even the F-22) kitted out with all the stuff the F-35 has built in already that they don't.
                    • Targeting/laser designation pod
                    • Electro/Optical reconnaissance pod
                    • Infrared search and track pod
                    • Communications/networking pod
                    • A pair of electronic warfare pods
                    • A pair (at least) of large fuel pods to equal F-35's range


                    Congrats! You've used up at least 8 of your external stations carrying equipment that the F-35 has built in. Your radar signature is massive with all the junk hanging off your wings, you're now G limited and unable to turn hard, there's so much drag you can't get supersonic even with afterburners, and you haven't strapped on a single weapon yet.

                    Meanwhile the F-35 can carry all that plus a pair of 2000 lb weapons and a few missiles internally. It is still a clean flying jet that can go Mach 1.6 and make 9G turns. There isn't any additional drag slowing you down and increasing fuel burn and there's no increase in RCS to give you away.

                    Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                    For 1.45 Triiiiiiiiillllllllllliiiiiiiiiioooooooon dollars.
                    You are throwing this number around a lot so I want to make sure you know what it's actually measuring. That is the projected total cost for the lifetime of the F-35 fleet. As in, that is what we will have spent 50 years from now when the last F-35 is being retired.

                    It breaks down to around $400 billion for research, development, and acquisition of the 3500+ aircraft. The other $1 trillion is in long term operations and support to keep the fleet flying until 2070.

                    So no, we haven't spent 1.45 Triiiiiiiiilllliiiiooooon dollars on the F-35 program. Take a deep breath and relax. The total program cost is a big scary number, but the cost per aircraft and the amount of capability each brings is actually quite reasonable. Thus the eagerness of so many external countries to get in on the action.
                    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 31 Oct 17,, 17:15.

                    Comment


                    • Yeah. regarding the $1.45 Trillion....

                      As Steve says, that is a life cycle cost. That means it is for the spares & engines, systems upgrades, crew training, training for mechanics, new tool sets for mechanics, new diagnostic equipment for maintainers and ordnance personnel, as well as the cost for the production and distribution within the supply system of all the new spares which have to be procured.
                      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                      Mark Twain

                      Comment


                      • And the life cycle costs recently increased.... Because the F35 air frames are now expected to last longer than originally expected.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by citanon View Post
                          And the life cycle costs recently increased.... Because the F35 air frames are now expected to last longer than originally expected.
                          Something I am sure the PMs for the B-52 & M1 can appreciate!
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                            Something I am sure the PMs for the B-52 & M1 can appreciate!
                            The real question is why the USAF still hasn't swapped the B-52's 8 ancient TF33s for a pair of PW4000s. It would massively improve fuel burn, increase thrust, reduce drag, improve reliability, and save weight. It would also maintain commonality with the KC-46 fleet and allow for B-52s to benefit from the robust civilian logistics system already in place to service one of the most commonly used engines by Boeing and Airbus wide-body aircraft operators around the globe.

                            Unless the Buff is finally going to retire as the B-21s come online. But I'll believe that when I see it...
                            Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 02 Nov 17,, 15:20.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                              Unless the Buff is finally going to retire as the B-21s come online. But I'll believe that when I see it...
                              Specially since the B-1 is not going to receive life-extension upgrades...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                                Specially since the B-1 is not going to receive life-extension upgrades...
                                I find that a bit baffling as well. It's been proven to be a workhorse at conventional bombing with JDAMs. Fast enough to dash where it's needed, huge capacity, extended time on station, and lower CPFH than the B-52!

                                I remember a previous chart examining CPFH for delivering munitions, and while drones like the Predator had the lowest CPFH per aircraft, the B-1 actually beat the drones out at CPFH per ton of ordnance delivered. For higher volume conventional bombing in lower intensity conflicts it seems like a no-brainer.
                                Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 02 Nov 17,, 16:18.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X