F-35 in new dogfight over Chinese, Russian stealth fighter advances

[Jimbuna]

I found the comparisons interesting and a little worrying.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/f-35-in-new-dogfight-over-chinese-russian-stealth-fighter-advances/story-fnpjxnlk-1227181998650

[Schroeder]

So far the F35 seems to be one big fail.:shifty:

[Dowly]

So far the F35 seems to be one big fail.:shifty:
Yup. :doh:

[Otto Harkaman]

Youtube THE F-35 IS A LEMON PIERRE SPREY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw)

Pierre Sprey is an aircraft designer, defense analyst, and record producer. Working with John Boyd and Thomas P. Christie, analyst Tom Christie and test pilot Col. Everest Riccioni as well as aeronautical engineer Harry Hillaker, they formed the core of the self-dubbed "Fighter Mafia", advocating the use of Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory in fighter design.

His approach was to build an "honest plane"—one focused on the end product. "The whole essence of this is to judge everything by outcomes."

This group worked behind the scenes in the late 1960s to pursue a lightweight fighter as an alternative to the F-15. The group strongly believed that an ideal fighter should not include any of the sophisticated radar and missile systems or rudimentary ground-attack capability that found their way into the F-15. Their goal, based on E-M theory, was a small, low-drag, low-weight, pure fighter with no bomb racks. This led to the highly successful F-16 that Sprey greatly influenced. He also wrote the initial requirements for the A-X program that became the A-10 and optimized its safety features. The "Warthog" appears ungainly, but is "enormously difficult to shoot down", and "devastating against tanks and other armored vehicles."

He is a critic of the F-35. He asserts that despite its 200 million dollar price tag per plane, it is less agile than the F-16, and flies at altitudes and speeds too high and fast to replace the A-10. Compared to the F-16 or A-10 (in both of whose operational roles it operates) he characterized the F-35 as overweight and dangerous, stating “It’s as if Detroit suddenly put out a car with lighter fluid in the radiator and gasoline in the hydraulic brake lines: That’s how unsafe this plane is…" and "full of bugs". He asserts the plane is too heavy (nearly 30,000 pounds heavier than a fully loaded F-16). Most of all, the plane's wings are too small to give the fighter maneuverability in combat.

[Skybird]

This thing always wanted to be too much, and thus invited too much compromise. The Airbus 340 transport is plagued by immense problems for exactly the same reasons: promising to be too much, inviting too many special wishes - and now the whole program again being in serious trouble. There is doubt that Germany will get the second transport this year. The first one has serious deficits.

Needless to say that if so many wishy-washy-don't-know-what-i-want-wishes get cllected for one and the same program, this is a provokation for the nindustry to milk as much coins as possibel. Because idiodts pay for just everything as long as it makes them look good when posing beside it. Especially if said idiots waste money that is not theirs. No money is spend as easily as money that one does not own.

I do not udge the technical sophistication of the Russian and Chinese designs. But their way of deciding on a design is looking superior to our method, more focussed, with less voices throwing in a growing amount of compromising special wishes.

The weapon loadout of the F-35, for a plane that should replace the F-15E and the A-10, is a bad joke.

[em2nought]

F-35 should be open cockpit, that way pilots could at least fire their sidearms at the enemy. :D

Guess nothing has been learned in the "too big to fail" department, huh?

[mapuc]

So far the F35 seems to be one big fail.:shifty:

Don't tell that to our Danish politicians that they are keen on buying this fighter nothing can change their minds

Markus

[ikalugin]

Article is of very mixed quality.
Kopp (from Australian airpower) is known to be biased against the JSF.

Basically - JSF is not bad by itself. It offers good strike performance, is fairly survivable, could complete the air superiority missions, the likes US and US allies were conducting in the recent decades.
All things considered USAF would still be the strongest air force around, if only due to the numerical superiority of the F35A fleet it plans to field.

The only issue with the JSF is that it is -expensive- to buy and probably to operate, even though originally it was envisioned to be -cheaper- than the Super Hornet! Compared to a Su35S jet it is around 7-8 times more expensive, meaning that a Flanker series operator could get a fleet of 4 Su34s and 4 Su35s (Su34 being cheaper) for the price of a single JSF (prices in comparison are based on the 2014 contracts for the JSF batches, with engine costs included, and on the ongoing Su35S/Su34 contracts adjusted for inflation).

Now, even though this (as I have already said) may not be a problem for the USAF/USN/USMC, it will be a problem for any export JSF client, who would have to measure up his air force against that of a potential Flanker series operator. And in my opinion having 4 Su34s and Su35Ss for every JSF is a good position to be in, as it provides you new capabilities due to the air force size when considering the average contract sizes for the export JSF, which I believe tend to be in the real of a few squadrons (ie a Flanker operator could field air wing for the same price, allowing him to be in many places at the same time, ect).

[Bilge_Rat]

Youtube THE F-35 IS A LEMON PIERRE SPREY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw)

Sprey is a hack, people like him because he does not like the F35, but he thought the F15 was a lemon also.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665

[Mr Quatro]

It's not going to get any better for the US Navy or Airforce or Army with prices going up and budgets going down.

They will have to live with what they have till these contracts are finished and then they will be able to borrow no more.

Times are changing ... :yep:

as for the F-35 I think the Marine carrier based version will be among the best fighter planes of the future.

I hope we don't have to start a war to prove it :oops:

[ikalugin]

Sprey is a hack, people like him because he does not like the F35, but he thought the F15 was a lemon also.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665
The issue here I think it not a capability of an aircraft, but it's cost/effect ratio, something that I have explained above.

The pre 1991 BVR capability and the costs of having it on an aircraft vs the day only F16 is another can of worms entirely. As is multi-role vs specialised plane.

[nikimcbee]

Bah, F-35 is old technology nowadays. Kids are into drones these days. We'll just overwhelm them with our drone hordes.

...oh wait, they are all made in China.:dead:

[eddie]

What I don't understand is, we canceled the F22 back in 2009, because it was too expensive. This is from Defense Review article at the time-

"So, what’s wrong with cancelling the Raptor (http://www.f22-raptor.com/)? Well, for one thing, we finally got the production cost down to approximately $143 million per aircraft. If they cancel the F-22 program at 187 total aircraft–56 aircraft short of the 243 aircraft the U.S. Air Force had stated as its requirement–the F-22 Raptor will really come in somewhere around $350 million apiece, with the last four aircraft coming off the line at an estimated cost of approx. $200 million per, due to the $147 million “end-of-production expenses” that will be rolled into their procurement price. Understand that the Air Force originally wanted 750 aircraft, but they wittled that number down to 442 aircraft, then 381, then 243, and then 183, before bring that number back up to 187.
This leads us to the second reason why F-22 Raptor (http://www.f22-raptor.com/) program cancellation is a bad idea. Strategically, 187 F-22 Raptors simply isn’t an adequate number for a future war against China and/or Russia, and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) (http://www.jsf.mil/), also made by Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/), simply doesn’t have the Raptor’s air-to-air combat capability, so it can’t fulfill the same air-superiority role against the latest Russian fighters, let alone their Gen-5 fighters that are currently either under development or on the drawing board–and Russia likes to export their fighters. DefenseReview would therefore feel much more comfortable with a quiver of at least 1,000 Raptors–preferably half of them in two-seat “Super Raptor” form–for a war against the Dragon and/or the Bear. Both countries (China and Russia) are currently developing low-observable, supermaneuvarable 5th Generation fighter aircraft–like the Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA (http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2280&catid=255), for example–and Russia’s latest 4th-Gen. Sukhoi and MiG aircraft currently being manufactured and exported to other countries are arguably superior to our latest F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft in a number of aspects."


http://www.defensereview.com/f-22-raptor-program-cancellation-defensereview-weighs-in/


So 6 years ago, the F22 was too expensive, now 6 years later, still in debt up to our eye balls, suddenly we can afford the F35? Wonder what Congress is smoking anyway!!


If you got into a Senators face about this, he would simply say "Obviously, you don't know how Congress works!" Well, obviously there are over 400 on Capital Hill, who don't have a stinking clue either! They have gone from serving the people to turning into a bunch of corporate whores!:D Problem with that though, is the American tax payer is the one being screwed over!

[ikalugin]

Well we would see as to what kind of price JSF goes for, as currently I don't think that it is cheaper than the F22A.

[Bilge_Rat]

The F22 is a great plane, easily the best fighter in the world. However, it was designed primarily for the AA mission and according to most reports had a per unit cost around $300 million.

The F35 is a multirole aircraft and according to most reports, the per unit cost of the CTOL F35A, which most airforces will buy, is probably in the $150-200 million range, which makes it slightly more expensive than the F/A-18 SuperHornet and slightly less expensive than a Eurofighter Typhoon, both of which are older designs.

In Stealth mode, the F35 will be able to penetrate enemy air defences that the F15/16/18 can't and in non-stealth mode, it can carry a comparable amount of ordnance and has a comparable extended range.

critics keep harping on what a POS the F35 will be, yet it is meeting all of its performance goals. People seem to forget that criticism against the F22 was as harsh while it was being designed. :ping:

[Schroeder]

The F35 is a multirole aircraft and according to most reports, the per unit cost of the CTOL F35A, which most airforces will buy, is probably in the $150-200 million range, which makes it slightly more expensive than the F/A-18 SuperHornet and slightly less expensive than a Eurofighter Typhoon, both of which are older designs.

A Eurofighter costs about 105 million USD.
A F/A 18 Super Hornet cost around 60.9 million USD in 2014.
That's miles away from the costs of a JSF.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

critics keep harping on what a POS the F35 will be, yet it is meeting all of its performance goals. People seem to forget that criticism against the F22 was as harsh while it was being designed. :ping:I have to dig a bit but if I recall correctly one reason why its "meeting all of its performance goals" is that U.S. military has kept lowering the bar. If requirement is to lift 100 kg but you can only do 80 kg is it just fine to adjust that "requirement" to match your ability?

[ikalugin]

I have seen an article that added up the prices of contracts for the JSF batches and got 220-250 figure per plane produced 2014-2015 (with the engine).

[Bilge_Rat]

A Eurofighter costs about 105 million USD.
A F/A 18 Super Hornet cost around 60.9 million USD in 2014.
That's miles away from the costs of a JSF.

according to the Spanish and U.K. governments, they are paying close to U.S. 200 million per plane, of course the price is coming down just because the Euro is coming down.

A few years ago, Australia paid U.S. $141 million per unit for F/A-18 SuperHornets.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I have seen an article that added up the prices of contracts for the JSF batches and got 220-250 figure per plane produced 2014-2015 (with the engine).Just a comment. In my opinion its a bit silly practice from government to separate costs of engine and rest of the plane. I understand that its nice to be able to quote plane's price without costs associated with engine but neither of those items is much of use without other...

[Bilge_Rat]

I have seen an article that added up the prices of contracts for the JSF batches and got 220-250 figure per plane produced 2014-2015 (with the engine).

thats the average cost, the Navy and Marine versions are more expensive because they have special requirements, the USAF F35A is less expensive.

[ikalugin]

I did already mention the (adjusted for inflation) prices of the Flanker series?
With ruble falling they would be even more competitive in the future...

[Bilge_Rat]

I have to dig a bit but if I recall correctly one reason why its "meeting all of its performance goals" is that U.S. military has kept lowering the bar. If requirement is to lift 100 kg but you can only do 80 kg is it just fine to adjust that "requirement" to match your ability?

true, but that is pretty much par for the course when developping any new, complex weapon system.

According to most fair analysis, the F35 will still perform better than the F15/16/18 overall.

[Schroeder]

according to the Spanish and U.K. governments, they are paying close to U.S. 200 million per plane, of course the price is coming down just because the Euro is coming down.

A few years ago, Australia paid U.S. $141 million per unit for F/A-18 SuperHornets.
"Boeing is currently producing 48 of the aircraft annually, with its portion at a flyaway cost of $37 million, Gibbons says. This excludes the price of two General Electric (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=31624) engines and electric warfare systems, both of which are government-furnished equipment. The total flyaway cost for a Super Hornet is roughly $50 million, he says."
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-faces-march-decision-fa-18-ef-ea-18g

[Catfish]

The plane that just comes out has usually been planned two decades ago, and is already obsolete when the first AC is produced. This is as true for electronics (cpus, displays, electronic defense) as for materials (carbon fiber composites), as for the reaction of the outer hull to new AA infrared, radar and lidar systems.

Additionally the general frame and using conditions (strategy/tactics) have changed, so a jet designed for what would have made sense in 1989, will not necessarily in 2009. This is certainly true for every war jet, not just the F 35.
Which is probably also a reason for abandoning the F 22, apart from the costs.

The F 35 seems not to be as bad as they say, you can let fly some of them in formation, automatically and computer-controlled, or fight enemy targets with several F 35s acting automatically as a swarm, together.
I am not sure if such things always make sense though. Especially if considered enemy elwf could be able to penetrate and overtake functions, or spoil the systems altogether.

For what i read the worst seems to be the carrier version to be landed via arrest hook, of the F35. As they say the fuselage cell is not up to the stress of a landing with the needed sudden breaking forces, so the airframe has to be controlled everytime, and most probably maintained for a hell of a lot of money – if possible at all, with a 'streched' airframe. Also, developing micro cracks after only one landing does not look good.. never underestimate operative expense, and mechanical complexity.

It is a fine plane, but the costs reflect that.

[ikalugin]

Also, did you know, that T50 design should be easily adaptable for the carrier usage?

[Schroeder]

For what i read the worst seems to be the carrier version to be landed via arrest hook, of the F35. As they say the fuselage cell is not up to the stress of a landing with the needed sudden breaking forces, so the airframe has to be controlled everytime, and most probably maintained for a hell of a lot of money – if possible at all, with a 'streched' airframe.
I thought the F35 was supposed to land vertically without the classic arrest hook approach.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I thought the F35 was supposed to land vertically without the classic arrest hook approach.Marine Corps' F-35B is STOVL variant while U.S. Navy is procuring more traditional F-35C CATOBAR variant. Latter has longer operating range and higher payload capability.

[Bilge_Rat]

"Boeing is currently producing 48 of the aircraft annually, with its portion at a flyaway cost of $37 million, Gibbons says. This excludes the price of two General Electric (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=31624) engines and electric warfare systems, both of which are government-furnished equipment. The total flyaway cost for a Super Hornet is roughly $50 million, he says."
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-faces-march-decision-fa-18-ef-ea-18g

the problem with all these calculations and trying to get a straight answer (including the F35) is that everyone calculates costs differently. I presume the Boeing quotes is the price to build one now when all the development costs have been absorbed by earlier models. The F/A-18s bought by Australia in 2007 worked out to $141 million apiece.

In the latest report to Congress, the Pentagon estimated the cost per unit of the F35A at around $150 million per unit which is actually lower than what they quoted one year before. I am estimating $150-200 million because the Pentagon's estimate always seem to be on the low side.

[Bilge_Rat]

video of carrier sea trials of the F35C last november:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APuYyfq12ts&feature=youtube_gdata_player

as far as I know, the Navy is satisfied with its performance so far:


http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7-cbb4-4018-baf8-8825eada7aa2&ID=1667

[Dowly]

the problem with all these calculations and trying to get a straight answer (including the F35) is that everyone calculates costs differently.
The solution is to take for example the "fly away" prices and compare those:

F/A-18 Super Hornet: $65.3 million
F-35A: $113 million
F-35B: $139 million
F-35C: $130 million

All prices are from 2013.

The F/A-18s bought by Australia in 2007 worked out to $141 million apiece.
But that deal included support & training for 10 years, didn't it? :hmmm:

[Bilge_Rat]

But that deal included support & training for 10 years, didn't it? :hmmm:

I will have to track down where I got the $141 million figure from, maybe I am remembering wrong.

The original contract for 24 aircraft was for AUS 2.9 billion, roughly U.S. $2.4 billion which works out to about U.S. $ 100 million apiece. With training and support, the price tag went up AUS 6 billion, roughly U.S. $5.1 billion which works out to about U.S. $210 million per unit.

[Stealhead]

Most contracts for military aircraft also include training of aircrews as well as mainmaintenance personal as well as spare parts and in many cases armaments as well. So I'm betting the price you say was the "total" unit cost. Of course this means that the total unit cost for an F-35 is going to be substantially higher than that of an F-18.

[Oberon]

I'd be surprised if it wasn't, an F-35 has a lot more systems to it than an F-18. I won't knock it, it's a good bird, just...very troublesome and ridiculously priced. :/\\!! Then again, the Harrier wasn't the most reliable of machines when it first rolled out either...just a bit cheaper though. :haha:

[nikimcbee]

Most contracts for military aircraft also include training of aircrews as well as mainmaintenance personal as well as spare parts and in many cases armaments as well. So I'm betting the price you say was the "total" unit cost. Of course this means that the total unit cost for an F-35 is going to be substantially higher than that of an F-18.

That's the DX version.
Leather interior...CD player...cup holders.:rock:

[Tango589]

That's the DX version.
Leather interior...CD player...cup holders.:rock:
Sounds like it could also do with 'go-faster' stripes!:up: