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

[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.

[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? 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 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), also made by Lockheed Martin, 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, 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-ra...iew-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! 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.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.

[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).

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

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.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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 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/boei...a-18-ef-ea-18g

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.

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?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Catfish

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.