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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

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]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

"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

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:




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


http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...da7aa2&ID=1667