Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 40 of 44 FirstFirst ... 30363738394041424344 LastLast
Results 1,171 to 1,200 of 1298

Thread: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread

  1. #1171
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    The F-35’s Mid Section

    F-35’s Mid Section

    F-35’s Mid Section
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  2. #1172
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Pentagon Updates F-35 Cost Estimates, Schedule

    The report lists the cost as nearly $48 billion for the airframe in 2012 dollars, compared with the $32.5 billion estimated when system design and development began in October 2001. The cost of engine development has increased from $6.5 billion to $11.7 billion, again in constant 2012 dollars. The system design and development phase (which the report labels RDT&E) is apparently not now due to end until 2019, with the completion of initial test and operation in February of that year. The Block 3F software that is required for meaningful combat capability is now predicted to be available in August 2017.

    The three U.S. services have again delayed the initial operating capability dates of their respective F-35s, and revised dates won’t be set until next year. They were previously December this year for the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B and April 2016 for the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. Full-rate production, meaning an annual rate of 60 F-35As for the U.S. Air Force and 50 F-35B/Cs for the Marine Corps and Navy, is now due to begin in 2018.

    The average unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) is given as $78.7 million for the F-35A, $106.5 million for the F-35B, and $87 million for the F-35C, in 2012 dollars. But this assumes an unchanged ultimate U.S. Air Force procurement of 1,763 F-35As and 680 F-35B/Cs, plus an international partner buy of 697 aircraft plus 19 for Israel. The URFC does not include the cost of initial training, spares and support. However, AIN believes that it is a more useful measure than the average procurement unit cost (APUC), which is also quoted in the report, since this amortizes development and a number of other costs. Also, the average URFC figures mask the substantially higher URFCs of the low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft. For example, the LRIP F-35As are costing between $100 and $125 million, and the 19 for Israel are quoted at $144.7 million in this report.

    There has been much discussion of the grand total of $1.5 trillion the report gives for development, acquisition and operation of the F-35. This estimate is predicated on a support structure that is not yet defined, plus fuel costs and inflation over 55 years. Lockheed Martin commented that such an exercise had never previously been attempted, and that “a number of variables are subject to considerable fluctuation...making the estimate inherently imprecise.” The company expressed continued confidence that F-35 operations and support costs will be comparable or lower than those of the seven aircraft types it replaces.
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  3. #1173
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    U.S. Air Force Finds Stealthy Way to Restart Alternate Engine Program

    There's an old saying about Washington that no political issue there is ever fully resolved. You may think it's done, but then it resurfaces in a new form and the fight goes on. So it appears to be with the alternate engine, the extra propulsion system for U.S. fighter jets that teammates General Electric and Rolls Royce finally seemed to give up on last year after being rebuffed by Congress and two different presidential administrations. The basic problem with the alternate engine was that nobody could prove it would offer any cost or performance advantage over the fighter engine the Pentagon was already buying, so it looked like a giveaway to a couple of well-connected military contractors. Once the Tea Party arrived, it was curtains for the alternate engine.

    Or at least, so it seemed[...]
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  4. #1174
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,516
    The ADVENT program has been around for several years. Is is not a rehash of F136, but a technology program for variable cycle engine technology that has nothing to do with F136. The idea is to provide optimum SFC at multiple operating points.

  5. #1175
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    652
    MD - The byline says it all. Thompson is a consultant to P&W and advocated the termination of the F136, promoting the completely false notion that the F135 had been selected for the JSF SSD phase through competition. (Both CDA teams used P&W's F119-based X-engines for the X-32 and X-35, but the timing precluded any real competition.)

    It's interesting that PW is now trying to squash Advent, which is needed for the new bomber but would (if it works) be a big improvement for the F-35, and could arrive in time to power a lot of the A-models.

  6. #1176
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Aviation week said the UK F-35B flew on the 11th, any pics of it yet?

  7. #1177
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    In May issue AFM Tim Cox reveals the shortcomings of the present F-35B. Someone can guess it is still overweight or the related F135 variant still lacks thrust. Whatever it is the main shortcoming from that is some reliable bring-back capability in hot conditions.

  8. #1178
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In a cool place........
    Posts
    84
    From Defense News:

    U.K. Reverting to STOVL JSF for its Carriers

    http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...EG02/304160002


    Seems that the cost of converting the carriers was too much.

  9. #1179
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,833
    "could"... "should".. etc

    same news as a few days before...

    looks like lobbying more than anything else...

  10. #1180
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,910
    Quote Originally Posted by shivering View Post
    From Defense News:

    U.K. Reverting to STOVL JSF for its Carriers

    http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...EG02/304160002

    Seems that the cost of converting the carriers was too much.
    Not official. That report says that anonymous officials say a recommendation to reverse the decision could reach David Cameron this week.

    That is not a decision. It's a rumour that a recommendation is being made which may, if Dave can bear the humiliation, result in a decision. See the difference?
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  11. #1181
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In a cool place........
    Posts
    84
    Sorry if I irritated anyone.......was just posting a news item.

    No sub-textual agenda on my part.



    Cheers.

  12. #1182
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,059
    Official - It's back to the F-35B for the UK.

    http://www.defencemanagement.com/new...y.asp?id=19482
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  13. #1183
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,910
    No, it's not official. Defence Management is not an official journal, & it's quoting newspapers. I never trust a word written in the Daily Mail (sometimes known as the Daily Fail, for good reasons). The FT is much better, but defence reporting is one of its weaker points.

    The reports are piling up, & it looks as if it really is happening, but it isn't official yet. Even according to the newspaper reports, the official decision hasn't been made yet, although if they're correct the Prime Minister has decided, & it's rare (though not completely unknown) for a PM to fail to get his or her way.
    Last edited by swerve; 17th April 2012 at 20:47.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  14. #1184
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,516
    More trouble for F-35 program.

    The labor union whose membership assembles the F-35 in Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth facility is going to vote to strike on Sunday April 22nd.
    http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/04...rejection.html

  15. #1185
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,059
    Defense contractors should not be allowed to sue due to "National Security" concerns
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  16. #1186
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,516
    More joy and happiness for the F-35 program...

    The 3500 union members who assemble F-35s voted to strike by a 9 to 1 margin.

  17. #1187
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Cotswolds,Glos , UK
    Posts
    763
    When this plane , wether A B or C , eventually goes into service , with its respective customers , who are we expecting its main adversaries /opponents to be . ie, Su,Mig SAAB . What planes will get the better of F35 in a dog fight /stand off/ intercept senario.

    In a nutshell will F35 be " The Best of the Best " ( Or Not )

  18. #1188
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    More joy and happiness for the F-35 program...

    The 3500 union members who assemble F-35s voted to strike by a 9 to 1 margin.
    Still enough time left till 2017. Not even an excuse for software forced delays. :diablo:

  19. #1189
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,516
    Quote Originally Posted by AutoStick View Post
    When this plane , wether A B or C , eventually goes into service , with its respective customers , who are we expecting its main adversaries /opponents to be . ie, Su,Mig SAAB . What planes will get the better of F35 in a dog fight /stand off/ intercept senario.

    In a nutshell will F35 be " The Best of the Best " ( Or Not )
    There are higher priorities than fighting air-to-air battles. The anchor customers are the USAF and USN, who will use it as a light attack airplane. It's role is to hunt and destroy IRBM and ASM TELs which are protected by a multitude of extremely capable mobile SAMs (S-300/400, BUK, Pantsyr) and high fidelity decoys.

  20. #1190
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    More joy and happiness for the F-35 program...

    The 3500 union members who assemble F-35s voted to strike by a 9 to 1 margin.
    Am I reading this correctly LM have 3,500 unionised employees at Fort Worth to build 30 aircraft a year, 116 machinists per plane.

    As the factory would seem to be set up to produce far more than 30 aircraft a year, it could be a way of reducing the unit costs of each aircraft, I am not sure what percentage of the total costs of the Fort Worth plant are labour.:diablo:
    Last edited by PhilipG; 24th April 2012 at 10:36. Reason: Typo

  21. #1191
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    5,260
    Quote Originally Posted by AutoStick View Post
    When this plane , wether A B or C , eventually goes into service , with its respective customers , who are we expecting its main adversaries /opponents to be . ie, Su,Mig SAAB . What planes will get the better of F35 in a dog fight /stand off/ intercept senario.

    In a nutshell will F35 be " The Best of the Best " ( Or Not )
    If F-35 pan out somewhat to expectation, and it should, eventually,
    then the only competitive fighter in price/performance will be Gripen NG
    i think
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  22. #1192
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilipG View Post
    Am I reading this correctly LM have 3,500 unionised employees at Fort Worth to build 30 aircraft a year, 116 machinists per plane.

    As the factory would seem to be set up to produce far more than 30 aircraft a year, it could be a way of reducing the unit costs of each aircraft, I am not sure what percentage of the total costs of the Fort Worth plant are labour.:diablo:
    Well they configured to ramp up production about now, as they by-passed the prototype stage in the assumption the computers would get it right and any errors would be quickly rectified during the LRIP phase. Obviously they got it wrong, and have a factory on-line without sufficient product.

    Thats why we get various numpties trying to insist other partners should order sooner to get the production levels up regardless of the inflated price and flawed aircraft that would be delivered as a result (aka they would be more expensive as teh economies of scale won't kick in plus the aircraft would be limited by not having the full software block and carrying identified flaws whose fix has not yet been implemented )

  23. #1193
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,516
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilipG View Post
    Am I reading this correctly LM have 3,500 unionised employees at Fort Worth to build 30 aircraft a year, 116 machinists per plane.

    As the factory would seem to be set up to produce far more than 30 aircraft a year, it could be a way of reducing the unit costs of each aircraft, I am not sure what percentage of the total costs of the Fort Worth plant are labour.:diablo:
    The 3500 does not include labor used to manufacture major subassemblies received from P&W, NorthropGrumman and BAE.

  24. #1194
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Cotswolds,Glos , UK
    Posts
    763
    So judging by the few answers , its going to be a land/sea/attack/ army support aircraft??? So no fighter capabilities ,i'll be pretty useless & defending itself & the ship that launched it ?? So who thought this one up ???

  25. #1195
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    The 3500 does not include labor used to manufacture major subassemblies received from P&W, NorthropGrumman and BAE.
    Quite, Sorry I should have put assemble.
    You could look at the strike as a bonus, hopefully by the time the strike is over some more "fixes" will have been designed and made ready for production, so no assembly labour costs for a bit, and fewer planes in the fleet that need to be taken to pieces, repaired and put back together.

    So at the end of the year LM can try the production line at the full rate production speed to get the year's requirement out in an economic time...

  26. #1196
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by AutoStick View Post
    So judging by the few answers , its going to be a land/sea/attack/ army support aircraft??? So no fighter capabilities ,i'll be pretty useless & defending itself & the ship that launched it ?? So who thought this one up ???
    Well not useless (you're talking about the CVFs here aren't you?).

    UK F35s will launch Meteor (MBDA can't afford not to make that work), will have cutting edge sensors and will have a very low RCS. It should even have ASRAAM. So it just needs to avoid getting into a turning fight that's all.

  27. #1197
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    Well not useless (you're talking about the CVFs here aren't you?).

    UK F35s will launch Meteor (MBDA can't afford not to make that work), will have cutting edge sensors and will have a very low RCS. It should even have ASRAAM. So it just needs to avoid getting into a turning fight that's all.
    Correct. As long as not surprised in an unfavorable tactical situation every modern fighter can disengage at will and adapt to the new situation. Hostile fighters are the least threat in modern air-combat.

  28. #1198
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,059
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    Well not useless (you're talking about the CVFs here aren't you?).

    UK F35s will launch Meteor (MBDA can't afford not to make that work), will have cutting edge sensors and will have a very low RCS. It should even have ASRAAM. So it just needs to avoid getting into a turning fight that's all.
    You are forgetting about EODAS. If you are close enough to be in a turning fight, then you are likely within the NEZ of the Aim-120D regardless of the launch angle.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  29. #1199
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Cotswolds,Glos , UK
    Posts
    763
    Thanks guys ..the penny is starting to drop. Just like to know that my Tax £££ isnt going towards buying a PuP......

  30. #1200
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dijon , France
    Posts
    1,038
    Obligatory :
    If F-35 pan out somewhat to expectation, and it should, eventually,then the only competitive fighter in price/performance will be Gripen NG
    i think
    ??

    Hang on ... "Price " ? You must be joking , sure you are !
    "Performance" ? What performances are you talking about exactly ?

    Cheers .
    I say what I mean and I do what I say .

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES