Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 46 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 1363

Thread: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,952
    It looks like the coating on F-35 are sensitive to heat
    You're reading too much into that. The F-22's spec is for a higher altitude & faster speed than the F-35 will ever see.

    That's like saying that the F-22 canopy will melt at mach 3 (which it will never see).

    There is no indication that the F-35's coatings will have any problem with the heat, speed, and altitudes that it will experience on the F-35.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    4,890
    It would explain why F-35 couldn't keep M1.2 for more than 15 min,
    only other limit i can see is a dive.
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,952
    Really... back to the misconception that the 150nm is an absolute limit?

    It's called a "dash", look it up.

    btw, the F-22 has a 100nm dash.

    Besides, it took direct heat from prolonged afterburner use to damage the coatings on the inner horizontal stabilizers and you think air friction alone is going to damage the coatings elsewhere on the F-35?
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 15th November 2012 at 22:41.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    910
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    There is no indication that the F-35's coatings will have any problem with the heat, speed, and altitudes that it will experience on the F-35.
    Depends. If it has to use ab to get the speeds then there might be some problems. I havent seen any fix regarding that.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Really... back to the misconception that the 150nm is an absolute limit?

    It's called a "dash", look it up.

    btw, the F-22 has a 100nm dash.
    The F22 dash is as part of a specific mission profile, in the F35 case it not certain what they mean. The VP says something that can be interpreted differently, the pilots say a thing that is pretty clear.

    Are you insinuating that the pilots dont know what they are talking about because you have the only correct interpretation of the VPs quote?

    VP claims it can stay at around mach 1,2(?) for a dash of 150 miles and that its not technically supercruising. The pilots say it can't stay supersonic without a little use of afterburner.

    The 150 miles might not be an absolute limit but its probably not supercruising till the fuel runs out.
    Last edited by Tu22m; 16th November 2012 at 13:55. Reason: Spelling

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    570
    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/russia-stealth/


    Russia’s Stealth Fighter Could Match U.S. Jets, Analyst Says
    BY DAVID AXE11.16.126:30 AM

    Russia’s T-50 stealth fighter prototype, the first radar-evading warplane outside the U.S. when it debuted in January 2010, is slightly less stealthy than the American F-22 and about equal to the smaller F-35. But in several other respects the new warplane from the Russian Sukhoi design bureau is actually superior to the American models.

    That’s the surprising conclusion of the first-ever public scientific analysis of the T-50′s Radar Cross-Section (RCS), completed this week by Dr. Carlo Kopp, an analyst with the independent think tank Air Power Australia.

    “The shaping of the T-50 is inferior to that of the F-22 Raptor,” Kopp writes in his dense, jargon-heavy report. But the F-35 and T-50, he adds, exhibit “similar … RCS behavior.”

    But Kopp’s assessment of the T-50 comes with caveats. Quite a few of them, actually. To match the stealthiness of the Lockheed Martin F-35 — to say nothing of the company’s F-22 — Sukhoi’s engineers will have to, among other changes, modify the T-50′s engines to a less obtrusive fitting and add a layer of radar-absorbing material to the plane’s skin.

    With the revised engines and skin, the T-50′s “specular RCS performance will satisfy the Very Low Observable (VLO) requirement that strong specular returns are absent in the nose sector angular domain,” Kopp writes. Translated into plain English, Kopp’s saying that an optimized version of the Russian jet could be very, very difficult to detect by most radars as it’s bearing down on them.
    Last edited by SlowMan; 16th November 2012 at 13:48.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,952
    The coatings and the idea that they are somehow a contributing factor to the 150nm SC dash @ m1.2 is quite frankly hogwash considering that the F-35 spec is for m1.6 and it has reached m1.66.

    completed this week by Dr. Carlo Kopp
    Nuff said, sent to the circular file.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,575
    “The shaping of the T-50 is inferior to that of the F-22 Raptor,” Kopp writes in his dense, jargon-heavy report. But the F-35 and T-50, he adds, exhibit “similar … RCS behavior.”

    But Kopp’s assessment of the T-50 comes with caveats. Quite a few of them, actually. To match the stealthiness of the Lockheed Martin F-35 — to say nothing of the company’s F-22 — Sukhoi’s engineers will have to, among other changes, modify the T-50′s engines to a less obtrusive fitting and add a layer of radar-absorbing material to the plane’s skin.

    With the revised engines and skin, the T-50′s “specular RCS performance will satisfy the Very Low Observable (VLO) requirement that strong specular returns are absent in the nose sector angular domain,” Kopp writes. Translated into plain English, Kopp’s saying that an optimized version of the Russian jet could be very, very difficult to detect by most radars as it’s bearing down on them.
    Translated into even simpler English that the likes of me understand, the current version of the Russian jet is not very, very difficult to detect by most radars as it’s bearing down on them.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    54
    I have a few things to point out since this is the F-35 debate thread:

    1. Why do people keep saying the Typhoon is a better value than the F-35?
    The Typhoon costs more than a F-22 with less capability! No AESA yet, barely any A2G! No jamming!
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03..._nao_analysis/

    "This shows the acquisition cost of the Eurofighter/Typhoon in an even worse light than it had previously appeared, when an RAF fleet of 160 had been expected. It is now acknowledged that the development and production cost to the UK of Eurofighter will be £23bn with planned upgrades.

    This means that we UK taxpayers will have shelled out no less than £215m for each of our 107 jets – that's $350m at today's rates, rather more than the US taxpayers have been made to pay for each of their 185 Raptor superfighters"

    The F-35 is 120 Mill in upcoming lots the Tiffy is 300+ million!

    2. Why are people claiming the a F-15SE is a better value?:
    If you put conformal weapons bays on the thing, then it barely out ranges a F-35.
    If use the conformal tanks for fuel, then whats the purpose of making it stealthy? All of this for 100 million +

    3. Why is the F-18 a better value when it will be nearly worthless in a high threat environment? If I have to use 2 planes and 3 pilots per target how is that cheaper? Further more the F-18 wont be able to hold a candle to a S-300 without heavy use of stand off weapons. The U.S. will probably have an inventory of 10k jassm. The U.S. could conceivably Hit 2000 targets a night, Just using B-2, B-51s, Ohios, and B-1s . It wont be long before the best smart weapons are used up, and the force has to switch to jadam.
    Over China/Taiwan there will be no shortage of targets.

    What Good is a F-18 with Only Jamming escorts and Jadam?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaidyn24 View Post
    I have a few things to point out since this is the F-35 debate thread:

    1. Why do people keep saying the Typhoon is a better value than the F-35?
    The Typhoon costs more than a F-22 with less capability! No AESA yet, barely any A2G! No jamming!
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03..._nao_analysis/

    "This shows the acquisition cost of the Eurofighter/Typhoon in an even worse light than it had previously appeared, when an RAF fleet of 160 had been expected. It is now acknowledged that the development and production cost to the UK of Eurofighter will be £23bn with planned upgrades.

    This means that we UK taxpayers will have shelled out no less than £215m for each of our 107 jets – that's $350m at today's rates, rather more than the US taxpayers have been made to pay for each of their 185 Raptor superfighters"

    The F-35 is 120 Mill in upcoming lots the Tiffy is 300+ million!

    [/B]
    I think the £23bn is the cost of the entire program. If you divide that cost by the number of aircraft delivered at any time, the cost changes every time another aircraft is delivered. You could say that the first Typoon cost £23bn or the first 2 cost £11.5bn each, or the first 3 £7bn+ each. It is as meaningless as saying 107 cost £215m each. Since the RAF should receive 200+ Typhoons, the figure should be less than £120m per Typhoon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaidyn24 View Post
    The F-35 is 120 Mill in upcoming lots the Tiffy is 300+ million!
    IIRC the contract price for the last lot of Typhoons was less than £60m each (say $90m). That is quite a lot less than the $120m cost you give for F-35.

    And remind me please, if you know, is the F-35 figure for an aircraft with an engine or do we have to add the cost of the engine to the $120m to get a real price?
    Last edited by Spitfire9; 17th November 2012 at 09:18.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,814
    a simpler way to answer would be how many F-35s have been delivered?

    How much did the program cots until now?

    make a division and you get a figure around $1bn+ per aircraft as of today..


    once the program is finished, you can calculate how high was the cost, and in any case, your figure of 120 million is "without development costs", if you iclude these, even by the end of production, chances are that no F-35 will get below the 100 million dollars figure
    Last edited by TooCool_12f; 17th November 2012 at 12:24.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    54
    At 2500 Planes?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,368
    Do not mix up the different flavors of cost. Remember the cost definitions used for DODI 5000.02 acquisition programs...

    Flyaway cost = airframe + engine + avionics

    Weapon system cost = flyaway cost + support + long lead

    Procurement cost = weapon system cost + spares

    Program cost = procurement cost + R&D + Test & evaluation + MILCON

    Life cycle cost = program cost + operations

    The price quoted in sales brochures is "flyaway". The price quoted by detractors is "program" (who wrongly try to pass program cost off as flyaway). There is a very large difference between the two due to the items included in the cost definitions.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    Do not mix up the different flavors of cost. Remember the cost definitions used for DODI 5000.02 acquisition programs...

    Flyaway cost = airframe + engine + avionics

    Weapon system cost = flyaway cost + support + long lead

    Procurement cost = weapon system cost + spares

    Program cost = procurement cost + R&D + Test & evaluation + MILCON

    Life cycle cost = program cost + operations

    The price quoted in sales brochures is "flyaway". The price quoted by detractors is "program" (who wrongly try to pass program cost off as flyaway). There is a very large difference between the two due to the items included in the cost definitions.
    Exactly, and to further ad to the confusion used by detractors is that different Governments use different criteria on how they calculate prices as well. Australia uses a very different method than most countries, which is why I have seen a lot of people use the Australian costings, because we ad in through life costs as well, whether it is an airframe, a gun or a naval ship

    Cheers

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    4,890
    The most useful costs for comparison are flyaway & operational cost
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,152
    Curse those detractors and all the confusion they cause! God knows the pro-F35 crowd is above such things.
    "I’ve come to realise that power can be corrosive [....] it can dim your vision." -- George W. Bush, 2013

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,121
    The question is who are the distractors here? Comparing life cycle costs of the Typhoon with fly-away costs of the F-35 is utterly moot isn't it?

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    I think the £23bn is the cost of the entire program. If you divide that cost by the number of aircraft delivered at any time, the cost changes every time another aircraft is delivered. You could say that the first Typoon cost £23bn or the first 2 cost £11.5bn each, or the first 3 £7bn+ each. It is as meaningless as saying 107 cost £215m each. Since the RAF should receive 200+ Typhoons, the figure should be less than £120m per Typhoon.



    IIRC the contract price for the last lot of Typhoons was less than £60m each (say $90m). That is quite a lot less than the $120m cost you give for F-35.

    And remind me please, if you know, is the F-35 figure for an aircraft with an engine or do we have to add the cost of the engine to the $120m to get a real price?
    1º The cost for the entire RAF Typhoon Program per the most recent official NAO document, "Major Projects report 2011" is precisely 18,159 Bilion pounds. It covers the development and procurement of the 160 Phoons.

    http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1...port_2011.aspx

    2º The NAO made a bit of a mess with the "Management of the Typhoon Project" document, the numbers presented in that document were taken from the "Major Projects report 2010" that while acknowledging the reduction in numbers from 232 units to 160 didnt acknowledge the concomitant reduction in costs. A few months later the NAO releases the latest "Major Projects report 2011" and guess what? A major decrease in costs...

    3º The NAO "Major Projects report 2012" should be published in the next few weeks.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    The question is who are the distractors here? Comparing life cycle costs of the Typhoon with fly-away costs of the F-35 is utterly moot isn't it?
    And using that article of the Register for that... One that was not discussed some one thousand times in here...

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaidyn24 View Post
    At 2500 Planes?
    To get the 2500 you have to spent more money. Just in the end you will learn about the real cost for each after 2500 delivered.
    About your other claim. Whatever the size of a conflict is your armed forces have to generate from some to thousand sorties per day. Just for the smaller part you are in need of some stealth capability. Every aircraft/fighter can have active stealth capability, when the F-35 offers both passiv and activ one depending of the threat and nature of mission. The US forces do prefer to operate at medium heights or above for some reasons and in need for stealth support when operating in a hostile enviroment there. Smaller air-forces with less challenging missions can do that in another way without passive stealth as well. More and more high risc missions will be done by UAVs in the future as well. In short every armed force has to find the most cost effective mix of "tools" depending the task ahead. Whatever the advertisement people claim there is no cheap "Jack of all trades" for that.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    And remind me please, if you know, is the F-35 figure for an aircraft with an engine or do we have to add the cost of the engine to the $120m to get a real price?
    The weapon system cost for the first F 35 exported is 128 million (engine included,. BTW). : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85S0VE20120629

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    1º The cost for the entire RAF Typhoon Program per the most recent official NAO document, "Major Projects report 2011" is precisely 18,159 Bilion pounds. It covers the development and procurement of the 160 Phoons.
    It's still a high price--175 million each. More expensive then an F 35.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by aurcov View Post
    It's still a high price--175 million each. More expensive then an F 35.
    And the F-35 is still in (costly) LRIP.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,165
    Quote Originally Posted by aurcov View Post
    It's still a high price--175 million each. More expensive then an F 35.
    Well maybe that will happen in the future, but not today.
    The JSF program unit cost might end cheaper if the production numbers are maintained (far from certain) and if the Development and procurement costs dont go up (they have been going up every year).
    If those two variables dont change (2443 JSF´s for 395.7$ billion), then yes, the Program unit cost would be in the vicinity of 161$ million in "then year dollars", so cheaper that the equivalent number for the Eurofighter.

    If we were comparing today´s "Unit Program Costs" we would have to divide the number of F-35 contracted till now by the amount spent till now... An absolutely terrifying number... Wich would have been a bit silly, because unless the Mayan prediction for the end of the world in 2012 really happens, there will be more production contracts.
    In the end, the JSF "Program Unit Cost" (and every program) is dependent on the numbers that get built, the production is starting now, while the Eurofighter closing is not that far ahead, its a bit early to make a direct comparison.

    Cheers

    ps- The Eurofighter program proved that politics can "boondoongle" entirely the costs for any given military program, four assembly lines for a production run of +- 600 airframes, briliant, absolutely briliant...
    Last edited by Sintra; 19th November 2012 at 10:53.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,165
    Quote Originally Posted by aurcov View Post
    The weapon system cost for the first F 35 exported is 128 million (engine included,. BTW). : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85S0VE20120629
    128 million? Are you sure that this is the "weapon system cost"?
    That number is almost identical to the F-35A "Fly Unit Cost" for FY13 (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/me...110211-038.pdf), and the FMS cant export at lower costs than what the Pentagon pays.
    Well, if the production contract is only placed in 2014 or 2015, then that would explain it.

    Cheers

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,022
    Quote Originally Posted by aurcov View Post
    It's still a high price--175 million each. More expensive then an F 35.
    That is much less than current F-35 price. The F-35 will need massive orders to approach that figure. Current weapon system cost of the F-35 is higher than unit program cost of the Typhoon.

    Not that I think that EF is cheap but I hate deformed price figures.
    Last edited by MSphere; 19th November 2012 at 11:01.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,022
    Quote Originally Posted by aurcov View Post
    The weapon system cost for the first F 35 exported is 128 million (engine included,. BTW). : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85S0VE20120629
    $128mil is Japan's flyaway cost, not weapon system cost. WSC includes support, for that the simulators would need to be included in the price. WSC = $189mil as we speak. It might get down evtl. as more airframes are ordered.
    Last edited by MSphere; 19th November 2012 at 10:58.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,379
    128 million includes initial spares and support.

    OTOH, if lifecycle (I suppose 30 years?) spares and support were included, that would be 238 million (http://defense-update.com/20120505_u...-purchase.html ). But this amount is not payed before delivery.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,681
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    $128mil is Japan's flyaway cost, not weapon system cost. WSC includes support, for that the simulators would need to be included in the price. WSC = $189mil as we speak. It might get down evtl. as more airframes are ordered.
    What can we expect in a "weapon system cost package"?
    Is it software related or..?
    Thanks

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles ,CA
    Posts
    56
    What's important is we need the F 35 in large numbers to blow those Indians & Chinese till kingdom comes.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,344
    The comparable unit cost of Typhoon is somewhere south of £73m, let alone $120 m, and certainly no where near Spitfire9's stupid figure of $300m.

    A figure that ought to be easily agreed is £73 m – ($116 m as of today), though it’s not accurate as a UPC. (see below)

    It’s inaccurate as a true UPC because £73m is calculated on a resource accounting basis, and includes certain programme costs that would not normally be included.

    The T2 contract (signed on 14 December 2004) was €13Bn for 236 fighters. This makes €55.08 m per aircraft. On that day the exchange rate meant that one pound was worth €1.448687 – making the Tranche 2 UPC £38,023,911.14.

    That is the UK UPC as paid and as such is unarguable.

    Scorpion kindly provided figures of €4.18 bn for Germany's 68 T2 Typhoons and €1.132 bn for Austria's 18 T2 Typhoons.

    That equals €61.47 m for each german T2 Eurofighter and €62.88 m for each Austrian EF. This is the fly-away cost for the T2 EF for these countries.

    When the NAO used to produce proper UPCs they were aproximately £45 m for Tranche 1 and £42.42 m for Tranche 2 (including VAT).

    SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE FROM THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
    TYPHOON PAC HEARING

    Q23. Variations in Unit Cost of Typhoon (£73.2M v £120M).

    As was evident from the Hearing, different methodologies for calculating Unit Cost can produce significantly different results.

    The Unit Cost of £73.2M (an increase of 26%) given at the Hearing uses the methodology agreed by the NAO for the Major Project Report (MPR) process, where the NAO then validate the costs as part of that exercise. This methodology removes the Development costs and Cost of Capital Charges before dividing the Production phase costs by the aircraft off-take.

    Development costs are removed to reflect that they are sunk costs from a separate phase of the project. The calculation used by the NAO in the Value For Money study report does not follow the MPR methodology. The inclusion of Development costs in effect creates a supplementary increase in Unit Cost because it penalises rather than recognises the increased effectiveness of reduced, more capable, aircraft numbers. Whichever methodology is chosen, the key points are that NAO analysis (para 2.4 of the Value For Money report) confirms production costs as being similar to comparable types of aircraft, and that we are paying the right price.

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