Joint Strike Fighter Program

[Blue]

In 1996 the US Military decided to basically upgrade a large swathe of their Marine, Naval, Air Force and Army aircraft with a new fit-all model, which soon will be the F-35 "Lightning II".

Slated to replace the General Dynamics F-16, Republic-Fairchild A-10, McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18 (and CF-18) and Boeing AV-8B in the year 2016 and afterwards, the Lockheed-Martin F-35 is supposed to be better than all the other craft were at their own games (Ground Attack, Interception, Aerial Combat, Electronic Support/Countermeasure, Close-range ground Support etc.) as well as keep training and maintenance costs down by having 80% interchangeable parts and systems between its three main varaints, the F-35A (Conventional landing and takeoff), F-35B (Short Takeoff or Vertical Takeoff) and F-35C (CATOBAR-enabled Aircraft carrier takeoff and landing system) as well as staff only having to be versed in repair and maintenance of this one plane as opposed to the several others.

However, such a laundry-list of things the fighter has to be able to do (and do well enough to compete on the international stage of 5th Generation Fighter Aircraft, on the level of such planes as the Sukhoi-35 and/or the Eurofighter Typhoon) is quite a task obviously, and price estimates have not been entirely reliable in the years of development, as well as numerous delays that have occured through the course of its building and testing.

 

This has been a matter of concern in many countries, notably Canada who will be replacing its Air Force of about 120 CF-18s with 120 F-35s, My question is if you think for many countries, would it be worth the investment/risk for a plane that is planning on replacing a notable portion of western tactical aircraft (a very big pair of shoes to fill) for its fluctuating price tag, at somewhere around $150 million US each? Should I make myself more informed of the issue because of how big of a deal it is, or should I care less?

[alphabetagamma]

F-35B (Short Takeoff or Vertical Takeoff)

I think that the F-35B is vertical landing only

My question is if you think for many countries, would it be worth the investment/risk for a plane that is planning on replacing a notable portion of western tactical aircraft

For every country but the US, probably not until it's been proven.

notably Canada who will be replacing its Air Force of about 120 CF-18s with 120 F-35s

Canada's fighter jets are ageing, I guess they don't need replacing, but falling too far behind is worse. The US started buying the F-22 Raptor in 2005, but the CF-18s were purchased in 1983. Not exactly top of the line.

Should I make myself more informed of the issue because of how big of a deal it is, or should I care less?

Any thing that costs over 10 billion dollars for Canada should be cared about

[BTGBullseye]

My question is if you think for many countries, would it be worth the investment/risk for a plane that is planning on replacing a notable portion of western tactical aircraft

For every country but the US, probably not until it's been proven.

The US has no need to replace it's fleet with aircraft that cost more than quadruple what the current aircraft cost.

 

$38 million for a Grumman F-14D Tomcat. (arguably the best long range interceptor ever)

$29-57 million for a McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. (our current all-around fighter/bomber)

$14.6/$18.8 million for the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. (A/B = $14.6m, C/D = $18.8m)

$30-35 million for each McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. (VTOL, rarely if ever used)

$11.8 million for the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. (I would've thought it cost more)

$53.4 million for a Boeing B-52H Stratofortress. (just for a comparison)

 

Why pay tons of money for something we don't really need?

[Blue]

notably Canada who will be replacing its Air Force of about 120 CF-18s with 120 F-35s

Canada's fighter jets are ageing, I guess they don't need replacing, but falling too far behind is worse. The US started buying the F-22 Raptor in 2005, but the CF-18s were purchased in 1983. Not exactly top of the line.

What about the F-18E and F-18F variants (which are new enough that the F-35 will not be replacing)?

 

My question is if you think for many countries, would it be worth the investment/risk for a plane that is planning on replacing a notable portion of western tactical aircraft

For every country but the US, probably not until it's been proven.

The US has no need to replace it's fleet with aircraft that cost more than quadruple what the current aircraft cost.

 

$38 million for a Grumman F-14D Tomcat. (arguably the best long range interceptor ever)

$29-57 million for a McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. (our current all-around fighter/bomber)

$14.6/$18.8 million for the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. (A/B = $14.6m, C/D = $18.8m)

$30-35 million for each McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. (VTOL, rarely if ever used)

$11.8 million for the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. (I would've thought it cost more)

$53.4 million for a Boeing B-52H Stratofortress. (just for a comparison)

 

Why pay tons of money for something we don't really need?

And yet they're buying F-22 Raptors by the dozen- which have a Flyaway (aka barebone minimum) cost of $150 million apeice.

 

I do like however the talk of extending the usage of A-10 Thunderbolts into the coming decades simply because it's so effective and reliable, even if it consists of making them UCAVs.

[alphabetagamma]

What about the F-18E and F-18F variants (which are new enough that the F-35 will not be replacing)?

The Super Hornet is a good plane, but it wouldn't make sense to buy a 12 year old plane that we'd end up replacing by 2020 over a new plane that could last us another 28 years

[ProHypster]

We're using Migs and Yaks, Sukhoi, Tupolevs, Antonovs (Where my dad used to work btw) here....

And Russia has a lot of money and invests a lot into aerodynamics... and they are our parteners in planes, nuclear technology...

Plus we have a way of using cheaper materials for better quality (Like the AK wood)

What costs a lot is the technology, not the actual plane in our case. The Mig-35 is 60 Million $

 

So, not really a concern to me.

 

In fact, the new technology now is always our future product (We sell AK-47 while we use Ak-107 already), and we invest in the Euro, not the dollar so in my case I hope that the russian planes beat the american planes

 

(No offense of course, it's just competition)

 

EDIT:

 

The Russian government is planning to merge the holding company Yakovlev with Mikoyan, Ilyushin, Irkut, Sukhoi and Tupolev as a new company named United Aircraft Building Corporation.

 

That's going to be sick

[Blue]

The Russian government is planning to merge the holding company Yakovlev with Mikoyan, Ilyushin, Irkut, Sukhoi and Tupolev as a new company named United Aircraft Building Corporation.

 

That's going to be sick

Amalgamations like those are a big deal. They make sense, but they take time and planning.

 

It will probably be a long time before people like Republic and Lockheed shake hands, but it wouldn't surprise me if they eventually go the way Boeing did in '97.

[BTGBullseye]

in my case I hope that the russian planes beat the american planes

 

(No offense of course, it's just competition)

Not trying to burst your bubble or anything, but in a 1-1 dogfight, or maximum range combat (80+ miles, 125+ km) the F-14D beats any other aircraft in the world. It has a 0 combat loss record. (no F-14 has ever been shot down)

 

The F-14's main airframe is made from welded titanium, the only material tough enough to withstand the stress of a variable aspect wing capable of Mach 2.5 speeds.

 

Also, the F-14 is the only aircraft that can carry the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. The longest range air-to-air missile ever made. (well over 100 mile range, recorded training kills from over 120 miles) Costs $477,131, and has a top speed of nearly Mach 5. One thing you'll never see on a Wiki page, it can change targets mid-flight, or even if it misses it's original target. (if it can't turn back and kill the missed target that is)

 

 

If I was to make my own personal air fleet, I'd definitely be using many of these. Supporting aircraft would be A-10's and Harriers.

 

Aw... Just noticed that they retired the F-14's... I guess the Russians win this round.

[BTGBullseye]

I am reviving this thread because of something I never heard about when it happened, and just found out about recently... Also because I'm in a necromantic mood, and like returning things from the land of 4 years ago.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Operational_history

 

The next to last sentence in the section... Prolonged heat stress from flying. Sounds an awful lot like saying "if we ever go to war and need to run this plane like any other plane we've ever fielded, it'll lose its main engine". Seriously, prolonged stressful flying kills this thing's engine? Isn't that what combat flight IS?

[Binky The Rabbit]

Hmm, maybe they didn't know the field limit of the engine, or overestimated it. I assume they'll be more careful with maintenance, considering:

On 9 March 2011, all F-35s were grounded after a dual generator failure and oil leak in flight;[374] the cause of the incident was discovered to have been the result of faulty maintenance.

 

Man, I remember watching a documentary on the JSF competition. Did you ever see what the X-35 looked like?

[Vapymid]

The JSF program is set to be the biggest procurement disaster in the US history...

 

It is only still alive because so much national prestige is put at stake on it. Designed by a committee, executed over pork barrels - it's a wreck, just like the British R38(ZR2) affair (only hopefully with fewer people killed).

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

I still have trouble understanding the need for the program itself... VTOL/STOVL is impractical for our current military, and very expensive for a much lower performing vehicle. (helicopters perform MUCH better in hover-type combat, and modern fighters perform MUCH better in forward-flight type combat) STOL is practical, but that doesn't even come close to requiring the amount of spending this program has used.

[Vapymid]

It's mainly to save on the ships. STOVL/Helicopter carriers are much smaller and cheaper. The USMC and the British Royal Navy use them.

 

There was a big bruhaha a couple of years back, when our government tried to build a proper catapult-fitted carrier, which would have allowed us to use pretty much any carrier A/C but, as rumours go, it was sunk by pressure from the US as they needed a non-US launch customer for the F-35B (obviously, the most expensive of them all).

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

The problem with saving on the ships (and the same argument was given by the US Navy) is that it's cheaper in the long run (10-20 years) to make a supercarrier (that means CATOBAR/EMALS instead of STOBAR/STOVL) with the current 'outdated' aircraft, than it is to make a light carrier with an F-35B loadout over the same period. It's not just the initial build cost you have to take into account, but the operating costs of repairing and refueling the aircraft. The F-35B is about 100x more expensive to repair and 3x more expensive to fuel for the same flight time when compared to existing carrier-based aircraft, and it would have far fewer combat capabilities. (much shorter range aircraft that carry fewer and shorter range munitions, and it's far easier to damage or destroy)

 

I'd personally take the supercarrier with larger loadouts, more aircraft, better mission capability, and lower long-term cost.

 

The initial cost of just the ships comparing the Gerald R. Ford class to the America class, the difference is $2.5B. ($12.68B and $10.17B, Nimitz class is only $4.5B) The aircraft cost (America class amphibious assault ship) is 6-20x F-35B US$142M, 0-12x MV-22B Osprey $72.1M, 0-4x CH-53K King Stallion $84.9M, 0-7x AH-1Z/UH-1Z Viper/Venom $27M, 2x MH-60S $28.1M, compared to (G.R. Ford/Nimitz class) 12-14x F/A-18E/F Hornet $60.9M, 10-12x F/A-18C/D Hornet $29M, 4-6x EA-18G Growler $68.2M, 4-6x E-2C Hawkeye $176M, 6-8x MH-60R $42.9M. Total cost comparison of aircraft alone is (America) $2.3-$2.9B and (G.R.F./Nimitz) $2.25-$3B. Add in the unspecified compliment of vehicles in the well deck, and it further narrows the price gap. (probably some number of LCAC hovercraft at $45-75M each and possibly some number of ground vehicles)

 

If they were really worried about saving money, they wouldn't have made the F-35 at all, as it doesn't really lower the initial cost significantly, but increases the long term cost massively. (AV-8B Harriers are only $30M, less than ¼ the cost of the F-35B with the same combat capabilities, and much lower maintenance costs) Best bet for saving money would probably be building a somewhat upgraded Nimitz class ($6-$10B) and loading it with conventional aircraft.

[Vapymid]

You and I, we should be running Her Majesty's Government's Ministry of Defence!

 

I'd have kept the Harriers, scrapped the Typhoons, forgot about F-35s, bought a bunch of F-18s and Gripens and built some long big CATOBAR flat-tops.

 

But when politics and individuals' greed is added into the mix - we get what we've got here in the UK.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

When it comes to military forces buildup or upgrade/update on a budget, I'm your man.

 

I'm not so sure about the Gripens personally, I've always been a fan of having a backup engine just in case. (and they're far more expensive than an up-to-date F-18 series)

 

No need for long CATOBAR carriers, you could just go with mid-sized EMALS fleet carriers. (no ramp, but much shorter than your average because of the EMALS launching system)

[Vapymid]

Long ones give you additional bragging rights

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

True. lol

 

Honestly, impeller driven mid-sized ships are where it's at. Put a pair of impellers for front to back, and a pair for left to right, and you have a carrier that can literally turn on a dime.

[Vapymid]

That will be interesting to see. I haven't yet heard of jet propulsion for ships as big as aircraft carriers. I know it's used for things like LCS though...

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

It's still on the drawing boards, but it looks promising... I've seen estimates of putting a Nimitz-sized ship at 60 knots with them. (an early test model showed 58 knots) They could conceivably do a 180° turn in 30 seconds at a standstill with no deck tilt.