• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-22 or F-35

Status
Not open for further replies.
Will anyone be able to afford the F-35?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031102796.html

The cost of Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter, already the most expensive weapons program ever, is projected to increase as much as $38 billion, congressional auditors said yesterday.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf

That would bring the price of 2,458 F-35s to $337 billion, 45 percent more than estimated when the program began in October 2001 [that's about 140 million each!].

"Midway through development, the program is over cost and behind schedule," Michael J. Sullivan, director of acquisition and sourcing management for the Government Accountability Office, told two panels of the House Armed Services Committee that oversee military spending.

The 12-year development of the fighter jet is entering its most challenging phase, including test flights, completing the software, finishing design of the three F-35 models and refining manufacturing processes at Lockheed and its subcontractors.

Sullivan said the Pentagon has identified billions of dollars in unfunded requirements, continued delays and "substantial" production inefficiency by Lockheed and engine-maker Pratt & Whitney that will increase costs.

At $337 billion, the Joint Strike Fighter's price would be more than twice that of the Pentagon's second-most expensive weapons program, the $160 billion Future Combat System...

Then there's this:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163800,00.html?wh=wh

The cost of buying and operating a new fleet of jet fighters for the U.S. military is nearing $1 trillion, according to a congressional audit that found the program dogged by delays, manufacturing inefficiencies and price increases...

Aussies worried:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23365937-31477,00.html?from=public_rss

THE RAAF could be forced to drastically rethink the timetable and strategy for acquiring up to 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in the wake of a US government report, which points to lengthy development delays and cost blowouts in the multi-billion-dollar project.

A US General Accounting Office report released yesterday found that the official program cost of the F-35 could be understated by up to $US38 billion ($41billion) and that the development schedule is likely to slip from 12 to 27 months...

The RAAF planned to receive its first Joint Strike Fighters from 2013-14, with the first squadron operational from 2015-16.

But the GAO report throws further doubt on the RAAF's timetable and highlights the potential capability gap in Australia's air-combat force beyond the retirement of the F-111s.

The F-35s are planned to replace the F-111s, due to retire from 2010, and are destined to become Australia's frontline combat aircraft.

The possibility of a serious delay throws the spotlight on the controversial $6.5 billion F-18 Super Hornet purchase decided by the Howard government last year. Some analysts say the Super Hornets could form the mainstay of the RAAF's combat force at least until 2017.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon is focusing on Australia's future air-combat needs and yesterday expressed concern about the status of the Joint Strike Fighter project.

"Nobody really knows what on-time is. It was 2013 originally. Now its 2015," he told The Australian.

"After today's report, nobody really knows the answer to that question. It could be 2020 for all I know [emphasis added]."

The Rudd Government is expected to make a final decision to buy the fifth-generation fighter next year, having already invested $300 million in the development of the F-35.

The purchase of up to 100 F-35 aircraft at an estimated cost of $16 billion would be Australia's largest defence purchase.

The RAAF has estimated the fly-away cost of each plane at about $80 million, but this figure could climb substantially before production aircraft are delivered...

Earlier, Aussie Chief of the Defence Force virtually took on his defence minister:

Australian defense chief says military '100 percent' behind Boeing's Super Hornet jets
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/20/asia/AS-GEN-Australia-Jet-Fighters.php

Mark
Ottawa
 
Interesting photo,F22 filling in for F15 but I have a question
for the experts out there,whats with the underwing tanks?.
Surely the thing that makes the F22 so effective and ultra
expensive is the stealth technology and would not these huge
tanks degrade this technology or is the F22 endurance
challenged?.
                    Regards
 
By no means am I an expert.  The fuel tanks do indeed degrade the stealth of the F-22, but I reckon that even with those tanks that the F-22 would be harder to spot on radar than most planes.  In an intercept mission stealth may not be overly critical and thus the fuel tanks can be carried.  This plane was just waving a friendly hello to Boris/Natasha, which did not require super ninja stealth capabilities.  I don't think the F-22 is endurance challenged compared with other jets- it has super-cruise, which is more economical than afterburners.  Let's see what the Air Force folks have to say on this.  By the way, is this a bad time to ask their opinion on whether they presently prefer (F-22 or F-35) given recent indications of cost overruns of the JSF.  My 2 cents: if the JSF is going to be so expensive Canada should at least get a two engined fighter if the Americans ever decide to sell the F-22.  Given that we are in NORAD, I think Canada has a better case than the other allies like Japan of obtaining the jet.  After all Canada is helping defend the United States.     
 
time expired said:
Interesting photo,F22 filling in for F15 but I have a question
for the experts out there,whats with the underwing tanks?.

I'm not saying that it is what they are doing, but it sounds like a good idea to attach Radar reflective tanks under the F-22, in this instance.

The exact stealth capabilities of the airplane would be kept secret.
If the mission was to show off the new F-22 to the Russians, one can assume that all Russki radars pointed in that direction will review their tapes and try to figure out the radar cross-section of the F-22.  If the F-22 is carrying huge radar reflectors under its wings, the analysis of the radar signals will give you a lot of information on the radar cross-section of the tanks, but not much about the airplane itself.  The secret is preserved.
 
I feel the whole stealth question should be given an complete
rethink.does this technology give a fighter such an advantage,
particularly on day missions,to justify the huge costs and loss
of agility that stealth bring with it.RAF pilots on exercise in
Alaska reportedly were able to locate the F22 as soon as it
turned on its radar and take effective counter measures.What
these counter measure were, was not reported,however when
the F22 closed the RAF pilots were easily able to out maneaver
the US jets with their Typhoons and score kills.It was also noted
that some F22s were spotted before the radar was turned on
by contrails and that the F22 was force to slow down to open
its weapon bay doors.This was not an official report and was not
verified by the RAF or the USAF,still food for thought.
                                    Regards
 
time expired said:
I feel the whole stealth question should be given an complete
rethink.does this technology give a fighter such an advantage,
particularly on day missions,to justify the huge costs and loss
of agility that stealth bring with it.RAF pilots on exercise in
Alaska reportedly were able to locate the F22 as soon as it
turned on its radar and take effective counter measures.What
these counter measure were, was not reported,however when
the F22 closed the RAF pilots were easily able to out maneaver
the US jets with their Typhoons and score kills.It was also noted
that some F22s were spotted before the radar was turned on
by contrails and that the F22 was force to slow down to open
its weapon bay doors.This was not an official report and was not
verified by the RAF or the USAF,still food for thought.
                                    Regards

  Where did you read this? If online, link? I've heard alot of heresay about the F-22 not being all it's made out to be, but never read anything official/concrete/verified by anybody. Regardless of whether it makes you entirely invisible or not, stealth seems to be quite the asset to have even if only for first strike missions.
 
CDN Aviator said:
Current US policy is that it will not export the F-22

I guess that part of your debate is closed for now.


Braveheart......

Read this first :


http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44917.0.html

The RAAF is talking about buying the F-22 over the F-35, and the US and USAF in particular are supporting the idea so far.
Time will tell, but I believe there are a lot of people in the US who would love sharing the cost burdens with another country.

Cheers.
 
Doesn't really matter for Canada if the Raptor is allowed to be exported. It's not like we need (afford) those things anyways, let alone the current fighters.
 
What are talking about Ninja? What are we supposed to defend our airspace with? Vipers?
 
Besides the odd bear intercept, or should I say picture opt, the fighters are nothing more than an expensive flying club, imo. There is no way they'll be sent to Afganistan in the current state that their in, not to mention that would cost a hell of a lot of money. The Hawks would go before the hornets.
 
Ninja... Remember those days when peope kept saying " t
The Armoured Corps is dead. There'll never be a day where heavy amour will be needed. Let's retire the Leos" Ooo I remember, guedd what happened next?
 
Well, then lets hope these fighters are soon used for what they are designed to....and I don't mean joy flights to visit girlfriends.
 
My two cents,

Canada needs the CF-18 and next-gen fighters for several reasons.

1. We have a large territory to cover - speed is essential.
2. Our enemies (and most Allies) want our natural resources (metals, oil, food, water, lumber) - we need defence mechanisms in place.
3. China, Japan, India and Iran are new players in the fighter jet business, all claiming to be developing their own 4th or 5th gen fighters.
4. We are claiming *some* of the Artic as our own - Russia doesn't like it and will continually contest this by sending in Subs, Bears and escort fighters with 4th & soon to be 5th Gen capabilities.
5. We need to exert our own sovereignty in the air, land, sea and now space (different story all together).

Those are some of the reasons.  The cost of not defending ourselves outweighs the cost of 100 or even 1000 new fighter jets.  The value of our untapped natural resources alone are in the mult-trillions of dollars.  We have 75% of the fresh water in the world, more than 20% of the oil, 15-18% of the wood, 7-10% of the world's crop yeild and loads of land.  It would be wise to allocate a good percentage to defence of these resources, land and people.  What if 10-15 years from now China or India decided they want our resources - our first line of physical defence and deterrence would be our fighter aircraft - they need to be state-of-the-art and a force to be reckoned with.

CPL Jay

 
Flimflammery update from AW&ST, April 14 (text subscriber only):
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2008/04/14/AW_04_14_2008_p39-43909.xml&query=%22the+pentagon+says+its+estimate%22

...Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR) are prepared annually in conjunction with the President’s budget and are formulated by mixing actual spending to date, estimated future costs and anticipated inflation.

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program is drawing attention because the triservice Joint Strike Fighter was reported with a cost decrease of $981 million, bringing its new total to $298.8 billion. Underlying the relatively small change, however, is a 15% increase in the systems development and demonstration (SDD) cost...

...Right now, the average, estimated cost of all models at the midpoint of the 2,443-aircraft program is at $69.3 million per unit in 2002 dollars, up from the initial estimate of $50.2 million [emphasis added]...

But Davis [program executive officer, Maj. Gen. C.R. Davis] contends that by itself, Israel’s purchase of 25 F-35s [emphasis added] in 2011-12 will reduce the cost of the F-35 to the U.S. services by $500 million.

Among undeclared purchasers of the F-35 is likely to be Japan [emphasis added]. A 30-person group has just visited Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility.

“We addressed both technical and financial aspects of the program,” says Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program general manager. “They expressed very positive comments about capabilities.”

“We’ve had [USAF] folks briefing the Japanese in-country, and the Japanese have clearly stated again that their requirement is for a fifth-generation airplane,” says Davis. “And everybody understands where the (unexportable)] F-22 is in that discussion.”..

On the positive side, the JSF team has taken actions to reduce procurement nonrecurring cost overall, and has been able to claw back some of the prior-year projected increases in recurring costs that were caused by labor rate changes, escalation and material costs. Such projections should reassure non-U.S. customers that the price they pay will be close to the numbers around which they have planned their budgets [emphasis added]...

...acquisition officials say the potential for flimflammery is greatest in estimates projected over decades where savings can be calculated with very little supporting evidence. The cost savings in the SAR involve projections to the end of production, about 2035, for the U.S. program of record, but the SDD increases will be effective until mid-2013...

Mark
Ottawa
 
LM looking really hard for foreign money (no mention of Canada):
http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/621516.html

Lockheed Martin officials are working out a plan to get key allies to place firm, early orders for hundreds of F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighters.

Much work remains to be done, but Lockheed hopes to submit a detailed proposal outlining cost, order and delivery schedules to government and military officials by early next year.

The plans calls for a consortium of the eight countries that have invested in development of the F-35 to commit to buy 368 fighter jets, with production beginning as soon as 2012-2013.

U.S. taxpayers and military services would be major beneficiaries of the consortium proposal. The sooner foreign countries place orders for F-35s and production begins to increase, the faster the cost of the aircraft should come down [emphasis added].

"The importance is stability," said Dan Crowley, the Lockheed executive vice president who oversees F-35 development and production in Fort Worth. "Stability of production, stability of cost."

Lockheed and the Pentagon have been working since mid-2007 to encourage the eight partner countries to place early orders.

Without foreign orders, the U.S. military would have to bear the brunt of the high early costs of buying tools, training workers and working out the kinks in the production lines.

Pentagon budget documents show that the Air Force anticipates ordering 42 F-35s in 2013 at an average price of about $91 million, the lowest cost of the three versions. Navy and Marine Corps planes would cost much more. Early foreign orders could bring those costs down significantly [emphasis added].

At the same time, Lockheed hopes the plan will help persuade the Pentagon to step up its planned F-35 purchases as the armed services seek to replace older, costly-to-maintain fighter jets now being heavily used in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other missions.

Tom Burbage, Lockheed's executive vice president who oversees the political and marketing aspects of the F-35, briefed officials of the partner countries at a conference last month. He will present the concept to senior government and military officials this month.

If they approve, Burbage said Lockheed and the other contractors will begin extensive discussions with suppliers to try and project cost and production schedules so that firm pricing commitments could be made to the partner countries.

"Nobody has bought into it yet," said Burbage, adding that Lockheed would have to invest a great deal of time and effort to pull together accurate cost data.

Unlike the U.S., which funds weapons-system purchases on a year-to-year basis, most of the F-35 partner countries will make multiyear buying decisions and appropriate the money upfront. Much like Boeing does with commercial airline buyers, Lockheed and the U.S. will have to commit to selling F-35s at firm, fixed prices for the life of a contract.

Burbage said that under such an arrangement, Lockheed and the other prime contractors, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman, will take on some financial risk, as will the U.S. and foreign governments.

Great Britain and the Netherlands are expected to buy three test airplanes between them, along with 16 for the U.S. government in the 2009 fiscal year.

So far, the U.S. and Lockheed have been able to keep the partner countries on the F-35 team despite the best efforts of European fighter-jet manufacturers.

"They've kept all eight partner nations in, they've kept them funding it, which is a major accomplishment," said Richard Aboulafia, aerospace-industry analyst with the Teal Group.

Burbage just returned from a 10-day trip to Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands to meet with government and military leaders. Norway and Denmark have not yet committed to buy the F-35 and are holding competitions, mainly with Sweden's Saab Gripen fighter.

Burbage submitted Lockheed's formal bid to Norwegian officials Monday. In his remarks, Burbage told Norwegian officials that the F-35 represents a "quantum leap" in combat capabilities at 20 percent lower operational cost than the F-16s and other aircraft they are now flying.

"We made a strong proposal," Burbage said. "We're competitive on price, and we're a much more capable airplane."

Norway is expected to decide which fighter to purchase by year's end, but Burbage said a formal decision to order planes is probably several years away.

Other countries are also considering how soon to commit to F-35 orders. Italy, Burbage said, might decide to buy its own test airplane in 2009. Australian government officials have hedged at times about their commitment and have announced plans to order 24 Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets.

But Burbage said all indications are that Australia will reaffirm its intent to purchase F-35s at some point.

Israel, meanwhile, has adopted military budget plans that call for buying 25 F-35s around 2012.

As Lockheed and the U.S. seek to firm up foreign support for the F-35, one selling point has been that partner countries, which won F-35 work by upgrading their technology and manufacturing capabilities, are beginning to win additional work from the commercial aircraft industry.

"All of the benefits [from other countries' investments] have gone into their local, high-tech industries," Burbage said, something political leaders are beginning to notice.

Mark
Ottawa
 
More info from the Aries Blog of Aviation Week.
and Bloomberg.


Bloomberg is reporting that Canada has trimmed its requirement for new fighters to 65 aircraft from 80 - presumed to be F-35s because of the country's involvement in the JSF development program. The new number, still unconfirmed, is attributed to defense minister Peter Mackay, speaking at a press conference in Halifax on May 12 after Prime Minister Stephen Harper had unveiled the government's new Canada First defense strategy.

Harper's announcement contained little in the way of new detail about the strategy, which is built around a long-term funding plan calling for an automatic annual increase in defence spending from the current 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent, beginning in 2011-12. This is expected to provide the Canadian Forces with an additional C$12 billion over the next 20 years, on top of the extra C$5.3 billion over five years provided by the Conservatives since they took power in 2006.

The money will go on readiness, recruitment and re-equipment - most of the major acquisitions having already been announced, including four C-17 strategic airlifters, 17 C-130J tactical transports, and 16 CH-47 heavylift helicopters, plus new tanks, trucks and ships. Under Canada First, according to the Harper announcement, Ottawa will proceed with the replacement of "surface combat ships, maritime patrol craft, fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, fighter aircraft, and land combat vehicles and systems".

This suggests long-overdue successors to the CC-115 Buffalo SAR and CP-140 Aurora MPA fleets will finally be funded. But the number of "CF-35s", if confirmed, will represent a substantial contraction of Canada's fighter force, now comprising just under 100 1980s-vintage CF-18s.

 
Spencer100 said:
Bloomberg is reporting that Canada has trimmed its requirement for new fighters to 65 aircraft from 80 - presumed to be F-35s because of the country's involvement in the JSF development program. The new number, still unconfirmed, is attributed to defense minister Peter Mackay, speaking at a press conference in Halifax on May 12 after Prime Minister Stephen Harper had unveiled the government's new Canada First defense strategy.
Also stated by Reuters in this post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/76329/post-712271.html#msg712271
OTTAWA, May 12 (Reuters) - The Canadian government said on Monday it would buy 65 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a figure lower than the 80 planes that had widely circulated in the media.

"One of the reasons there will be fewer of the new fighters is we anticipate the new fighters will have significantly greater capacity than existing fighters," Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a news conference.

He was speaking in Nova Scotia as he unveiled what he called the Canada First Defence Strategy, involving C$30 billion ($30 billion) in projected new military spending for the next 20 years.

The F-35s will replace Canada's CF-18s, which are scheduled to reach the end of their working lives in 2017-20. Canada bought 138 of them in the 1980s and now has 98, 80 of which are being refurbished.

Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) will make the F-35s. The Joint Strike Fighter program is being funded by the United States, Canada and seven other countries.
 
I'm still trying trying to wrap my head around the reduced numbers of new fighters.  I'm still trying to figure out what is so great about the F-35 vs CF-18 other than avionics and better stealth.  The F-35 is single engine with same performance as CF-18, is it not?  So if an engine conks out over the Artic then that's it?!  So we have to defend the 2nd largest country in the world with less aircraft in an increasingly inhospitable world with a dire thirst for our water, oil, lumber, land and minerals?

We truly do have geniuses working in Parliament!

J
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top