F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[ArmyAviator]

This in from the Washington Post.   Noticed the revised cost estimate in $US.   IMHO when the government and the CF start looking at a replacement for the CF-18 we will be looking at the newer marks of the Eurofighter, Rafale, etc from Europe.   You can talk all you want about how much better the JSF is, or will be, but getting the best you can within your budget will be the order of the day.

Washington Post
March 16, 2005
Pg. 6
GAO Questions Cost Of Joint Strike Fighter
By Renae Merle, Washington Post Staff Writer
Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is at a crossroads, the Government Accountability Office said yesterday, calling the original plan for the project "unexecutable."
The fighter was designed to be a low-cost replacement to the Air Force's F-16, with different versions being developed for the Navy, Marine Corps and British forces. But it is now expected to cost $244.8 billion to produce a planned 2,400 planes. Development will cost $44.8 billion, including a $10 billion increase identified last year, the report said.
Nearly half the increase, $4.9 billion, is needed to lower the aircraft's weight because being heavier hurt "the aircraft's key performance capabilities," the report said. The Pentagon said more money was also needed to add anti-tampering technology to keep sensitive technology safe.
Spending on the program will eventually increase to $1 billion a month from $100 million a month as the Defense Department invests in tools, facilities and workers, according to the report. The final design of the fighter should be set before the Pentagon makes those investments so that costly changes will not have to be made later, a GAO official said.
"While delays are never welcomed, time taken by DOD now to gain more knowledge and reduce risk before increasing its investment may well save time and money later," the report said. "Now is the time to get the strategy right." It also said the strike fighter will have to compete with other expensive programs for "scarce funding."
The Pentagon's Joint Strike Fighter office said it has already addressed the concerns raised in the report, the first of five annual reviews of the program ordered by Congress. The latest plan for the program, which includes delaying the first aircraft delivery one year until 2009, "reflects an acquisition strategy with the most appropriate balance of technical, cost, and schedule risks to meet program objectives," the office said in a written statement.
"Much progress has been made since last year. The F-35 has resolved its weight problem," said Lockheed spokesman Jeff Adams.

 

[Cloud Cover]

LOL ...can you imagine spending $1 billion each and every month to acquire a single aircraft type?  That, my friends, is not "sitting on the runway" "small town cheap."

 

[air533]

.

 

[jmacleod]

The contribution by Canada in the Lockheed-Martin F35 JSF is over $300m. There are no industrial
regional benefits associated with the aircraft but IC reports $400m in direct participation contracts
to Canadian firms. American Aerospace Assn reports this week that the estimated $10 billion overrun
on the F35 project are unacceptable to the US Government, and the aircraft is not working out as
well as anticipated -same problem with the F22. The Eurofighter is an alternative, and a good one.
The CF-18 with upgrades is scheduled to be in operational use for another decade or more, but a
lot will depend on the life expectancy of the airframe. AF Techs who read this will know what I
mean, since CF do not want to speculate. The choice of the F-18A Hornet had nothing to do with
multi engines - the first choice by DND CF (Gen Paul Manson &  Company) was the GD F-16 - regional
benefits and technology transfer (equalizing job creation) made the difference, plus the politics of
the period. Regards, MacLeod

 

[JBP]

The Eurofighter might also be cheaper because it uses some "off-the-shelf" components like the F-16's front fuselage/cockpit section fitted with forward wing canards and same fly-by-wire systems. So maybe it having 2 engines making it more expensive will equal out because the off the shelf aspect?

I thought the F-22 was a fantastic aircraft no??? I thought the only reason they had not purchased so many/cut the amount they purchased is because individual unit cost and also the overrun of the budget in general?

Here's the link to Boeing's website for features on the F-22A:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/f22features.html

Joe

 

[air533]

.

 

[JBP]

I thought the primary reason for two-engine interceptors was for reliability and safety over the high arctic.
I think the JSF would be a better chioce for missions over the north, so would the F-22, but at 100m (US) per, I don't think we're going to get any of those babies.

air533

Two engines is also great for survivability/taking a hit. That is why the F-14 was originally designed with engines placed so far apart, so that if it took a missle it could hopefull still operate on 1 engine and make it back to the carrier.

I would agree 2 engines would be best, but we certainly don't get what we want! Look at what happened between the two helicopters, what did we end up with? The one with 2 engines, not 3...

Joe

 

[MrWhyt]

The Eurofighter might also be cheaper because it uses some "off-the-shelf" components like the F-16's front fuselage/cockpit section fitted with forward wing canards

The Eurofighter does not use the F-16's front fuselage, it is a clean sheet design. At the offical site: www.erofighter.com you can read about the development history. Using the search function on the site "f-16" showed up only twice, both times as aircraft that the Eurofighter is in competition to replace.

 

[Kirkhill]

Another advantage of the STOVL JSF - Forward Air Control and Ground Support

Harriers in Iraq have been used like jet propelled Helicopters, hovering over cities and directing artillery strikes.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050319-harrier-iraq.htm

Finally answering the question about Fast Movers like the F16 FAC the USAF, prefers or slow movers like the A-10 and the Helicopters the Army prefers.

 

[Inch]

I would agree 2 engines would be best, but we certainly don't get what we want! Look at what happened between the two helicopters, what did we end up with? The one with 2 engines, not 3...

I can't speak for every helo pilot, but given the complexity of a helicopter, adding an even more complex gearbox to the mix is not what I wanted and I know a lot of other helo pilots feel the same way.  There is a reason that the EH101 is one of a handful of 3 engined helos, the CH53E being the other one that comes to mind. Sikorsky has stated that they only put the third engine in the CH53E so that it had enough power, other wise they wouldn't have done it since the gear box for 3 engines is an engineering nightmare and IMO, an accident waiting to happen.

 

[JBP]

The Eurofighter might also be cheaper because it uses some "off-the-shelf" components like the F-16's front fuselage/cockpit section fitted with forward wing canards

The Eurofighter does not use the F-16's front fuselage, it is a clean sheet design. At the offical site: www.erofighter.com you can read about the development history. Using the search function on the site "f-16" showed up only twice, both times as aircraft that the Eurofighter is in competition to replace.

My bad for not providing confirmation of where I attained my info, the Discovery Channel. Can't claim to how accurate that info was/is but that's what the narrator said!

I can't speak for every helo pilot, but given the complexity of a helicopter, adding an even more complex gearbox to the mix is not what I wanted and I know a lot of other helo pilots feel the same way.  There is a reason that the EH101 is one of a handful of 3 engined helos, the CH53E being the other one that comes to mind. Sikorsky has stated that they only put the third engine in the CH53E so that it had enough power, other wise they wouldn't have done it since the gear box for 3 engines is an engineering nightmare and IMO, an accident waiting to happen.

Naturally, I hadn't considered those factors since I have no experience in those areas (mechanics or piloting of any aircraft!). I suppose the third engine would only be good/wanted if we were to be using the EH101 as a heavy lift helo. Which, I don't think we are trying to do right???

 

[Kilo_302]

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

Here's a link to a series of articles debating the JSF and RAAF's replacement for its F/A-18s. The authors make some good points which could apply to Canada's situation. While Canada does not have the same level of strategic interest Asia as Australia does, we do have a large geographical area to cover, and as China and India emerge as superpowers, the Canadian Forces will have to shift its focus from Europe and the Middle East. I was also not previously aware of the multi-role nature of the Raptor (hence the "A" designation), nor actual cost of the JSF versus the Raptor(one of the articles quotes a figure of 70 Raptors for the price of 100 JSFs). Canada, if the US allows the F/A-22A to be exported, should definitely consider it as a replacement for the CF-18, rather than the inferior JSF. What do you guys think?

 

[Armymatters]

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

Here's a link to a series of articles debating the JSF and RAAF's replacement for its F/A-18s. The authors make some good points which could apply to Canada's situation. While Canada does not have the same level of strategic interest Asia as Australia does, we do have a large geographical area to cover, and as China and India emerge as superpowers, the Canadian Forces will have to shift its focus from Europe and the Middle East. I was also not previously aware of the multi-role nature of the Raptor (hence the "A" designation), nor actual cost of the JSF versus the Raptor(one of the articles quotes a figure of 70 Raptors for the price of 100 JSFs). Canada, if the US allows the F/A-22A to be exported, should definitely consider it as a replacement for the CF-18, rather than the inferior JSF. What do you guys think?

The F-22 Raptors are EXPENSIVE jets. How much? Here's a link:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm
And the US Air Force just dropped the A designation of the F-22, so it is now F-22A... in reality, the F-22 is a crap multi-role fighter, as it can only fit pair 1000lb JDAM's, and you sacrifice all but 2 AAMRAM's and a pair of Sidewinders.

A more suitable fighter would be the US Navy's F/A-18E Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Dassault Rafale. All are more multi-role fighters than a pure air superiority fighter, which is what the CF uses our CF-18's as more often.

 

[Guest]

There is so much wrong with that whole webpage.. I don't even know where to begin.  :

Too much information compiled by those with "book smarts".. as oppsed to "real world experience smarts"

Another fine example of reading Jane's, compiling un-related reports out of context, with a nice smattering of "Educated Guessing"

Explain to me, Armymatters.

How the F/A-18E Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Dassault Rafale will make a better choice than the JSF in 2010.

These are all fine aircraft, but they are using "Todays Tech" while the JSF is a true 5th gen aircraft.

By the time we get ready to buy aircraft in 2010-2012, I want my Tax money going to the most current, not tech 16 years old.

 

[Armymatters]

There is so much wrong with that whole webpage.. I don't even know where to begin.  :

Too much information compiled by those with "book smarts".. as oppsed to "real world experience smarts"

Another fine example of reading Jane's, compiling un-related reports out of context, with a nice smattering of "Educated Guessing"

Explain to me, Armymatters.

How the F/A-18E Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Dassault Rafale will make a better choice than the JSF in 2010.

These are all fine aircraft, but they are using "Todays Tech" while the JSF is a true 5th gen aircraft.

By the time we get ready to buy aircraft in 2010-2012, I want my Tax money going to the most current, not tech 16 years old.

Problems with JSF:
1. Range. The aircraft will have insufficient range compared to the types it is replacing. This will require either external fuel tanks (destroying the stealth capabilities of the aircraft) or increase air-to-air refueling. The aircraft also lacks the ability to supercruise, compared to the other types I have mentioned
2. Price. Costs per unit are starting to rise, meaning cost effectiveness per unit has decreased compared to other types.
3. Weight issues. The F-35 is already 8% overweight (in the F-35B variant), and weight cutting programs are cutting into capability of the aircraft. Also, the internal weapons are stored offline to the external air flow, which will make for some interesting weapons certification work. The JSF has yet to drop a bomb, fire a missile, or fire a gun airborne - no demonstrations of weapons delivery capability were done during the 'winner take all' fly off prior to contract award.
4. Weapons loadout. Due to the fact that the F-35 carries its weapons internally, there are restrictions as to what can be carried by the airplane. The F-35 carries less than the F-16 it is due to replace, which makes for a very demanding one shot one kill requirement.

JSF may be the most current aircraft available, but it surely isn't going to be the most capable for the tasks it is being given.

 

[Astrodog]

The aircraft also lacks the ability to supercruise, compared to the other types I have mentioned

  don't think the superbug can supercruise

 

[Armymatters]

  don't think the superbug can supercruise

Of course. However, the other two have that capability. The gist of the point I was making that the JSF is not as capable as the airplanes it is replacing, and there are aircraft that may be superior already on the market is clear enough.

 

[STONEY]

1. None of the aircraft you mentioned can supercruise. The F-22 is the only a/c with this capeability.
2. The JSF has in fact more range on internal fuel than the a/c it is replacing.
3. The JSF is still cheaper than Eurofighter or Rafale.
4. All Fighters have problems with becoming overweight that's why they keep putting uprated engines in them.
5. Of course it carrys less bombload internally , it was designed that way. If you hang bombs all over the wings it slows you down, shortens your range and makes you more visible to people trying to kill you. If you want more bombs buy a B-52.
6. All a/c that haven't flown yet, also havent dropped any bombs, fired a missle or a gun. Whats your point , that Lockheed isn't smart enough to think of these things when designing JSF, give me a break. The reason they do a flight test program is so they can fix bugs and modify the a/c before Production.

 

[Armymatters]

1. None of the aircraft you mentioned can supercruise. The F-22 is the only a/c with this capeability.
2. The JSF has in fact more range on internal fuel than the a/c it is replacing.
3. The JSF is still cheaper than Eurofighter or Rafale.
4. All Fighters have problems with becoming overweight that's why they keep putting uprated engines in them.
5. Of course it carrys less bombload internally , it was designed that way. If you hang bombs all over the wings it slows you down, shortens your range and makes you more visible to people trying to kill you. If you want more bombs buy a B-52.
6. All a/c that haven't flown yet, also havent dropped any bombs, fired a missle or a gun. Whats your point , that Lockheed isn't smart enough to think of these things when designing JSF, give me a break. The reason they do a flight test program is so they can fix bugs and modify the a/c before Production.

1. Eurofighter Typhoon can supercruise:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/

The four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon is a foreplane delta-wing, beyond-visual-range, close air fighter aircraft with surface attack capability. Eurofighter has 'supercruise' capability: it can fly at sustained speeds of over Mach 1 without the use of afterburner.

Dassault Rafale also has supercruise, albiet with a engine upgrade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
2. F-35 has a estimated range of over 600 nautical miles, or 1111.2km, in a air combat loadout:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jsf-specs.htm
Rafale has a range of 1150 miles, or 1850km in a air combat loadout:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale
Eurofighter Typhoon has the following range listed:
ground attack, lo-lo-lo : 601 km
ground attack, hi-lo-hi : 1389 km
air defence with 3hr CAP : 185 km
air defence with 10-min loiter : 1389 km
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter-specs.htm
With the other fighters, I am getting strange ranges comparisons that make comparing them side to side difficult, so I will leave it at that.
3. Eurofighter's fly away cost is around €62.9 million Euros each or 76 million dollars US. That includes training for pilots and ground crew, logistics, maintenance, and a simulator
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0309/FR0309d.htm
Rafale's fly away cost is around €53 million Euros each or 64 million dollars US.
F-35A's fly away cost is around 45 million dollars US (as reported Asia Pacific Defence Reporter, September 2005). However, costs are rising significantly, as reported by the DoD in 2003, and the program has fallen behind schedule. Cuts to the estimated number of jets bought are also driving up per unit costs, and there is a very strong threat of cancellation of the A variant, while leaves the B STOL variant ($60 million dollars US) and the C variant ($55 million dollars US).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jsf-specs.htm
The Brits are also starting to voice significant displeasure over the capabilities of the jet and technology transfer, which may lead them to pull out as well.
Right now, claiming JSF is cheaper right now is a bit premature. Wait until the full costs have been tabulated, and the airplane is actually in production in 2010, and then see what happens, because right now, there is a threat that the A variant might be cancelled, and the Brits may seriously pull out, leaving everyone else in the program to foot the bill.
4. I will have to agree with you there, so no further comments.
5. That is why it is called tactical bombing. You don't use a B-52 for tactical bombing.
6. Compared to the other fighter programs, the fact that there has been no weapons tests during selection of who won is highly notable.

 

[Slim]

Armymatters

other than a book what are basing your conclusions on?

You are speaking with people who have first hand knowledge of the subject being discussed.

You do not and, to my knowledge, have never served a day.

back in your lane!

Staff