F-35 Fighters Are Grounded

[nrshida]

It's still essentially three separate models. Imagine the manufacturing logistics and parts numbers involved. The design brief could have been solved with one aircraft, had they employed a more holistic design approach. That is my main point.

I'm only discussing design here, I am well aware of the business aspect which I must note often encourages complication.

[nrshida]

Missed that one: All modern fighters have self-sealing fuel tanks and fire suppression systems. The F-16, for example, has quadruple flight control redundancy. The only weakness I can see is the single engine.

Np, it's an interesting discussion. Right up to where the nationalists arrive and start attacking me for being critical 

[GScholz]

Well, they're not up yet. You still have a couple of hours...

[nrshida]

I might have a bash and see if I can design a better solution. I think I'll start with a one-size-fits-all propulsion system.

[GScholz]

Antigrav?

[nrshida]

No I'll use feasible technology. I'll even bear cost in mind. That's not usually my theme 

[GScholz]

Good luck! 

[GScholz]

This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbjiSKfDURY

Will be replaced by this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oyCzT6sB_4

Definite improvement... 

[mthrockmor]

The F-22 and the F-35 represent the follies of American hubris. It is not that the technology is 'A Bridge Too Far' but the cost. All costs figured these planes cost over $500 million and $400 million a piece, respectively. No nation can survive those costs!

We need to scrap both, accept the loss but no more loses. We then need to restart the F-15 and F-16 lines. Stealth is great. Having a plane that can actually fly in combat as opposed to being grounded is even greater.

[GScholz]

Over the life-cycle time of 50 years operating a fleet of F-16 is not going to be noticeable cheaper than operating F-35s. Initial acquisition costs is only a minute part of the overall cost of operating modern combat aircraft.

My country, a small country with just five million people, are buying 50+ F-35s. Our current similarly sized fleet of F-16s needs replacing. No matter what we do our F-16s will be ending their service life in the next 15 years. The F-16s will be phased out, gradually being replaced by F-35s. If the acquisition cost of the F-35 increases, it will simply just extend the replacement timespan.

If a tiny country like Norway can buy 50 of these jets within our tiny military budget... What's the problem for the mighty USAF/USN?

[GScholz]

Also, the flyaway costs for the F-35 are high... However, not so high as many believe. When the F-16 was new it had a “unit recurring flyaway” cost of only $8 million. However the USD isn't what it used to be (no currency is). A top of the line Block 60 F-16E/F will cost you about $100 million today. The unit recurring flyaway cost for the air force variant of F-35 (the one we're buying) fell below $150 million in the third low-rate production lot and will fall below $100 million in the fifth lot currently being negotiated.  By the time its gets to the tenth production lot, the recurring flyaway cost of the most common variant will be approaching what second-hand F-16 and F-18 fighters sell for today.

[rpm]

Remember when the Navy bought that overmodeled, oversized, overpriced, experimental "do all" swing wing contraption? Remember all those crashes after it was introduced?
What a disaster that turned out to be.

[GScholz]

A single training flight in a modern fighter can easily cost upwards of $20,000. Half of that being just the fuel. After about 50 flights in a F-35 you'd have spent more money on fuel and maintenance than on buying the aircraft. The USAF flies hundreds of sorties every day...

[danny76]

Missed that one: All modern fighters have self-sealing fuel tanks and fire suppression systems. The F-16, for example, has quadruple flight control redundancy. The only weakness I can see is the single engine.

Again, Harrier only has a single engine and it perfoms exceptionally well

[nrshida]

This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbjiSKfDURY

Will be replaced by this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oyCzT6sB_4

Definite improvement... 

It can't replace the A-10 because it has no big gun, carries a pathetic ordinance load, has very limited loiter time and can't take any damage at all. Stand off point and click cannot support troops like a big fat flying tank who can put eyes and ordinance on the target or even a big burst of 30-mm angry bees.

They should refit the A-10s, roll back the airframes or even manufacture new ones employing composites and the latest avionics.