F-35 Fighters Are Grounded

[nrshida]

Naw... I don't think so. What you're describing is a conspiracy theory. The decision to buy the F-35 was not done by the government alone, but by parliament. The ruling labor party has around 30% of the seats in parliament. This was a decision made by all the political parties. Also I kinda find it offensive that you accuse our pilots of lying when they say the F-35 is great.

To be fair the whole programme is hallmarked by 'kickbacks' and shady dealings. It isn't anything new in aircraft procurement, this is big business.

It's nothing personal GScholz but you do seem to me to be rather predisposed towards worshipping a product without being very critical or questioning the motivations of those who benefit from it. I'm not saying your fighter plane chums are on the payroll (or even you, you might be, in which case for a small fee I will promote it also  ), they may genuinely think it's a good flying aircraft but this issue extends far beyond the boundaries of Norway.


The American system, as I understood it is based on competition to motivate and bring out the best solution. There has been none of that here the selection looks pre-determined to even a passive observer and I think Joe public (in many countries this programme has affected) is fed up with having their intelligence insulted.

<Shrug>

[GScholz]

Well... Boeing (you know, the biggest military aviation contractor in the U.S.) did compete for the contract, and lost to the underdog Lockheed Martin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32


I do like the F-35 from a capability perspective, but my opinions are more based on good old hindsight. I've seen it all before. The F-35 will be the next F-16 success story; it's a classic case of "too big to fail".

[nrshida]

Well... Boeing (you know, the biggest military aviation contractor in the U.S.) did compete for the contract, and lost to the underdog Lockheed Martin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32


I do like the F-35 from a capability perspective, but my opinions are more based on good old hindsight. I've seen it all before. The F-35 will be the next F-16 success story; it's a classic case of "too big to fail".

The Boeing design was rushed and incomplete. LM could spring off the F-22 platform. One and a half competition entries.

It may never come to this as I don't see a massive motivation or capability in those places which are motivated, but arms races are always a moving target. It is useless to compare these products to their predecessors, if this isn't substantially better than the F-16 then someone needs to be shot, given the natural progress of technology and fabrication technique. It's more what they'll come up against before the next iteration can be evolved, and given the cost and resources and bad feeling generated, this is going to be a very very long time for the USA.

Well, it's an interesting discussion and event. People can and indeed should form their own informed decisions. Try to be critical always of what you are told. 'The truth is out there', blah, blah, blah...

 

[Bodhi]

The F-35 is a colossal waste of money.  As nrshida pointed out, it is obvious that the program is still alive because of "kickbacks and shady dealings" and that's part of what bothers me.  What bothers me most is that the F-35 was billed as an alternative "all around capability" fighter alternative for the F-22.  Additionally, it was originally billed to have cost much less.  That is no longer the case.  It is now be forecast that it might actually cost more per plane that the F-22.

That is irresponsible.

The F-22 flies very well and aside from an O2 system flaw, seems to be performing quite at expectations.  The F-22 also comes with R&D to build the F-22B.  Why are we wasting trillions on an unproven and immature technology when existing technology already exists that would allow an existing airframe albeit modified to do what we need?

[Bodhi]

I do like the F-35 from a capability perspective, but my opinions are more based on good old hindsight. I've seen it all before. The F-35 will be the next F-16 success story; it's a classic case of "too big to fail".

You are basing that on the ability of the US being able to continue bankrolling this colossal failure.  I suspect if it stays alive, it will never see the numbers produced as expected 2700+ and that it will end up costing almost 1.5X the cost of the F-22 per unit.

[GScholz]

The fifth lot of F-35s that was finalized a week ago sold for $107 million per aircraft. 4% less than the previous lot. By the end of the year I expect the fly away price to drop below $100 million. The F-22 ended production with a flyaway price of $180-215 million (according to defenseindustrydaily.com), or in other words about 80-115% more than the F-35.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/15/us-lockheed-f-idUSBRE8BE01G20121215

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/


Where do you get your numbers from?

[DREDIOCK]

While there will always be some small need for manned aircraft. Manned combat aircraft is going to be at some point in the not too distant future a thing of the past.
You want to see the future of armed aerial combat? You play it right here
Drones are the future of air war. By removing the human element from the aircraft. Aircraft itself can be designed to be able to do things that would be impossible with a human physically in the cockpit.

It will be done at a much reduced cost in both airframe and crew training. Not to mention lessening the risk of aircrews.
If we accept Iran's most recent claims of shot down drones as fact for example. In the past those would also have been two lost or captured crews and their training as well.

[GScholz]

JAS Gripen NG flyaway price: $60 million.

F-16 Block 60 flyaway price: $80-100 million.

F/A-18E/F flyaway price: $66 milion.

Eurofighter Typhoon flyaway price: $105 million.

Dassault Rafale flyaway price: $90-124 million.


How can a unit flyaway price of $107 million be considered excessive for an F-35 this early in the production? By lot 10 it will most likely be cheaper than a new F-16.

[GScholz]

Dred, it will still take a few decades before drones (or more appropriately called "droids") will supplant the manned fighter-bomber.

[GScholz]

Also, it is not that these aircraft are so much more expensive than their predecessors; most of the price difference is because $1 in 2012 had the same buying power as $0.56 in 1990...

[DREDIOCK]

Dred, it will still take a few decades before drones (or more appropriately called "droids") will supplant the manned fighter-bomber.

They can do it now. In a lot of ways they already are

[Babalonian]

It's an engine issue, Lockheed subcontracted that sh!@ out, not to one but two subcontractors because thay thought ti was the best idea, legislation nipped General Electric's promising development in the bud, and the current engine in question is being fine-tooth-combed by Pratt & Whitney.

[bozon]

Since the fall of the Soviet Block in 1991 Norway has used its F-16s in military operations against three nations. So on average once or twice per decade we need to bomb someone.

Our F-16s are 30 years old now and have been constantly updated over the years. They are still fully capable of serving our military needs, and had they not been nearing their end-of-life number of flight hours we would not be buying new aircraft to replace them. The F-16 is in fact still in production more than 30 years after it first entered service with the USAF, and it is still a superb multirole fighter-bomber. I have no doubt the F-35 will still be a formidable weapon in fifty-years time.

The nations Norway bombed could have been bombed by P-47s. OK I am exaggerating, but they were so badly outclassed that an even more superior technology is not required.

The F16 served 30 years because there was no need for a technological generation leap. The west has run out of quality enemies, until the Chinese start to get even more ambitious that is. Or perhaps Mr. Putin decides to grow a big mustache and add "Stalin" to his last name. I do not say that F-16 should serve another 30 years, but that the F-35 is way WAY more than what is needed. This is called an over-spec and is a know recipe for a failure. Engineers know that the worst enemy of "good" is "best".

[Bodhi]

The fifth lot of F-35s that was finalized a week ago sold for $107 million per aircraft. 4% less than the previous lot. By the end of the year I expect the fly away price to drop below $100 million. The F-22 ended production with a flyaway price of $180-215 million (according to defenseindustrydaily.com), or in other words about 80-115% more than the F-35.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/15/us-lockheed-f-idUSBRE8BE01G20121215

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/


Where do you get your numbers from?

I have seen many different production prices for the Raptor.  Adjusted, supposed actual, production without avionics.... it goes on ad finitum.  Your top article quoted the price at:

The current cost for a single copy of an F-22 stands at about $137 million. And that number has dropped by 23 percent since Lot 3 procurement, General Lewis said. “The cost of the airplane is going down,” he said. “And the next 100 aircraft, if I am allowed to buy another 100 aircraft… the average fly-away cost would be $116 million per airplane.

As for the F-35 fly off at $107 million, that can not reflect the final cost because the majority of the systems are not even finished.  The software to run it, the helmet mounted HUD, cv landing with a hook, there are wing buffet issues, now there are engine crack issues.  Look, I have no hate towards the F-35, I just think that we are collectively spending far too much to know if it is actually going to deliver on what they say it can do.  Obviously I am not in procurement, but I have serious doubts that it will ever perform as advertised, and I am not alone.  Further, the trillions of dollar price tag is going to double, especially considering the service life is halved at it's current status.

If it was working and meeting expectations, I would not be so hard on the program.  It is not, and we (the US) have serious fiscal issues to address, and this type of spending is one of them.

[beau32]

Here is what I see, from a Maintainer point of view (Crew Chief of AF-03)

Alot of what I read on here is crazy. Some of the things people come up with. The F-35 is following along with every other plane that has been developed. They all have been over priced and over budget. Its going to happen. Deal with it. We are constantly working to make these planes better and better. Right now we are down for a 3rd stage cracked blade out of AF-02. Who knows how it happened. Could be a bad blade or could be just one of those freak things that happen. Cracked blades in jet engines occur a little more than what people think (talking about all jet powered aircraft in general). Its a safty precaution to ground the fleet till this gets sorted out and the problem fixed. Better to get it taken care of then to possibly lose a jet and/or a life of a pilot. So just because you hear that the fleet is grounded, dont take it as a bad thing. 

Most people tend to hate on things they dont really understand cause they read a few negative things online or in a paper or magazine. Dont believe everything you read. Our program is making great strides, and out of the 50,000 or so test points we have over 20,000 accomplished. We still have a long way to go, but we are making it happen.

I cant really go into much detail, but have the things in here are not true that people say. Just call it a little insider info........