Dogfight : F35 vs F16

[GScholz]

A more realistic unit price for a F/A-18E is $90 million. After the F-35 is in full production the unit price for the aircraft is expected to fall to about $85 million. Add the engine, by then also in full production and we're looking at a $95 million jet, which is more like $80-85 million in current value if we include inflation by then.

"According to the 2011 Selected Acquisition Report, the F/A-18E/F’s per-​unit reoccurring flyaway cost (basically the aircraft with no ancillary equipment or spares), comes to $82.88 USD (FY2012) (see footnote 2). This does not include the foreign military sales and research and development fees levied on a program of this type. Adding these costs should bring its per unit cost to around $90 million."

https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/replacing-the-cf18-part-i-the-f-a-18e-super-hornet

[Zimme83]

It's the target flyaway cost yes, but they still have a long way to go Before they are there.

[GScholz]

Of course. That's true of any product early in its production run.

[Gman]

A friend of mine who is a high hour Hornet pilot and CO of the RCAF test establishment told me that the SuperHornets the new Canadian gov is looking at buying as an interim solution, from 24 to 36 of them, are slated to cost nearly 90$mil USD, just for the flyaway aircraft, not counting any stores, future maintaining, etc, just the fighters complete.  Doesn't seem much cheaper than the F35A at this point, comes down to maintenance cost and other future costs maybe, since commonality is a BS excuse, as our legacy Hornets are about 80% or higher dissimilar when it comes to parts than the SuperHornet, although they are similar to train our pilots on, so training costs wouldn't change or go up much.  I like the SH for Canada until the F35 matures, if it turns out to be fantastic in 5 years, we can buy some then, for now our Legacy Hornets are timed right out, done, and a few squads of SuperHornets beasts nothing, it's what Australia did. 

And, if by some miracle they restart the F22 line, Japan has recently said it would move heaven and earth to get some, and Canada would be better served by that aircraft than the F35 due to 2 motors, longer range (it's big up here, and sparse so far as runways go).

[Zimme83]

F-35 can reach a reasonable cost per plane due to the high number ordered but the overall development cost is still astronomical. Building 3000 Rafale or EF:s and they would cost a lot less, same for the Hornet.

[GScholz]

The Super Hornet's development costs have been recouped long ago. What's left is production cost and profit margin.

[Squire]

In any case all your points were referring to the F-35 (any model) vs the Harrier only. I do not see any data that makes the A, B or C model of the F-35 escape the drawbacks to its overall design. It is (the three versions) replacing the F-16, F-18, Harrier, A-10 and Tornado. So talking up its points vs the Harrier only is cherry picking in the extreme.

The drawbacks I listed applies to all three versions but I will list another:

9) An STOVL ability in the F-35B that is of limited use (lets be frank....no use whatsoever) but significantly effects the design of the non-STOVL sub types for the NAVY and AIR FORCE (S). 

[GScholz]

What "drawbacks to its overall design" ? And in what way does the "STOVL ability in the F-35B ... significantly effects the design of the non-STOVL sub types for the NAVY and AIR FORCE (S)" ?

[Zimme83]

In any case all your points were referring to the F-35 (any model) vs the Harrier only. I do not see any data that makes the A, B or C model of the F-35 escape the drawbacks to its overall design. It is (the three versions) replacing the F-16, F-18, Harrier, A-10 and Tornado. So talking up its points vs the Harrier only is cherry picking in the extreme.

The drawbacks I listed applies to all three versions but I will list another:

9) An STOVL ability in the F-35B that is of limited use (lets be frank....no use whatsoever) but significantly effects the design of the non-STOVL sub types for the NAVY and AIR FORCE (S).

Agree its a ton of Money spend and it gives nothing in return, its just so that the Marines can feel important. Scrapping the B would have save a lot of time and Money. They could even have used just one version, the Air force could use the same plane as the navy, but without the hook.

[GScholz]

Well, the Marines are paying for it through their budget. So is the U.K. The additional development costs are not added to the A-model which will be the most produced variant. The three different models have three different price tags, each representing their unique development costs.

[Tilt]

Agree its a ton of Money spend and it gives nothing in return, its just so that the Marines can feel important. Scrapping the B would have save a lot of time and Money. They could even have used just one version, the Air force could use the same plane as the navy, but without the hook.

Scrapping the B would end up with who ever decided to do so paying for a pair of Queen Elisabeth class air craft carriers or at least converting them to CATOBAR or EMALs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier

[Zimme83]

Thats the drawback of designing a carrier to fit a plane instead of the opposite.
But the 'B' should of course have been scrapped already back at the drawing board, now its way too late. the money have already been spent.

[GScholz]

Nonsense. The F-35B is an awesome combat capability for smaller carrier navies operating ski-jump STOVL carriers. Italy, Spain, India, Brazil and Thailand operate small carriers perfect for the F-35B. Turkey has its first carrier under construction as well and it will enter service in 2021.

[Vraciu]

Nonsense. The F-35B is an awesome combat capability for smaller carrier navies operating ski-jump STOVL carriers. Italy, Spain, India, Brazil and Thailand operate small carriers perfect for the F-35B. Turkey has its first carrier under construction as well and it will enter service in 2021.

Quote:

Internal weapons carriage for the F-35B was scaled back to a pair of 1,000lb stores plus two AMRAAMs, compared to the two 2,000lb weapons that can be carried internally by both the F-35A and C.

End Quote.

http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/06/29/f-35bs-en-route-to-the-uk/

Nevermind that the non-lift fan versions were only slightly better.

The B completely ruins the other two airplanes for the sake of a meager 20% commonality.

[Vraciu]

What "drawbacks to its overall design" ? And in what way does the "STOVL ability in the F-35B ... significantly effects the design of the non-STOVL sub types for the NAVY and AIR FORCE (S)" ?

It is blocky and draggy.   The lift fan of the B takes up space for weapons and increases frontal area, something the A and C could live without but are stuck with for the sake of a mere 20% commonality.

https://warisboring.com/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5#.h7g1yadpb

Quote:

To keep down costs all three JSF variants — the Air Force’s basic F-35A, the Marines’ vertical-takeoff F-35B and the Navy F-35C with a bigger wing for at-sea carrier landings — share essentially the same fuselage. And to fit both the F-35B’s lift fan and the bomb bays present in all three models, the “cross-sectional area” of the fuselage has to be “quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we’re replacing,” conceded Lockheed exec Tom Burbage, who retired this year as head of the company’s F-35 efforts.


The extra width violates an important aerospace design principle called the “area rule,” which encourages narrow, cylindrical fuselages for best aerodynamic results. The absence of area rule on the F-35 — again, a knock-on effect of the Marines’ demand for a lift fan — increases drag and consequently decreases acceleration, fuel efficiency and flying range. Thus critics’ assertion that supersonic speed can’t be combined with STOVL and stealth, the latter of which are already incompatible with each other.


“We’re dealing with the laws of physics,” Burbage said in his company’s defense when word got out about the JSF’s performance downgrades.