Fredy5

I think it's fairly clear by context that the F-35's costs are from the estimates. However, the estimates used from the 2011 baseline have actually been more expensive. Not a single estimate since 2011 has been low, and it's four years later. We have no reason to distrust these numbers, and I feel compelled to use information we have now. If you could present better cost estimates; then by all means please do. I'd be happy to make graphs out of them. Anyways, the point comes out very clear. The amount of capability for the cost is much greater on the F-35 than the aircraft that came before it.

I already covered that in my follow-up post ;)

Absolutely. On all your points and more. For instance, I know the parts where I talk about fuel, weapons capacity and more are really just arbitrary numbers. However, for non-fighter enthusiasts, it gets the point across. Regarding the turning, "F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths 3" also has a good quote about the kinematic performance. It says essentially what you just described at about 5 min in from a totally separate source (I think?). Another common way pilots describe the F-35's kinematics is between the F/A-18E and F-16C (about 3:30 into the episode). But either way, it's like being between good and very good. On the fuel, the F-35 is heavier, so it will need more thrust just to stay in the air on top of not having as efficient engines. However, it's very difficult to calculate such, and so I left it out. As for weapons capacity; the 22,000+ lb number comes from adding up all the pylons. However, that's usually not the limit for planes. The limit is usually max takeoff weight. In which case, it seems that a full fuel tank + weapons at max takeoff is listed as 18,000+ lbs. But still, the F-35's number is one of the largest available. That number becomes even bigger once you realize that every pound of the F-35's external weapons load is used for weapons, while "conventional" aircraft utilize large portions of that weight on drop tanks. /Edit: The 50 degree AoA number comes from Lockheed Martin: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2014/f35-high-angle-of-attack.html.

- Not really. Most of the numbers were given to the Harper government properly, but the media blew the numbers way up, and far out of context. Just like all the medias reporting on the F-35 did. - Again, not really. All of the flight testing, prices, blocks, capabilities, etc, all come from the DoD and not Lockheed Martin. Media fails to report the actualities and almost always strait up blames Lockheed, even when the actualities are different. - Definitely. I'll explain later. - ... - Need a source for this. Perhaps you mean lobbying? Which is totally legal (somehow). If Lockheed didn't/doesn't lobby, the insane amout of lobbying by Boeing would be a huge hindrance on the F-35B/C buys, and of course for foreign sales (without Lockheed "balancing"). Seriously. A lot of the funded F-35 "haters" have sponsorship that originate from Boeing. I like Boeing, and they've created phenomenal aircraft, but Boeing lost this one. The JSF was won by Lockheed. Now for why the F-35 is by far and away the best fighter currently available for purchase: 1) Price: The F-35 is one of the least expensive options available. The F-35A is less expensive when fuel tanks, targeting pods and countermeasures pods are accounted for the Super Hornet. Looking at PAUC: the PAUC for an F-35 is ~$332 billion / 2457 (14 of those are test aircraft) = ~$135.1 million.The PAUC for an F-22 is ~$70.77 billion / 195 = ~$362.9 million. The PAUC for a Dassault Rafale is ~$64.23 billion / 140 = ~$458.8 million. The RAF EF Typhoon ~$62.81 billion / 160 = ~$392.6 million. What about cost per flight hour? Well here we can see that it would be about the same as the F-16. What about total program cost? Well here you can see the program cost style of estimation being applied to the legacy fleet, in which case the legacy fleet would cost about 4 trillion compared to the F-35's 1.3-1.4 trillion. For a comparison of export purchase with the F-18E, $218.75/plane for Australia. And here are contracts for the F-35: 201.09/plane for Norway, 150.58/plane for the Netherlands and 198/plane for Australia. Keep in mind I have accounted for inflation, all are in FY2014 USD. And remember these numbers include more than just the aircraft itself, but the purchases are equivalent. 2) BVR: The F-35's APG-81 is a direct derivative of the APG-77. The APG-81 has less transceiver modules, but is a little more advanced. Although it's impossible to get an actual radar range, estimations here and here place it second only to the APG-77 in raw range (remember, the CAPTOR-E isn't finished yet). The APG-81 is also the first radar with fully integrated ECM and data links. It's ECM is also said to be the best ever fitted to a fighter (i'm not verifying, so take with a grain of salt). As with the APG-77, the APG-81 also has been built to avoid alerting an RWR. One such way the APG-77/81 do this is by switching radar channels over 1,000 times per second. Then we get to stealth. The common stealth estimates for the F-22 are about .0001. For the F-35, they're between .01 and .001. However, according to Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers, the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22. Two more quotes about the F-35's stealth by General Hostage can be found 1 and 2. So if we combine the best stealth with the second best radar, the F-35 will have the ability to detect an opponent from a long distance and remain undetected until very close in. In short, the first warning a bandit will get is when the AIM-120D's radar (or a Meteor's) becomes active. 3) WVR: The F-35 has a very unique sensor for WVR. Called EODAS. This system allows the pilot to use the aircraft as an enhanced vision system. The F-35's EOTS has a much better zoom and range than the human eye. So good, it can look into a window from 50 miles away. Further, this is combined with DAS to make the EODAS. DAS is built to utilize all sensors, identify all possible targets around the aircraft, and track all possible targets. DAS will find a bandit far before the pilot is able to detect the bandit. This thus give the F-35 the unique ability to gain and maintain a lock with a missile from anywhere around the aircraft. For turning, I'm going to pull up some numbers. People like to look at wing loading, so let's look at that. The F-16 has a maximum of 510 ft^2 while the F-35 produces 828 ft^2 (estimations from a PDF given at the bottom). The F-16 weighs 18,900 lbs, while the F-35 weighs 29,098 lbs. This gives an empty lift-loading of ~37.06 lbs/ft^2 for the F-16 and ~35.14 lbs/ft^2 for the F-35. This means that as long as both aircraft are given the same load, the F-35 will always have a lower lift-loading than the F-16. Another important number is the AoA limit. The F-16 is limited to 25 degrees AoA, while the F-35 is limited to 50 degrees AoA. Another important number is T/W. The F-16's engine produces 28,600 lbf, and the F-135 produces 43,000 lbf. I gave the empty weights earlier, so here are the T/W: ~1.51 for the F-16, ~1.48 for the F-35. However, this doesn't tell the whole story for the T/W. Because the F-16 has so little thrust, and weighs so little, it's T/W will be dis-proportionally affected by adding fuel and munitions. So, how many lbs of fuel/munitions can be carried by each before they exceed a T/W of 1? 9,700 for the F-16 and 13,902 for the F-35. So how about that document about the F-16 'beating' the F-35? Well, for starters, the F-16 and F-35 were not dogfighting. As found from the report: "The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs...The Flying Qualities criteria were that the aircraft response would be positive and predictable and that there should be no undesired, unexpected, or unpredictable aircraft responses. Qualitative observations were made regarding the high AoA capability, cues that the aircraft was entering a low energy state, as well as various human factors considerations." The F-35 in question was also AF-2, which is not a fully operational air frame. It was built to explore the F-35's aerodynamics at high AOA. "...this airframe is designed for flight testing, it’s designed to fly in certain restricted flight envelopes. It does not feature the majority of systems present in frontline aircraft." (source). "Thompson said AF-2 has specific instrumentation and was calibrated for in-flight loads measurements..." (source). That second source came out 6 months before the BFM tests were done. So what were the conclusions in the document: "Increasing pitch rate and available Nz would provide the pilot more options...Consider increasing alpha onset...Consider increasing the beginning of the blended region to 30 degrees or greater...Consider increasing pilot yaw rate control authority..." Notice a trend with all these? They're all related to the 'control laws' also known as software. 4) Fuel: The F-35 carries about as much fuel as the F-22, even though the F-22 is larger and heavier than the F-35. The biggest question about this always comes down to loiter time. So I'm going to compare it to the A-10. The F-35 burns about 20% more fuel than the A-10 [.886 lb/(hr x lbf) vs. .74 lb/(hr x lbf)]. However, the F-35 carries about 64% more fuel than the A-10. Yes, the F-35 can burn a lot more fuel a lot quicker when needed, but why would an F-35 do so when trying to loiter? A lower power setting is always applicable for situations that call for it. Here, an article where USAF personel explain that the F-35s burned 5,000 lbs of fuel each flying 900 miles from Eglin AFB to Oshkosh Wisconsin. Thus, we can calculate the max range (in this configuration). 18,500 / 5,000 = 3.7 (max fuel / fuel burned). 3.7 x 900 = 3,330. 3,330 miles = 5,360 km. A chart of fuel burned per hour in certain conditions can be found here. 5) Weapons: The F-35 can carry a higher weapons load than any other fighter. The F-35 can carry up to 22,300 lbs of weapons. Compared to 16,000 of the A-10, 17,000 of the F-16 and 17,750 for the F/A-18 Super Hornet. 6) Single vs Duel Engine: Modern single engined aircraft have proven to be more reliable than duel engined aircraft. Here is a chart showing engine related mishaps of the modern F-16, F-15 and F-22. Also, single engined aircraft are well proven in the artic. The F-16 has proven it can operate there, as well as a whole host of older aircraft. Further videos made by Dragon029 on youtube: [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] <Really good video here ---------- Characteristics estimations: [ame]http://www.mediafire.com/view/k32znieecno6613/USAF_Strike_Fighters_rev2.pdf[/ame] (Click on the "pop-out" button, delete the part of the address added on by google within the address bar, and go right to the mediafire link)

Just to clarify: There are two different types of 'M2' being referenced. There is the 'M2' .50 caliber Armor Piercing (AP) cartridge and there is the 'M2' Browning machine gun. So, when you see "M2 Shell" it's referring to the AP cartridge fired by the M3 machine guns. The actual guns (not the cartridges) in the F-86 are indeed M3 variants. .50 caliber cartridge types: You can see both the M2 and M20 cartridges in this photo.