F-35 and its future. Was the project an overall failure?

[KenobiOrder]

10 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

I still see your reasoning as very soft, deliberately brushing away details that are in fact important to justify your position.  Basically I disagree.  "The right tool for the job" is not a trivial phrase, and while I'll easily agree that various services have made poor choices, I won't agree to get rid of my screwdriver because I can do most of what it does with a spoon ... assuming a perfect world where there's one type of screw.

A better analogy would be getting rid of battle rifle and a sub machine gun for an assault rifle. There is a reason the army doesn't have 500 kinds of gun anymore. There is a reason we have main battle tanks and not light, medium, heavy, super heavy, and tank destroyers and assault guns.

 

We should have specialized tools, but generally only when the differing roles so extremely do no overlap that it's utterly necessary.  You do not want redundant systems, especially if they require the rest of your force to even facilitate their role.

 

Having this many types has caused nothung but problems. Amraam, lite ting, and datlink were all significantly delayed because of the need to factor in making them fit on runt planes like the f16. I would make rather have diversity of weapons, which provides far more multi mission ability than different airframes do broadly. Multiple redundant types only makes this harder.

 

Furthermore the Navy has been demonstrating for some time that you don't need a different airframes for every little role.

[nighthawk2174]

Agreed the hornet/super hornet has shown that's its fully capable of fulfilling both its more A/G centric role and A/A roles.  In today's world a plethora of weapons with different capabilities offers far more flexibility and effectiveness in specialized roles (at lower costs) than developing an entire aircraft for that role.  This philosophy of multiple aircraft makes more sense back in the 50's where imo it belongs (due to limited weapon tech).  Not the late 70's + and especially not now now.  

Edited May 28, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[Mars Exulte]

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

This is completely incorrect.  These weren't different due to 'bs rivalries', there were very real and practical differences in requirement for both aircraft.

  They are real differences that could have easily been blown over. Already said it once. The aircraft have massive overlap except for the undercarriage. Hell, as I recall they were competing in THE SAME programs at one point. The USAF and USN have literally ALWAYS BEEN RIVALS and it has shaped US policy since literally forever. The rest of the world somehow manages to avoid having 47 variations of fighter with overlapping capabilities... except to a certain extent Russia, who is likewise burdened with too many lips desperately suckling at that government teat.

 

Quote

 Even with the F-35, there are two different sets of requirements resulting in at least a different wing

  They could easily have just picked the one best suited for ''both''. You know ''small compromise for everyone's best interests.

 

Quote

and the gun being internal in one, not the other.

  Which is just idiotic that even such a minor point ended up being a difference.

 

Quote

What made it really expensive was the third set of requirements which came from the Marines.

  Yeah, I already said the VTOL stuff is a waste of resources. It was pretty marginal to begin with for utility and at this point needs to go the way of the ''swing wing'' fad of the 70s. Even the ''little carriers'' thing is nonsense, and dispensing with the VTOL requirement would solve some of THEIR issues. If you want a little carrier, put a single cat on it and if necessary reduce the complement. But for that matter, you can drop the Marine fixed wing complement altogether instead of trying to have them be a ''mini air force'' of their own. Helos? Completely justifiable. VTOL fighters? Completely unnecessary.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Mars Exulte

[SUBS17]

On 5/28/2021 at 7:55 AM, Mars Exulte said:

  The helmet has nothing to do with this stuff, which is mostly maintenance and dev related.

 

  ''Coronavirus'' is a general category of viruses, not only ''Covid19''. So... yes... there are lots of them. Most notably the common cold. It's like ''Dog'' and then ''Rottweiler''. You know... main category -> sub-category.

 

 

The Helmet has everything to do with improvements on the effectiveness of the F35, the SCORPION is next generation Helmet that replaces all of them. It can see everything, there is an Airliner version which has the same sort of technology and it makes it literally daytime in fog/low cloud/bad weather. There is also new AutoPilot which is effective enough to always catch the No 3 wire on a moving carrier. All of this is part of a package that makes it an extremely effective Combat Aircraft. Other improvements is the removal of something that effected the aircraft's performance and now it fly's extremely well. 

 

1 hour ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Agreed the hornet/super hornet has shown that's its fully capable of fulfilling both its more A/G centric role and A/A roles.  In today's world a plethora of weapons with different capabilities offers far more flexibility and effectiveness in specialized roles (at lower costs) than developing an entire aircraft for that role.  This philosophy of multiple aircraft makes more sense back in the 50's where imo it belongs (due to limited weapon tech).  Not the late 70's + and especially not now now.  

 

Both of those aircraft are also getting upgraded.

 

There is also a new technology coming that halts speed to 0 knots in the event of a crash and the capability to predict aircraft accidents/incidents and prevent them. The same technology is going to be available for cars which on the point of collision halts velocity without G affecting the vehicles. For helicopters a VRS would result in a halt of descent and then require a recovery from another AIRCRAFT/AEROSPACE-CRAFT.

Edited May 28, 2021 by SUBS17

[Rick50]

11 hours ago, Frederf said:

What are comparing the price to?

 

This was a long time ago so memory a little fuzzy. But I think they were talking a bit generally about military aircraft pricing.  They seemed to try to suggest that the JSF would be CHEAPER to produce and buy, than say a similar single engine multi-role fighter. Meaning, slighting cheaper and much faster to build, than a 1990's era F-16C, but with inexpensive stealth features, thus rendering the F-117 Nighthawks overly expensive and not needed anymore.

 

Part of their arguement was that robotic and CNC type manufacturing in a rapidly-reconfigurable factory floor, would eliminate a lot of the human craftsmanship in making parts for and assembling fuselages, wiring things up, and so on. Thus faster cheaper. You know, think of a modern car factory today, more robot arms than a space shuttle. They even made several paintings depicting these cheap stealthy JSF factories, presumably to sell the idea of a cheap affordable fighter that would make taxpayers very happy...

 

I knew back then it was a bad joke. "Cheaper than a Falcon-C ? I'm calling BS, never happen!!"

 

But... I never, ever imagined that it would be such an insane cancerous growth that would turn into "too big to fail, too big to cancel" and grow wildly from there. 

 

Evenually the F-35 may well prove itself useful and good. But that pricetag... a lot is riding on this jet.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Rick50

[GGTharos]

Not sure why you'd even attempt to compare it to a 1990s F-16C when you can't even compare today's F-16s to that.

An F-16E/V today will cost you some 121 million.

An F-35 will cost you about 80 million.

[Mars Exulte]

18 hours ago, SUBS17 said:

There is also a new technology coming that halts speed to 0 knots in the event of a crash

  This ''new'' technology is known as ''the ground''. It has been bringing objects in motion to 0 forward velocity for at least the last few hundred years, possibly longer. It is closely followed by a second technology known as ''walls'' which has been particularly effective in halting the forward motion of automobiles almost as well as Project Codename : Trees

13 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Not sure why you'd even attempt to compare it to a 1990s F-16C when you can't even compare today's F-16s to that.

An F-16E/V today will cost you some 121 million.

An F-35 will cost you about 80 million.

 

  Yeah, that's a point often glossed over. The newer block teen fighters don't have their 1980s price tags anymore. Oof

[Svsmokey]

3 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

  This ''new'' technology is known as ''the ground''. It has been bringing objects in motion to 0 forward velocity for at least the last few hundred years, possibly longer. It is closely followed by a second technology known as ''walls'' which has been particularly effective in halting the forward motion of automobiles almost as well as Project Codename : Trees

ROFL !

[TLTeo]

13 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

Yeah, that's a point often glossed over. The newer block teen fighters don't have their 1980s price tags anymore. Oof

To be honest those numbers for the F-35 vs Viper (or literally any aircraft procurement) are fairly misleading for all sorts of reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if the 120 million for the -E Viper was including development costs, and the 80 for the F-35A (the B and C both cost waaaay more) was for some huge bulk order bringing the whole cost down. And that doesn't even include whether e.g. pilot training, spare parts, maintenance, cost per flight hour etc etc are included. As far as I can tell, building an F-35A is not significantly more expensive than a 4.5gen aircraft, hence the flashy pricetag, but operating it is.

[Mars Exulte]

6 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

To be honest those numbers for the F-35 vs Viper (or literally any aircraft procurement) are fairly misleading for all sorts of reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if the 120 million for the -E Viper was including development costs

  I couldn't speak to that. Generally the ''per unit price'' includes all expenses. The price everyone talks about is NOT typically the actual ''purchase price'', but rather the dev costs AND purchase price spread across all units, that's why it trends downward the more aircraft are produced : it's averaged out.

 

6 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

and the 80 for the F-35A (the B and C both cost waaaay more) was for some huge bulk order bringing the whole cost down

  It is. See above, the prices are averaged out. That's actually what originally started this thread, slashing orders is starting the ''per unit'' cost averaging upward again. 

 

6 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

And that doesn't even include whether e.g. pilot training, spare parts, maintenance, cost per flight hour etc etc are included.

  Afaik that stuff is tallied separately most the time and is part of longterm sustainment costs. That's one of the things they've been trying to tackle so aggressively, is lowering the maintenance costs.

 

6 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

As far as I can tell, building an F-35A is not significantly more expensive than a 4.5gen aircraft, hence the flashy pricetag, but operating it is.

  Exactly. Although the stealth coating sounds to be a lot more practical than the ones used on F-22s and earlier aircraft, it still automatically increases maintenance costs .

[TLTeo]

8 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

Generally the ''per unit price'' includes all expenses.

Yeah but even that doesn't tell the whole story. From what I recall, Denmark is paying some ~110 million per F-35, Norway ~160, and Belgium ~130. The costs are just all over the place, and that's despite Norway being a partner in the program and Belgium not being one. Again, saying "an F-35 costs less than a Block 70" is just misleading.

Edited May 29, 2021 by TLTeo

[Mars Exulte]

7 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Yeah but even that doesn't tell the whole story. From what I recall, Denmark is paying some ~110 million per F-35, Norway ~160, and Belgium ~130. The costs are just all over the place, and that's despite Norway being a partner in the program and Belgium not being one.

  I have no idea what's going on with other countries. If they're requesting further customisations (like Israel) I absolutely can believe it.

 

7 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Again, saying "an F-35 costs less than a Block 70" is just misleading.

  Well, we're talking about for the US armed forces, so in that context, no. Like said, what the Euros are paying is their problem.

[SUBS17]

The new tech may also include something that makes the aircraft fly smoothly without turbulence. BTW F35's are being shipped to Heaven for a refit and upgrade.

[GGTharos]

47 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

  I have no idea what's going on with other countries. If they're requesting further customisations (like Israel) I absolutely can believe it.

 

  Well, we're talking about for the US armed forces, so in that context, no. Like said, what the Euros are paying is their problem.

 

They are earlier in the production cycle, thus more expensive.

[TLTeo]

13 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

They are earlier in the production cycle, thus more expensive.

I'm not sure that's the only reason. Norway and Denmark joined roughly at the same time, and Belgium was much more recent.

[Mars Exulte]

30 minutes ago, SUBS17 said:

The new tech may also include something that makes the aircraft fly smoothly without turbulence. BTW F35's are being shipped to Heaven for a refit and upgrade.

  

[Rick50]

16 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Not sure why you'd even attempt to compare it to a 1990s F-16C when you can't even compare today's F-16s to that.

An F-16E/V today will cost you some 121 million.

An F-35 will cost you about 80 million.

 

I wasn't doing the comparo, that's how the idea of the JSF was being marketed in around `1995 when it was nothing more than a few cool paintings. They also felt it would be cheaper to maintain too. 

 

 

I think the reason the "price per jet" contracts are all different in what support, parts, training is offered... is kept different for each customer, so as to fully conceal the true unit price of the product, from the deadliest enemy able to shoot down any jet 100%: the taxpayer.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Rick50

[GGTharos]

6 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

I wasn't doing the comparo, that's how the idea of the JSF was being marketed in around `1995 when it was nothing more than a few cool paintings. They also felt it would be cheaper to maintain too. 

 

It might have been a reasonable assumption given certain information at the time.  A lot happened in the decade after, including scope creep thanks to new technology and as I understand it, additional requirements.

[Rick50]

 

I do think that some people in the very early stages WERE being honest, trying to find a cheap jet that could do the basics well with cheap stealth. But I also think a few involved were "yea just say whatever bedroom whispers it takes to get the politicians to buy it, get it going... we'll bolt on all the expensive and REALLY pricey stuff once it's too late to cancel!"

 

So it's worth considering the state of mind of defense industry in the mid-90's: war seemed unlikely. Well, big wars anyway, little 3rd world civil wars were then of little interest to big defense contractors (so that seems to have changed a lot!). This is just a few years after the end of the Cold War, and after 'Murica Desert Stormed the sh1t out of the sandbox. So much of the public was wondering why we still needed to spend so much on the military. "surely we could cut back %25 and still be able to blast any enemy in just a week, be home in time for the weekend! Beer's on me!".  Many probably wondered why the USAF had to have so many aircraft. And so expensive.

 

So, with tech having proven itself the best and only edge needed (we know better these days, but in those days that was the common thought on the subject), why spend on expensive to repair and maintain older jets, when these guys over here promise a cheap little hotrod that does the important bits for less money and more stealth? That's... attractive. 

 

Of course, then the buyers get worried that if they don't stick their favorite system on the JSF, their system won't fly, won't get funding. So it gets stuck on the little jet.  He was counting on his project to keep his career going. And to give him a nice bribe/kickback he can hide through his brother's construction company. And a nice post-military cushy job offer at the contractor/. Ten years later the JSF isn't so cheap anymore, and now it's carrying around everything but the kitchen sink. And now some desk jockey wants to put kitchen sinks on them too. Contractor knows all this extra is not only billable, but it's where he makes the best profits, so he just LOVES this.

 

Add another decade, costs balloon... and you get to where we are today.

 

[SUBS17]

21 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  

 

Right, go to the Patents Office and take a look or is the World still flat to you.

[SUBS17]

23 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  This ''new'' technology is known as ''the ground''. It has been bringing objects in motion to 0 forward velocity for at least the last few hundred years, possibly longer. It is closely followed by a second technology known as ''walls'' which has been particularly effective in halting the forward motion of automobiles almost as well as Project Codename : Trees

 

  Yeah, that's a point often glossed over. The newer block teen fighters don't have their 1980s price tags anymore. Oof

 

No, the same tech is going to be available for cars it uses a combination of REPULSOR FIELD and GRAVITY SHADOW. Where a GRAVITY SHADOW field pops out and protects the passengers and vehicle while a REPULSOR FIELD BOX snatches an anchor point in space halting velocity without G. It is set off by a sensor that detects the collision. It has a lot of uses but protecting people from crashes in both aircraft and vehicles is two of them. It could also be used for motorbikes. It is only a small unit. In the case of an aircraft and vehicle the engines go to idle/neutral, aircraft need to be recovered once this happens. It is new tech Mars, new tech.

[Mars Exulte]

8 minutes ago, SUBS17 said:

No, the same tech is going to be available for cars

  No, it's not. I'm on Heaven's email update mailing list and I never got a notice.

8 minutes ago, SUBS17 said:

it uses a combination of REPULSOR FIELD and GRAVITY SHADOW.

  I'm pretty sure it's atoms tightly bound by their magnetic fields, which I can turn on and off with my mind. I bought TELEKINESIS with Bitcoin on the Silk Road.

 

8 minutes ago, SUBS17 said:

Where a GRAVITY SHADOW field pops out and protects the passengers and vehicle while a REPULSOR FIELD BOX snatches an anchor point in space halting velocity without G.

  Wrong wrong wrong. It rolls out the top when you squeeze it, just like an old tube of toothpaste.

 

8 minutes ago, SUBS17 said:

It is set off by a sensor that detects the collision.

  Wrong. It's directly tied to the light switch in my bathroom. It's connected to the fart fan via GRAVITY ELEMENT.

 

8 minutes ago, SUBS17 said:

It has a lot of uses but protecting people from crashes in both aircraft and vehicles is two of them.

  I heard it will mostly be used to protect children from small dachsunds.

 

8 minutes ago, SUBS17 said:

It could also be used for motorbikes.

  Everybody knows God hates motorcycles. If there's any safety tech, they'll be the last to get it. He usually stipulates in the EULA that it can't be used for motorcycles. He hates them after he got cut off in Chicago one time.

 

8 minutes ago, SUBS17 said:

It is only a small unit.

  True, it's approximately the same size and shape of a pineapple, but tastes more like prunes.

 

8 minutes ago, SUBS17 said:

In the case of an aircraft and vehicle the engines go to idle/neutral, aircraft need to be recovered once this happens.

  It blows every circuit in ELECTRICAL SYSTEM and a tow tic-tac must be called from HEAVEN. They are really expensive though, and this guy ''Bob's Tic Tac Tows'' is really dishonest, so I suggest not using him.

 

8 minutes ago, SUBS17 said:

It is new tech Mars, new tech.

  I think you must have made somebody angry so they aren't giving you the latest information anymore. Everything you're saying is at least twenty years out of date.

[G.J.S]

15 minutes ago, SUBS17 said:

 

No, the same tech is going to be available for cars it uses a combination of REPULSOR FIELD and GRAVITY SHADOW. Where a GRAVITY SHADOW field pops out and protects the passengers and vehicle while a REPULSOR FIELD BOX snatches an anchor point in space halting velocity without G. It is set off by a sensor that detects the collision. It has a lot of uses but protecting people from crashes in both aircraft and vehicles is two of them. It could also be used for motorbikes. It is only a small unit. In the case of an aircraft and vehicle the engines go to idle/neutral, aircraft need to be recovered once this happens. It is new tech Mars, new tech.

I really, really hope you are the test subject for your repulsive shadow snatch anchor ooby-dooby if it involves a high forward velocity and a brick wall . . . .

I’ll bring the popcorn and sit on my multi strand levitation device with an alloy frame - a lawn chair.

[Mars Exulte]

1 minute ago, G.J.S said:

multi strand levitation device with an alloy frame

  I like that one!

[G.J.S]

4 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

  I like that one!