>Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. ChrisBogdansays the most common model of the plane, the F-35A, will hit $80 million to $85 million by 2019 and he expects the price will go lower, especially when it hits multi-year procurement in a few years. That price isin then-year dollars, and it includesan engine.
I wonder how much the Chinese stealth fighters cost. On the one hand, they get R&D discount from espionage and cheaper labor costs. On the other hand they don't have the economy of scale that is driving down the F-35's price.
>economy of scale that is driving down the F-35's price.
And this is based on exactly what? They haven't announced their total order at all. They could be building 50 or 50 million, you have no fucking idea.
>And this is based on exactly what?
The fact that the F-35's price has already gone down more than 50% from the initial batch as the production process becomes more efficient?
Learn 2 Microeconomics
Based on the scale of the rest of their forces, it's suggested China will be buying very roughly between 150 and 500. Something else that will affect their order size is the fact that half of their fighter fleet is made up of J-7s (Chinese MiG-21 copies), which will need a replacement before too long. They might step up J-10 production and make further upgrades to reduce RCS, etc, but it depends on their ambitions.
>On the other hand they don't have the economy of scale
They churned out 400 J-10s. If they want it, they'll have it. In fact I reckon they've got a FAAAAR better shot at it than anyone outside the US at this point.
"Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord took a different tone, however. Although the reduction to 404 total Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps F-35s over the next five years is not expected to produce a significant change in the unit cost, it is not clear the Pentagon will be able to get back to the planned production rate, he said.
“We are trying to get it back up to where we want it to be across the FYDP," McCord said Feb. 9 at the Pentagon, referring to the Future Years Defense Program. "But it’s just a lot of money too, and it’s unclear that we will be able to get this program back to the ramps that we had hoped for previously."
>Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Chris "abandoning this sinking ship in July" Bogdan says
Do older generation of jet fighters have as many warnings as the F35? There is a limit to how bad ass you can look when your aircraft is riddled with warning signs. Like how are you suppose to be intimidating?
J-31 have russian engines and it's just an extra plane in Chinese airforce, and they don't even give care about it much
J-20 doesn't have smoke or anything you retard, that's an airshow smoke
Do you like to contract weird Alien bacteria and viruses while removing an Alium pilot from a UFO testing vehicle?
Didn't think so.
>Do older generation of jet fighters have as many warnings as the F35?
Contemporary GAO reports on the F-16, F-18, and F-15 aren't very flattering either, and they certainly drew media attention.
From what I've read, the UCLASS is now going to be an unmanned tanker with secondary reconnaissance capabilities.
Odds are they did that to have a safer way to get an actual carrier-based UAV into service to get ground crews accustomed to working with them and mature the technology. From there, it'd ideally be easier to get an actual UCAV. Hell, if they use something like the X-47B then the conversion between tanker and UCAV would be tremendously simple.
I think the issue is more that they would probably cost just as much as an F-35, and would probably be less useful.
Ideally, they should be operating their tanker drones from platforms that aren't the carrier.
>How easy is it to jam satellite radio these days?
By that logic we shouldn't use fighter jets or any combat aircraft for that matter.
With enough energy anything is possible, though most drones now into the future are semi-autonomous diminishing effectiveness.
>Ideally, they should be operating their tanker drones from platforms that aren't the carrier.
And operating heavy super-battleships. Tanker or no tanker, the Aircraft Carrier as a concept is done.
These are just ISR/ extremely light attack. And let me tell you, that's all you need them to be. Persistent long distance ISR is a huge role in and of itself. Its importance cannot be understated.
>Do older generation of jet fighters have as many warnings as the F35?
Nope. Every one of the teen series fighters was far worse. Copy Pasta incoming.
Also, it helps to have perspective on these reports; they're meant to be tough and hard on the project, and to be very very sure to point out every issue, no matter how small. Just because there are issues does not mean the jet sucks.
F-35 DOT&E report for 2015:
Just for some context on these reports and how they work, here are some GAO reports for other aircraft at similar points in development:
>In its evaluation of the F-16 development and procurement program, GAO found that the Air Force is concerned with several potential F-16 problems: F100 engine stalls, demonstration of an improved aerial restart capability, and excessive taxi speed. Tactical Air Command believes the F-16 need additional equipment; and that it doesn't have sufficient space available for all desired new capabilities.
It often reads like a hatchet job, but the whole point is to be tough on the project and identify/fix any issues ASAP.
>The Navy and its contractors have made progress in solving technical problems discussed in GAO's Feb 1980 report on the F/A-18, but problems remain. Future decisions should include consideration of whether
>-modifications to the wing will correct a roll-rate problem without adversely affecting other performance areas
>-modifications in response to bulkheads cracking are adequate
>-a high oil temerature condition can be corrected
>-built in test objectives can be achieved
>-fuel cell leakages can be corrected, and
>-causes of two crashes can be corrected
>Estimates of the cost of the F/A-18 program continue to increase
True or false:
The F-35 is designed to be easy to upgrade by segmenting certain core systems (like the sensor packages) into modular blocks that can be easily removed and replaced when the time comes?
The LCS will certainly host them. However, they will still be constrained by the Burke's hangar, unless you want to make them unusable by a huge proportion of surface combatants.
LM bots are malfunctioning?
Warning signs, i.e
>Warning: jet exhaust is hot
>Caution: Objects on radar screen are closer than they appear
>state historical fact
>provide historical primary source documents
>provide TLDR summary
>anon still refuses to learn something which disagrees with his cherished but ill informed world view
Can't help some people, I guess.
Read what the first guy asked. He was talking about the warning signs that they put on aircraft.
I have no idea why people started replying to him talking about problems other aircraft had with their development.
Yeah, I misread that. I assumed he was asking an actual legitimate and not easily quantified or quickly googled question about historical US procurement and how GAO and DOT&E reports have always worked.
I shouldn't have given him credit for not asking a question he could figure out in 30 seconds with a google image search and read his question more carefully.
Still going strong it seems. I wonder how sophisticated these bots are, do they have some image recognition capability for example?
Pic related fighter sucks, even Gripen could beat it in a 1v1
It's got to be hell waiting for Class A mishap investigations to come back as a Crew Chief, knowing your aircraft went down for some reason and no knowing if it was pilot error, bad manufacturer parts, discovered design flaw or a seemingly small oversight on your part that's going to put you in jail and then dishonorably discharged. That shit must seem like it drags on forever.
Do they just put crew chiefs on another bird while all that is going on?
Daily reminder that regardless of price, the F-35 is by far the slowest fighter jet on the market right now, and one of the slowest fighters that the US has actually used in the past five decades. Even the Thunderchief was faster. It is possible that the F-35 will simply not be fast enough to engage higher performance fighters like the Su-35.
Except the F-35 is 9 years old in the 2015 report and the F-16 only 4 in the 1977 report.
Not to mention the F-35 program learned a lot from the F-22 and we are 40 years ahead in production standards and knowledge. It makes sense that the 1977 F-16 report was worse than the 2015 F-35 report.
Apples and oranges.
Odd considering the latest contract for the A airframe was about $93-94 million.
FRP 1 will only be buying 30 more A's than LRIP 9.
We don't even know what the engine price for the A is currently.
I am gonna throw this in the trash until I see the real numbers. They predicted this in 2005, 2010, 2012, and now we are supposed to believe them now?
I'll wait and see.
Supersonic speed doesn't matter as much in the era of stealth and BVR missiles.
>Still confusing it for supporting Sprey's arguments
The idiot also claims it's too low for the F-35 despite saying 1.6 was more than enough for Red Bird.
4 stealthed robots for stealth means poor BVR, and WVR is pretty much nonexistant. The F-35 can reach mach 1.65 sure, but thats the only thing its going to do in that op (acceleration to top speed). In reality, that number is smaller.
F-35 program started in 1996 afaik...
Once in FRP they aren't doing extensive line testing, it's the "final" version they'll be building so they can focus man-hours on the build instead of the "build-test-modify-build" of the LRIP runs.
The mediocre top speed wouldn't be such a big deal if it also came with supercruise. But it doesn't. The F-35 is slower than other medium-sized fighter jets by every metric.
For most of the countries buying the F-35, it will be their only new fighter jet for a very long time. How can you justify selling them a jet that CAN'T perform the most basic duty of a fighter jet..........intercepting hostile aircraft?
No, but you are not realising that the number means it can go that fast whenever it wants, which it can't. The 1.65 top speed cited is completely theoretical and depends completely on being higher than 25 000 feet and the F-35 having no countermeasures. At sub 5000, we're talking 0,77 max. For a Gripen, that figure would be 1.2 (60% increase) and i suspect the Eurofighter or Rafale is yet faster.
It can't even go supersonic until what, 20 000 high? Limited to 1.2 if you want weapons at 25k. Its literally slower than a p-51 mustang...
Yess it does, the faster you go the further you can loft you missiles. Giving you that first shot advantage and the ability to take the shot at a longer distance is a pretty big deal.
>Weapons bay temperature becomes excessive. Pilots are restricted from keeping the weapons bay doors closed for more than 10 cumulative minutes when flying at airspeeds equal to or greater than 500 knots at altitudes below 5,000 feet; 550 knots at altitudes between 5,000 and 15,000 feet; and 600 knots at altitudes between 15,000 and 25,000 feet.
No. If you need to use the afterburner every 150 miles just to maintain "supercruise" then guess what? That's not supercruise.
Supercruise means that the plane can reach and maintain a speed of at least 700 for a period of time WITHOUT using the afterburner AT ALL.
no tears friend
>LRIP8 F-35A unit cost, $108 mil
which including engines and profit for manufacturers
>LRIP8 F-35A airframe cost, $94.8 mil
so the conventional engine costs, at most, $13.2 mil as of LRIP8
>cannot make an argument
>refuses to lose his perceived moral high ground
>SHILL, SHILL, SHILLLLLLLLL
And the irony is you are probably the one being paid.
>Open weapon doors for a couple seconds.
>Get shot down
The Original X-35 model which LM used to earn pentagon approval did not even have functional weapons bays. The USA has staked it's ENTIRE FUTURE on a model that wasn't even working. It may be that the problems with the F-35 weapon's bays are inherent in the design and thus IMPOSSIBLE to fix without MAJOR redesign, crippling the F-35 FOR ITS ENTIRE SERVICE LIFE.
Not F-35 tho, it can't open its weapons bays at top speed (LM has promised they'll totally fix this in a few years)
1. They are absolutely central to the F-35's design
2. They don't work.
The F-35 design should never have been approved without testing the weapon's bays thoroughly first. The fact that they were not test before so many F-35's were made shows just how corrupt the entire procurement process was, and puts the entire program's integrity in doubt.
All they have to do as add in some venting or reroute a cooling line. They already have stealth heat venting for the cannon mount, they can do the same for the weapons bay if they wanted.
Deal with what? That no matter what you losers say over 2 thousand will be made and used by most first world nations?
Yeah I'll deal with it, dickhead.
Except it is a good weapon, no matter how much you pout and stomp your feet.
At least you admit to desperately grasping at any straw, no matter how itsfuckingnothing it is.
Ok, they "just" have to make a few structural changes to a product that's been in development for 15 years and which development phase is supposedly finished.
You clearly have no idea what is an engineer.
No, it doesn't. The heating stems from airpressure which is lower the higher you go. Ergo, the problem starts at sea level and doesn't end until the stratosphere, getting worse and worse the higher the pressure is. Which means, the lower you fly, the slower you fly.
Well, no, it probably could be solved, but the thing is, it hasn't been solved. If your solution is "dont fly at X heights" you have limited your operational capacity by quite a lot. If you are also banking on it being solved in a future block upgrade, which is likely, we're still looking far in the future and with many dollarydoos being flung into the project. Moreso, it's likely that the buyers that aren't the US won't have the money to spend on upgrading their fighters when they've already gone over budget prasing it as a jack of all trades and selling it as a long-life aircraft.
It's not, but it is in preproduction and testing phase which means that making larger changes is completely out of the question. Smaller modifications and software changes are easier to modify and as you did point out, its nowhere near being operational.
But is a serious issue, and it's unacceptable that this is a problem so far into the program.
>But is a serious issue, and it's unacceptable that this is a problem so far into the program.
You should tell that to literally every other fighter project in the past. They've all suffered issues that were equivalent, if not worse, than what the F-35 is going through right now.
And sometimes there's some problems you just can't find with a handful of prototypes. LRIP is a middle ground where you can get production started and at the same time find issues that never would have been found until you started flying them in serious numbers and hours.
Every successive aircraft generation has taken longer to develop. The F-16 took almost twice as long to develop as the F-5. The F-5 took two and a half times as long to develop as the F-100.
Aircraft have gotten exponentially more complex with each iteration. This is true even in the civilian world.
>Not to mention the F-35 program learned a lot from the F-22 and we are 40 years ahead in production standards and knowledge. It makes sense that the 1977 F-16 report was worse than the 2015 F-35 report.
This is just illogical and retarded.