Posted: 3/2/2010 11:25:03 PM EDT
|
DoD Memo Formalizes F-35 Program Overhaul
By John Reed - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday Mar 2, 2010 18:42:06 EST The Pentagon’s top weapons buyer late last week formalized the restructuring to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, extending the plane’s test phase to 2015 and delaying the start of its full production by 13 months to November of that year. In a separate event, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley today told reporters today that the service is delaying its initial operational capability date for the JSF to 2015, two years after the service originally planed to field its first operational F-35 squadron. In a three-page acquisition decision memorandum (ADM) published Feb. 24, Ashton Carter outlined the Defense Department’s rationale behind the retooling of the F-35 program that saw the government program manager for the program fired, cut production buys of the aircraft and extended its development phase to 2015. The restructuring was done after numerous analyses by the Pentagon’s Joint Estimating Team (JET) and other groups led Defense Secretary Robert Gates to believe that the program was going to breach the Nunn-McCurdy statute capping per-unit cost growth on major weapons. Gates’ restructuring of the program — as well as an ongoing DoD-wide F-35 program review that began in November — were done with the Pentagon thinking “as though” the program had breached the statute, according to the ADM. “While the JET II was only an estimate, the Review was undertaken as though the JSF program was in Nunn-McCurdy breach,” said the memo, first reported by the Web site DoDBuzz. A copy was obtained by Defense News. Carter expects the Pentagon to receive 122 fewer F-35s over the next five years than it had planned last year, the memo said. “No fundamental technology or manufacturing problems were discovered in the Review,” the memo said. The ADM formally orders the JSF program to extend system development and design to 2015, delay the start of full-rate production to later that year, add four test jets to SDD, add $2.8 billion to the test phase of the program and withhold $614 million in performance award fees from Lockheed Martin. Gates announced the retooling during a Feb. 1 news conference at the Pentagon where he unveiled the department’s budget. All of this is being done in an effort to get the program back on track after Pentagon estimates predicted that the program was up to 30 months behind schedule. Defense Department officials have said that, even with the restructuring, the F-35 will still be 13 months late. The ADM also allows for the purchase of additional F-35s using any excess money in the program’s budget should Lockheed and the government program office be able to “execute program development and or deliver aircraft at lower costs.” The document describes 2010 as a critical year for the F-35 with the “completion of hundreds of test flights, commencement of flight testing at Eglin [Air Force Base, Fla.,] and other key milestones planned.” The Navy is also considering slipping its initial operational capability date for the plane, and along with the Air Forces, is eyeing extending the service lives of its existing fighters. This comes after a number of monthly progress reports written by the Defense Contract Management Agency from late 2009 show the program to have experienced a number of hiccups at Lockheed’s Fort Worth, Texas, F-35 production facility. These reports, released by the Center for Defense Information (CDI), show that between July and November of last year, the F-35 production line was being “cannibalized” to support the test program and that low-rate initial production delivery schedule for the plane was an average of 80 days late and that F-35 parts were arriving late from the suppliers 25 percent of the time. Later in the fall, the program experienced a quality verification stand-down, which focused on software issues with the aircraft, according to CDI. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/03/defense_F35adm_030210/ Internal Pentagon memo predicts that F-35 testing won't be complete until 2016 Posted Monday, Mar. 01, 2010 BY BOB COX [email protected] An internal Defense Department document that surfaced Monday confirms that the Pentagon's own in-house cost, testing and manufacturing experts were much more pessimistic than top officials about the time and expense it will take to fix the badly lagging F-35 joint strike fighter development program. The memorandum by Ashton Carter, the Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, spells out details of the F-35 program restructuring that Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a month ago. After a number of studies and analysis by internal Pentagon experts, Carter and Gates settled on a plan for adding $2.8 billion to the development budget in 2011 and extending the timeline by 13 months. That means they don't expect all of the major flight and other testing of the airplane and its systems to be completed until about the end of 2014, if all goes well. But the Pentagon's in-house Joint Estimating Team (JET II), comprising technical, testing and cost analysts, submitted a review in the fall that predicted at least 30 more months to complete testing, or not until mid-2016. In 2008, a similar group (JET I) predicted a 24-month delay and cost increases of $7.4 billion. Carter's Acquisition Decision Memorandum, which amounts to a formal policy directive, acknowledged the more pessimistic forecast. But what Carter called "a revised JET II" estimate was made that took into account the increased funding and accelerated flight testing envisioned in his plan. That reduced the testing schedule delay to 13 months. "I believe this revised estimate is a credible and realistic basis for the JSF program plan, and while the restructuring will likely be able to mitigate the slip from 30 months to 13 months, the contractor [Lockheed] will be incentivized to improve on the revised JET II schedule and cost further," Carter said in the memo, which was issued last week. Tom Christie, former director of the weapons testing office and longtime veteran of internal Pentagon acquisition battles, said he's been told that lower level officials were not happy with Carter's decision to adopt the more optimistic scenario. "They thought that 30 months was pretty optimistic," Christie said, but Carter "let Lockheed and the [F-35 program manager's] office talk him into adopting their plan." Christie said he's dubious about the program meeting even the extended timeline because so little testing has been completed "and they haven't even gotten to all the hard stuff like avionics and software. That's where we got into trouble with the F-22." Carter's decision puts off "full-rate production" of the F-35 until at least November 2015, when all development and early operational testing are to have been completed and reports submitted to the Pentagon. Lockheed is still expected to get significant plane orders each year before then, including 30 this year and at least 43 in the 2011 budget. Lockheed officials have acknowledged that they are, on average, about six months behind a schedule revised in 2008 for delivering and testing airplanes. Other internal Pentagon documents, as the Star-Telegram reported Monday, show that as recently as mid-November production problems were worsening, not getting better. Lockheed spokesmen did not respond to a request for comment. The Air Force conceded last week that it won't have F-35s ready for operations until 2015; its previous expectation was 2013. More bad news about the F-35 is expected in the coming weeks. A formal Pentagon cost estimate, due soon, may show the F-35 is breaching congressional budget rules. And the Government Accountability Office, which has for years predicted that Lockheed would not be able to meet schedules and budgets, is due to deliver its 2010 report on the program to Congress. http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/03/01/2006706/internal-pentagon-memo-predicts.html |
|
Quoted:
what are they trying to do, be the Comanche program? 
yep, stopping F22 production was great 
Yup, that was brilliant. The F-22 was only the greatest fighter aircraft to ever take to the skies. It was also well along into production and the flyaway cost for additional Raptor orders would have only been marginally more than what the F-35's price tag is going to end up looking like. Gates and Obama are FUCKING IDIOTS. I will be so happy when both of those jackasses are out of their positions so that they cannot further harm this nation. Right now our Air Force (to include the ANG) is facing a crisis with aircraft that are quickly reaching the end of their service lives with no replacements on tap. Right now there is a tremendous need to get new build aircraft into service. So these brilliant Washington seat shiners kill the one modern fighter we have in production in favor of something that may be years away from going into full scale production and will offer performance vastly less than that of the F-22, while costing nearly as much. Yep, that just screams sound decision making. 
Rather than killing the F-22, knowing what we know, the order should have been increased dramatically and production kicked into high gear. We could use those extra Raptors while we wait for the F-35 to finally come online in 2015 or 2016, whenever the hell they get it going. Of course sane leadership would have likely done that. But we have Obama and Gates. |
|
Quoted: i think saying the F35 is an F22 substitute is lunacy"Why Does the Pentagon Say the JSF is a 5th Generation Fighter . . Really?" ( (c) Air Power Australia NOTAM ) http://i46.tinypic.com/nqpav7.jpg Some Australians experts really blame F-35 What you think? |
|
Quoted:
"Why Does the Pentagon Say the JSF is a 5th Generation Fighter . . Really?" ( (c) Air Power Australia NOTAM ) http://i46.tinypic.com/nqpav7.jpg Some Australians experts really blame F-35 What you think? Damn, please people stop quoting Air Power Australia. That is an absolutely biased publication trying to get the F-22 into Australia. And if you know anything about aircraft and you read their publication you will see they are absolute garbage. The Russians love it though, so I can understand why you posted it here Primorsky. But it is bullshit. It is the National Inquire of air forces... They just want publicity, and they are good at that. And all of the people here trying to claim in some way that the F-22 is better than the F-35. They are NOT in the same class! The F-35 is a multi-role strike fighter. The F-22 is not. You can not compare them. If we had 2000 F-22's and no F-35's we would not have an effective air force. Just like now if we had 2000 F-15's and no F-16s. Please study up on air power and weapons systems before you go spouting BS to everyone else. I cannot stand Obama on 99% of issues; but I do agree with him here. We are so far ahead of other countries right now in fighter technology, by the time another country gets a competitor to the F-22 in the air, we will already have something better. So there is no use wasting money on the F-22- which is strictly an air-to-air fighter, and in all reality, will more than likely never be used... While the F-35 will be relevant for a very long time; all of its capabilities will probably never be needed (realistically), but it can be a damned good bomb truck (f-22 really cannot). The F-35 is much more useful than the F-22... It is the swiss army knife of 5th gen. aircraft, where the F-22 is the surgical scalpel... |
|
Sorry Primorsky, but that table is purely based on prediction and fiction, since only 2 of those planes are in production.
I keep being told different things by the same people on this forum in every F35 thread. I honestly cant be stuffed to try and justify what most people in my country think, or try and debate what is a better fighter or which my country should have. I keep being told that the F35 is a better fighter than the F22 due to its more advanced avionics, but it doesnt add up, considering the F22 has been banned from export since it is too good for anybody else, and that the US is using the F22 as its primary fighter. All I care about now is when my country will get its new fighters. We have a massive gap in our fighter coverage. The sooner this gets plugged the better. In the meantime, we are living with normal bugs, F111s on their last legs (about to be retired) and a bunch of super hornets. The longer we have to wait, the more money we are wasting on stopgap measures (ie super bugs). |
|
Quoted:
Sorry Primorsky, but that table is purely based on prediction and fiction, since only 2 of those planes are in production. I keep being told different things by the same people on this forum in every F35 thread. I honestly cant be stuffed to try and justify what most people in my country think, or try and debate what is a better fighter or which my country should have. I keep being told that the F35 is a better fighter than the F22 due to its more advanced avionics, but it doesnt add up, considering the F22 has been banned from export since it is too good for anybody else, and that the US is using the F22 as its primary fighter. All I care about now is when my country will get its new fighters. We have a massive gap in our fighter coverage. The sooner this gets plugged the better. In the meantime, we are living with normal bugs, F111s on their last legs (about to be retired) and a bunch of super hornets. The longer we have to wait, the more money we are wasting on stopgap measures (ie super bugs). The "super bugs" are awesome airplanes. I'm not exactly sure which version y'all got, but if they are the ones with the AESA radar, then they are more than capable of taking out any MiGs... The latest super hornet with AESA would even dominate a Typhoon... Just look at the on board sensors if you don't believe me. f-22 is overkill in your situation. Not only because of the initial price, but we would have to provide security to make sure none of the software codes and stealth secrets made made it out of your country. We spent more than a decade designing that fighter, and to be honest, it seems a bit rediculous that other countries expect us to export that tech. And btw, the superbug will deliver a lot more variety in ordinance and be more useful in real world situations than the F-22. In todays world, the F-22 fills a very niche role. for a country like Aust. it would just be a waste of money, |
|
Quoted:
Damn, please people stop quoting Air Power Australia. That is an absolutely biased publication trying to get the F-22 into Australia. And if you know anything about aircraft and you read their publication you will see they are absolute garbage. The Russians love it though, so I can understand why you posted it here Primorsky. But it is bullshit. It is the National Inquire of air forces... They just want publicity, and they are good at that. And all of the people here trying to claim in some way that the F-22 is better than the F-35. They are NOT in the same class! The F-35 is a multi-role strike fighter. The F-22 is not. You can not compare them. If we had 2000 F-22's and no F-35's we would not have an effective air force. Just like now if we had 2000 F-15's and no F-16s. Please study up on air power and weapons systems before you go spouting BS to everyone else . I cannot stand Obama on 99% of issues; but I do agree with him here. We are so far ahead of other countries right now in fighter technology, by the time another country gets a competitor to the F-22 in the air, we will already have something better. So there is no use wasting money on the F-22- which is strictly an air-to-air fighter, and in all reality, will more than likely never be used... While the F-35 will be relevant for a very long time; all of its capabilities will probably never be needed (realistically), but it can be a damned good bomb truck (f-22 really cannot).
The F-35 is much more useful than the F-22... It is the swiss army knife of 5th gen. aircraft, where the F-22 is the surgical scalpel... I kinda suggest you do the same. I'd much rather have 2000 F15's over 2000 F16's. The F22 like F15 can and will make quite an effective strike aircraft and everything in between, its all dependent upon whether the US government wants to pay that much, in this case they clearly do not, hence the F35. Just like the original F15 was designed as not a pound for air to ground several years later it became el primo uno strike craft of the USAF, the F22 can be the same. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry Primorsky, but that table is purely based on prediction and fiction, since only 2 of those planes are in production. I keep being told different things by the same people on this forum in every F35 thread. I honestly cant be stuffed to try and justify what most people in my country think, or try and debate what is a better fighter or which my country should have. I keep being told that the F35 is a better fighter than the F22 due to its more advanced avionics, but it doesnt add up, considering the F22 has been banned from export since it is too good for anybody else, and that the US is using the F22 as its primary fighter. All I care about now is when my country will get its new fighters. We have a massive gap in our fighter coverage. The sooner this gets plugged the better. In the meantime, we are living with normal bugs, F111s on their last legs (about to be retired) and a bunch of super hornets. The longer we have to wait, the more money we are wasting on stopgap measures (ie super bugs). The "super bugs" are awesome airplanes. I'm not exactly sure which version y'all got, but if they are the ones with the AESA radar, then they are more than capable of taking out any MiGs... The latest super hornet with AESA would even dominate a Typhoon... Just look at the on board sensors if you don't believe me. f-22 is overkill in your situation. Not only because of the initial price, but we would have to provide security to make sure none of the software codes and stealth secrets made made it out of your country. We spent more than a decade designing that fighter, and to be honest, it seems a bit rediculous that other countries expect us to export that tech. And btw, the superbug will deliver a lot more variety in ordinance and be more useful in real world situations than the F-22. In todays world, the F-22 fills a very niche role. for a country like Aust. it would just be a waste of money,
Err we WANT overkill. We have a small defense force, and yet we have a very large potential enemy on our doorstep. Help is on the other side of the world from us. We need overkill because that very large potential enemy has a military many times the size of ours. We dont just want to be more than capable of taking out any MiGs, we want to be more than capable of taking out the enemy's next generation fighters, that outnumber our fighters by huge amounts. We can afford F22s. Hell, they dont cost THAT much more than F35s. We have alot of Gucci shit, and Gucci fighters are what we need. We are willing to spend on our defense, because we know that when the time comes, America may be too busy fighting her own wars to be able to help us much. We also know that we will commit forces to help America for whatever reason, so we need a strong enough military to divert forces away from home, without weakening out forces at home too much. We have new tanks, new LAVs, new attack helos, new subs, new heavy lifting transport jets, new frigates, new infantry carriers. We have programs in place to acquire newer frigates, new helos for the Navy, and a bunch of other programs. We dont care if we have to spend to get the best. Hell, us buying F22s would make them cheaper for you. As for security, are you kidding me? We get access to top of the line secrets. The US has sold more secrets than we have. We arent Israel. We dont sell technology. We know who our allies are and we stand by them. What "real world" scenario are you talking about? We dont need them to bomb camels. We need them to defend our country. Overseas deployment is somewhere down the list, and any overseas deployment will probably be to help out the US. Our own scenarios consist of our fighters covering the arses of our Navy and Army, while we get mobbed by swarms of Indonesians or Chinese. As for niche, we are still running the F111. Hows that for niche. As for superbugs, they are simply a stopgap measure. We hoped to transition from the normal bug to the F35 with maybe a few years of the superbug. Superbugs have always been a temporary plane for us. For every year that the F35 is delayed, the more it costs us, since we either have to keep paying to hire the superbugs, or keep buying more superbugs to replace the bugs we are retiring. There are advantages that the F22 provides that the F35 does not provide. 2 engines (reliability), supercruise and rearward stealth are just some. Our fighters are expected to cover a huge area, with minimal air fields or places to land, which makes 2 engines important. If 1 engine goes out, they will still have the ability to get home. If a F35 loses its only engine, good luck trying to glide back to anywhere where you can land. Supercruise is needed so that they can get from their far away airbase to where they are needed quickly. Rearward stealth is needed, because we want our fighters to be able to get home alive, while being chased by MiGs because they used up their missiles. |
|
Quoted:
"Why Does the Pentagon Say the JSF is a 5th Generation Fighter . . Really?" ( (c) Air Power Australia NOTAM ) http://i46.tinypic.com/nqpav7.jpg Some Australians experts really blame F-35 What you think? I think anyone who uses Kopp and Goon as a resource should be banned. |
|
There are advantages that the F22 provides that the F35 does not provide. 2 engines (reliability), supercruise and rearward stealth are just some
The F-22 also has the ability to fly much higher and faster than the F-35 (or anything else for that matter), meaning it can largely dictate the terms of any engagement. Also, with the ability to release weapons from such high altitudes while super-cruising at Mack 1.7, it can impart a great deal extra range on its weapons. The F-35 can't do that. The F-35 will end up being a good aircraft at doing what it was initially designed to do......being the primary mud mover in a high/low F-22/F-35 equipped force. But the problem is that the early termination of the F-22 has left that force very improperly balanced. There will be much greater dependence on the F-35 to perform missions that would have been much better suited to the F-22. But since we have so few F-22s, we will have no other choice. What we needed was a numbers mix of F-22s and F-35s similar to that of the F-15/F-16 mix now. I would much rather have a force of 500 F-22s and 1500 Lightning IIs than less than 200 Raptors and 2500 Lightning IIs. The F-35 has amazing technology. And its stealth is good, though not anywhere near as a good as that of the F-22. But the part that troubles me most is the fact the F-35 simply doesn't have the performance characteristics I'd like to see in an aircraft that is going to be tasked with doing all it will have to do. The performance just leaves a lot to be desired. A Mach 1.8 top speed, no ability to super cruise, a poor thrust to weight ratio, a wing loading that isn't all that great, etc. may be able to cut it so long as the F-35s technical edge remains ahead of the enemy's performance edge. But with that kind of performance, if the enemy develops something with a similar degree of technology, but has better performance, then the F-35 could quickly become a sitting duck. At least the F-22 has the performance to stick with anything on the planet, even if it is forced to get into a tussle within visual range. And if it has to, it has the speed to escape. The F-35 will have a mighty tough time trying to outrun the T-50/PAK FA which will be a genuine Mach 2 class fighter with the ability to super cruise. BTW, if the decision were mine to make, the F-22 would be made immediately available for purchase to Australia. Unfortunately, I am not calling the shots. But I think an overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with me on this. I would be equally open to selling it to the British and Canadians if they wanted it. But that would be about as far as I'd be willing to go. I'm in favor of keeping the F-22 within the family, so to speak. All of the nations mentioned above are joined at the hip. We always end up fighting alongside each other and have for years. I don't see that changing anytime soon. |
|
Quoted:
I'm afraid that at this rate, the F-35 will come too late for us. Our bugs are at the very end of their lives. You may have to do what we are doing. We either are renting superbugs, or have bought them. Either way its costing a ton of money that is an absolute waste. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm afraid that at this rate, the F-35 will come too late for us. Our bugs are at the very end of their lives. You may have to do what we are doing. We either are renting superbugs, or have bought them. Either way its costing a ton of money that is an absolute waste. Actually, it won't be a waste because you're getting Super Hornets that can be hooked up as Growlers, giving you an Electronic Warfare capability you would otherwise not have. |
|
Quoted: How many super bugs are you flying right now?Quoted: I'm afraid that at this rate, the F-35 will come too late for us. Our bugs are at the very end of their lives. You may have to do what we are doing. We either are renting superbugs, or have bought them. Either way its costing a ton of money that is an absolute waste. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm afraid that at this rate, the F-35 will come too late for us. Our bugs are at the very end of their lives. You may have to do what we are doing. We either are renting superbugs, or have bought them. Either way its costing a ton of money that is an absolute waste. Actually, it won't be a waste because you're getting Super Hornets that can be hooked up as Growlers, giving you an Electronic Warfare capability you would otherwise not have. It is highly likely that we will get rid of them once the F35 is introduced, |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How many super bugs are you flying right now?
Quoted:
I'm afraid that at this rate, the F-35 will come too late for us. Our bugs are at the very end of their lives. You may have to do what we are doing. We either are renting superbugs, or have bought them. Either way its costing a ton of money that is an absolute waste. IIRC, we only have a few right now, under 10. The way things are looking, superbugs will completely replace our F111s and bugs before the F35 is introduced. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted: "Why Does the Pentagon Say the JSF is a 5th Generation Fighter . . Really?" ( (c) Air Power Australia NOTAM ) http://i46.tinypic.com/nqpav7.jpg Some Australians experts really blame F-35 What you think? i think saying the F35 is an F22 substitute is lunacy Hmmm.. They did not claimed that F-35 is replacement for F-22. I don't think so too... Quoted: The F-35 is much more useful than the F-22... It is the swiss army knife of 5th gen. aircraft, where the F-22 is the surgical scalpel...
I mosty agree with you But Lockheed Martin is also claiming that F-35 superior in air to air combat, isn't? But how this possible with F-35's weak manoeuvrability and medium power radar? APA experts doubts that F-35 meets ALL requirements for 5th generation jet fighter. Quoted: Sorry Primorsky, but that table is purely based on prediction and fiction, since only 2 of those planes are in production.
Today? Yes. But in near future (at least during current decade) Russian PAK-FA will be available for export. And we don't know about Chinese progress in development of their own 5th generation jet fighter - who knowns how good their fighter will be and when it will be ready (maybe soon). I keep being told that the F35 is a better fighter than the F22 due to its more advanced avionics
New advanced avionics is great, but what about another important capabilities? So what if potentional enemies of AUS in the near will got upgraded Flankers(or even exported T-50 variants) equiped with large AESA radars with greater power? |
|
Quoted:
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6062/6456s.jpg http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5725/5547s.jpg http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9453/002749.jpg Look mister, look, cheap prices , cheap prices  ahlalala.
Rafale is good, but it's damn expensive in consideration of its still 4th generation airframe. |
|
Quoted:
"Why Does the Pentagon Say the JSF is a 5th Generation Fighter . . Really?" ( (c) Air Power Australia NOTAM ) http://i46.tinypic.com/nqpav7.jpg Some Australians experts really blame F-35 What you think? I think adults are talking, and you should stick to pimping your T-50... and, while you're at it... tell us what you do in Russia (third time I'm having to ask you). |
|
Quoted:
I'm afraid that at this rate, the F-35 will come too late for us. Our bugs are at the very end of their lives. I remember when your airplanes were on the line in Building 2. We'll build more for you, send a note to the State Department and a check to the Pentagon. We may have to charge a little more for the spot light. I almost hate to say this, but Lockheed's past performance on several new programs is a reliable predictor of the program delay. I do not have first hand knowledge of all the barricades they have encountered, and the only way to know is by working on the project. I can make some educated guesses from experience, and I expect there is plenty of blame to spread amongst LM, the Pentagon, and Congress. I'll put most of the blame on LM's management; I'll bet a membership that the program suffered under an impossibly crushing schedule that caused widespread problems throughout the airplane that have to be corrected now. Kow towing to the Pentagon and the program office is a factor, and the usual menu of unpredictable complications is another. When I think about the test program for a "do it all" airplane such as the F-35, I have to believe that it's three times the size that would be required if the airplane was intended for the USAF alone. The government's requirements for one program are monumental, and mixing the requirements of two services is hard, especially if the USAF does not want features demanded by the USN and required for operation from ships. Then, after the cost, the result is an airplane of moderate performance at high cost, especially if foriegn sales evaporate. Two technologies may offset the apparent cost - AESA with great computing power, and HMDS; the services know by now as I expect there has been several thousand hours of sim work to understand how to use these devices via new tactics. |
|
Quoted:
Doesn't this: cut production buys of the aircraft
result in more of this: per-unit cost growth on major weapons.
due to R&D, etc, costs being spread out over fewer airframes? Yes, and that might be the greatest threat to the program. Foriegn countries that are heavily invested in the project and intend to buy don't have a bottomless bucket of money and may need to cut their losses, either when the airplane is not affordable or when their need for an airplane can't wait. |
|
Quoted:
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6062/6456s.jpg 
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9453/002749.jpg Look mister, look, cheap prices , cheap prices ahlalala.
ahlalala 
You guys can't even park straight.
|
|
Quoted:
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6062/6456s.jpg http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5725/5547s.jpg http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9453/002749.jpg Look mister, look, cheap prices , cheap prices ahlalala.
or as I call it "Surrender in Style" I keed, I keed... 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't this: cut production buys of the aircraft
result in more of this: per-unit cost growth on major weapons.
due to R&D, etc, costs being spread out over fewer airframes? Yes, and that might be the greatest threat to the program. Foriegn countries that are heavily invested in the project and intend to buy don't have a bottomless bucket of money and may need to cut their losses, either when the airplane is not affordable or when their need for an airplane can't wait. All I can think of is a line from an old "Married...With Children" show, in which Kelly Bundy told her father that the phone calls she'd been making were $4.95 for the 1st minute and $1/subsequent minute, so she hung up when the minute was up and called again so he didn't have to pay for the 2nd, 3rd, etc, minutes. |
|
Quoted:
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6062/6456s.jpg http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5725/5547s.jpg http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9453/002749.jpg Look mister, look, cheap prices , cheap prices ahlalala.
Actually, the problem with Rafale is that it isn't cheap. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry Primorsky, but that table is purely based on prediction and fiction, since only 2 of those planes are in production. I keep being told different things by the same people on this forum in every F35 thread. I honestly cant be stuffed to try and justify what most people in my country think, or try and debate what is a better fighter or which my country should have. I keep being told that the F35 is a better fighter than the F22 due to its more advanced avionics, but it doesnt add up, considering the F22 has been banned from export since it is too good for anybody else, and that the US is using the F22 as its primary fighter. All I care about now is when my country will get its new fighters. We have a massive gap in our fighter coverage. The sooner this gets plugged the better. In the meantime, we are living with normal bugs, F111s on their last legs (about to be retired) and a bunch of super hornets. The longer we have to wait, the more money we are wasting on stopgap measures (ie super bugs). The "super bugs" are awesome airplanes. I'm not exactly sure which version y'all got, but if they are the ones with the AESA radar, then they are more than capable of taking out any MiGs... The latest super hornet with AESA would even dominate a Typhoon... Just look at the on board sensors if you don't believe me. f-22 is overkill in your situation. Not only because of the initial price, but we would have to provide security to make sure none of the software codes and stealth secrets made made it out of your country. We spent more than a decade designing that fighter, and to be honest, it seems a bit rediculous that other countries expect us to export that tech. And btw, the superbug will deliver a lot more variety in ordinance and be more useful in real world situations than the F-22. In todays world, the F-22 fills a very niche role. for a country like Aust. it would just be a waste of money,
Err we WANT overkill. We have a small defense force, and yet we have a very large potential enemy on our doorstep. Help is on the other side of the world from us. We need overkill because that very large potential enemy has a military many times the size of ours. We dont just want to be more than capable of taking out any MiGs, we want to be more than capable of taking out the enemy's next generation fighters, that outnumber our fighters by huge amounts. We can afford F22s. Hell, they dont cost THAT much more than F35s. We have alot of Gucci shit, and Gucci fighters are what we need. We are willing to spend on our defense, because we know that when the time comes, America may be too busy fighting her own wars to be able to help us much. We also know that we will commit forces to help America for whatever reason, so we need a strong enough military to divert forces away from home, without weakening out forces at home too much. We have new tanks, new LAVs, new attack helos, new subs, new heavy lifting transport jets, new frigates, new infantry carriers. We have programs in place to acquire newer frigates, new helos for the Navy, and a bunch of other programs. We dont care if we have to spend to get the best. Hell, us buying F22s would make them cheaper for you. As for security, are you kidding me? We get access to top of the line secrets. The US has sold more secrets than we have. We arent Israel. We dont sell technology. We know who our allies are and we stand by them. What "real world" scenario are you talking about? We dont need them to bomb camels. We need them to defend our country. Overseas deployment is somewhere down the list, and any overseas deployment will probably be to help out the US. Our own scenarios consist of our fighters covering the arses of our Navy and Army, while we get mobbed by swarms of Indonesians or Chinese. As for niche, we are still running the F111. Hows that for niche. As for superbugs, they are simply a stopgap measure. We hoped to transition from the normal bug to the F35 with maybe a few years of the superbug. Superbugs have always been a temporary plane for us. For every year that the F35 is delayed, the more it costs us, since we either have to keep paying to hire the superbugs, or keep buying more superbugs to replace the bugs we are retiring. There are advantages that the F22 provides that the F35 does not provide. 2 engines (reliability), supercruise and rearward stealth are just some. Our fighters are expected to cover a huge area, with minimal air fields or places to land, which makes 2 engines important. If 1 engine goes out, they will still have the ability to get home. If a F35 loses its only engine, good luck trying to glide back to anywhere where you can land. Supercruise is needed so that they can get from their far away airbase to where they are needed quickly. Rearward stealth is needed, because we want our fighters to be able to get home alive, while being chased by MiGs because they used up their missiles. You could always build your own? To be perfectly honest, y'all would be a lot better off with a metric fuck-ton Rhino's, a shitload of patriots/SM2-3 and a robust aerial refueling capability. To be perfectly frank, the F-22 is a whole hell of a lot more airplane than you "need (tactically and strategically speaking)" or really "want (financially and maintenance)." As always, there is a lot more to this than your media (or ours) is going to tell you. BTW, did your government ever formally ask for F-22's? I didn't think so. ETA: That was a judicious use of post 10k.
|