221 thoughts on “Actual F-35 unit cost”

1. Old DoD tricks. Deliberately under-specify the aircraft’s equipment and project unreasonably high number of units to be produced then once the project is approved they add equipment and reduced the units creating a huge unit cost.

   The only thing that will end these games by the generals is the cancellation of one or two projects such as this one. I think I have read this in your post before but it is worth repeating: these are hard to cancel because these projects are effective transfer of income from relatively wealthy urban regions of the country to others more industrial and not so wealthy and the senators and representatives of the districts that receive the money fight to keep it that way regardless of how effective the weapon is.

   I think you have also mentioned this but I it is worth repeating… if the aircraft is so expensive and rare that you can’t risk its loss that limits where it can be used. So I wonder what they will use in high risk environs if they replaced all of those air-crafts that you mentioned with this one? The F35 pilots will be the safest fliers in the air force. It is almost a prestige weapon… the aircraft that Harrods would sell you!

   I like your posts a lot.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Yes, when you take a look at the F-35 and the F-22
      1) both had production spread out over large portion of United States (and in F-35s case, even outside US)
      2) both were estimated to have unrealistically low costs before production started
      3) both relied/rely on large number of orders and “learning curve” to get unit cost down

      LikeLike

      Reply

2. Fighter jet plan ‘reset’ as F-35 costs soar for Canada

   F-35 isn’t dead yet, but on life-support with costs set at $45.8B over 42 years for 65 aircraft..

   http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-plan-reset-as-f-35-costs-soar-1.1203373

   This is the price for 65 aircraft for 42 years, but assumes the aircraft will cost 150 million each to buy.. But if real cost is 250 million each like you point out with r&d costs which is what I also figure and have come up with, then entire operating costs for 42 years for Canada could go to 53 to 55 billion for 65 aircraft which means almost 1 billion per aircraft to buy and operate for 42 years if everything goes without any more hidden costs or problems…

   What a sink hole of money for a plane with 1950’s performance levels if you look at aerodynamics, aerial performance, payload etc….

   If it ever had to go against a likely opponent like either su-35 or Pak-Fa it would be totally annihilated in short order.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. How often will Canada fly them? Figure 300 million USD per aircraft + operating costs + maintenance costs + costs of “capability upgrades” = true cost of the F-35s for Canada. O&M costs are likely to be around 51.000 USD per flying hour (80% of F-22s costs). If F-35s stay in service for 42 years, and each F-35 is flown at rate of single 1 hour sortie every two days, then they will fly 498.550 hours in total. This will mean 25,4 billion USD just for O&M costs. Add to that costs of buying F-35s, and you get 44,9 billion USD in FY 2013 USD. This however does not include costs of support equipment, training and so on, which might indeed push cost up to 55-60 billion USD. If we use same incomplete way of determining costs for Gripen C, we get following: each Gripen C costs 33 million USD unit flyaway and 4.700 USD per flight hour; however, they can fly two sorties per day each. So 65 Gripens would cost 2,15 billion USD, they can also fly 1.994.200 hours in total, costing 9,37 billion USD, for total cost of 11,5 billion USD (26% of F-35s cost). Again, it does not include cost of support equipment, training and similar, but Gripens are unlikely to cost more than 30% of F-35s costs.

      LikeLike

      Reply

3. Yes you are right.

   But it might even me much worse than I thought even.

   One thing I noticed here in Canada is this, we bought 135 f-18 for 2 billion about 15 million each back in 1982.

   We upgraded 80 of them with a few minor upgrades and one bigger upgrade in the 2000’s, the rest were left un upgraded and mouth balled. And yet even without simulators and weapons it cost us 11.5 billion to buy and upgrade…. It cost us 5 billion more per 20 years to fly for gas and basic maintenance. So in 40 year it is 10 billion plus the 11.5 billion it comes come to 21.5 billion, even though we mouth balled 55 planes 10 years back or at least not upgraded them, which comes to 170 million per plan or 1,000 percent more than the original purchase price. Any future jets will likely be 1600% higher than purchase price since when we bought the jets our dollar to the usa dollar was 65 cents, and now it is almost on par so the upgrades cost in uss dollars was this alot less to purchase price then it normally would been if our dollar did not come up so much after the original purchase price compared to the usa dollar helping Canada alot with the maintenance and upgrade costs.. Plus we would be upgrading all of the planes and not just a tiny portion like we did with the cf-18

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet#Upgrades

   “The total program cost for the CF-188 purchase and upgrade programs is approximately $11.5 billion including upgrades, in 2011 dollars.[25] Additionally, the cost of maintenance for any 20-year period has been approximately $5 billion, or $250 million per year.[26]”

   So if the F-35 does cost 200 million each for the plane only plus 50 million per R&D per plane for a total of 250 million per plane to just buy… Then times that by 10 and the price comes to 2.5 billion per plane or 162.5 billion for the entire 65 jet order.

   Times 1600% and it comes to 4 billion per plane or 260 billion in total.

   LikeLike

   Reply

4. I know in 2001 Iraq bought 200,000 ak’s from Romania for $100 each or $20 million in total, which was a deal since Russia wants in today dollars $500 per ak…

   So what would make more of a difference in a war to help let any side win, regardless if it is the Afghanistan war or Syria war, regardless of the side you pick if it is the rebels, terrorists or freedom fighters or what ever name you want to call them depending on your views etc etc etc…

   Say we will give you 400,000 ak’s for 40 million or just the spare jet engine that goes into the f-35 and not get the rest of the plane… which would make more of a difference to win the war regardless of which side got the weapons in each war?

   This is an extreme example but just go to show you that dependable, reliable and rugged, low cost weapons have a certain quality all to there own…

   Also goes to show you that in a real life and death all out wars, that the best weapon system ever invented just might be the ak for the above mentioned reasons, as it is what the Vietcong used to win the Vietnam war on a very very low budget, and what they are using in Syria and also Afghanistan to this day, though in much lower numbers.

   On a side not the usa with all the fancy weapons lost the war, and were so broke because of all the spending on fancy weapons had to go off the gold standard soon after the war ended as they ran out of money, and they been on the fiat debt spiral that we are in to this day.

   So would it really matter if one side had 1 f-35 or 2 Rafael’s but the other had 2.5 million ak’s for the same cost? Which side wins? The winning side is the side that can arm the entire population with cheap ak’s that would determine the outcome, history goes with the ak and other similar low cost arms, and so do I….

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. I saw this last post and it is not perfectly correct. While the cost benefit analysis of an F-35 can stand alone the use of air-power in all-arms warfare does not. Air-power is the grease that makes everything else work better and it is no coincidence that the threat of US intervention in Syria via air bombardment was enough to bring sense their leadership.

      If you are trying to make a car can you honestly complain that for the price of an engine you can purchase several dozens sets of tires and that therefore you should buy more tires and no engines? You can’t built a car out of just one component and neither can you wage modern warfare with just one suite of weapons.

      The analogy of Vietnam is faulty. After the Tet offensive the north laid on its knees in exhausted defeat. What ended that war was the anti-war sentiment in the USA caused by the misguided policy of forcing a small sliver of the population (conscripts between 18 and 20 years of age) to bear the heaviest weight of that fighting. Had the burden been more equally spread across society the USA would have probably annihilated North Vietnam.

      And the so call debt issue is faulty… it is true that Lyndon Johnson waged the Vietnam War at the same time that he implemented the War on Poverty causing debt and inflation. He could afford one or the other but not both and the indigestion lasted through the Nixon, Ford, Carter and first couple of years of the Reagan presidency but policies that Carter implemented and that Reagan supported resolved that debt and inflationary spiral. The current problem with the US debt is low income-tax rates beginning with Bush 2. Modern industrial economies require far more taxes than that and the USA is working its way through those problems right now. Besides a bloated public sector that was the same problem that Ireland had (15% tax rate) as well as Greece (high levels of tax evasion). It is my understanding that Russia’s tax rate is also very low (about 11%) which is then subsidized by its natural resources but still carries with it so many problems.

      The above arguments are not designed to undervalue your arguments about the cost benefit of these aircrafts. There is clearly something wrong with any aircraft that has these types of unit costs and operation costs. I am learning from you guys. But those deductions can’t be stretched to mean more than they do.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   2. Rafael is an israelian defense company.
      Rafale is a Dassault fighter.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. … and the damned spell checker too.

         LikeLike

5. Opps I think they bought them in 2004…

   But you get the point.

   Other low cost weapons like sniper rifles, rpg’s, ied’s, mortars, hand grenades, mines, booby traps, recoiless anti tank guns etc would also be added for low to almost no cost compared to a f-35 or any jet really.

   You could buy a hell of alot of weapons compared to just 1 F-35 and the lifetime costs that go with that single jet.

   If you add up all the weapons actual costs the Taliban used in the last 10 years in Afghanistan, I doubt you could not even buy a spare engine for an f-35 with that same amount of money, (engine costs 40 million each) yet America spent trillions in some estimates trying to counter them.

   Seems they are getting stronger to.

   http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/21/afghan-troop-deaths-hit-record-amid-us-exit/

   http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014600207

   They just might win once usa is finished pulling out.

   All with low tech almost zero cost weapons, no funding and almost no training either.

   LikeLike

   Reply

6. Pentagon PR Procurement propaganda
   F-35A $98m
   F-35B $104m
   F-35C $116m

   FY2014 Procurement Program Budget Request
   F-35A $176m
   F-35B $237m
   F-35C $236m

   Navy on p. N-3, AF p. F-4

   Click to access fy2014_p1a.pdf

   This is particularly a problem for the US Marine Corps, a relatively small service.
   For the total Marine Corps F-35 fleets (340 B, 80 C) that unit cost (which has been rising) works out to about $100 billion. That’s plus retrofit, spares, etc. which compares with the MC annual budget of about $25 billion.

   That’s an impossible amount of money for a complex aircraft which would have difficulty operating from austere bases and which doesn’t excel at CAS.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Agree, agree agree. And of course that you are correct at singling out the Marines because one of the advantages of a Harrier is that tit can be deployed quickly from ship-to-shore sparing the large landing ships the risk of loitering around the beach head providing close air support. This is pretty bad.

      LikeLike

      Reply

7. I think what caused the cf-18 which cost 2 billion to buy for the planes only and suppose to cost only 6 billion at the time of purchase to both and operate go to 21 billion is inflation.

   I mean in the early 80’s gas was .25 cents a liter now it is 1.25 a liter, a 500% cost increase, the same can be assumed for cost of jet fuel as well. So maybe the projected midlife upgrade might cost 8 million at time of purchase for the cf-18 actually cost 50 million due to the fact that inflation is 4% to 5% a year or so, or the real rate of inflation and not the government numbers. So the mid-life upgrade of a f-35 might be huge for example.

   So if this is correct, the f-35 might cost $55,000 per hour to operate now
   20 years from now it might be $145,000 per hour to operate
   40 years will be $300,000 per hour…

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Right. We always hear about inflation at the consumer level but reality is that inflation is different for different segments in the economy. Armament procurement might be 2 to 4% of the economy so in a weighted basis it will not affect consumer inflation as much as say wages will which is about 60 to 70% of the economy. But if you focus on just armaments that segment could very well have say 10% inflation… and while that would not affect overall inflation that much to the buyer of arms it is a huge inflation rate.

      The reality is that to make arms politically viable the generals and admirals do exactly what Picard is saying… they under estimate the cost of everything… once passed and too far in to get out they unfurl the true cost in small increments until it is too late to back off the program. They probably knew all along that once they started stimulating the defense industry with purchases (demand) on a relatively fixed production base (constrained supply) prices where likely to rise higher. This is not the only answer but rather another contributing factor.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Inflation is a factor (which is why to compare weapons’ costs you have to do it in same year dollars) but factor are also so-called “capability upgrades”. F-16A costs 30 million USD, F-16C costs 70 million USD (FY 2013 USD), and with F-35s focus on technology even greater cost increase can be expected.

         LikeLike

8. hgr you really think usa could have won the Vietnam war if they would have stayed longer? No credible knowledgeable person would say that.

   Russia and China, north Korea was supporting Vietnam with money, training and weapons, the north Vietnam still had millions of man power, and millions more to draw on if needed be on top of that they could have lasted for decades like all guerrilla wars if need be.

   However usa fighting in the open deserts in Afghanistan can’t even beat the Taliban, and they have only 10,000 fighters and not millions, plus the Taliban are getting no outside training, support or weapons from other countries, yet the usa has spent trillions of dollars and a decade fighting in Afghanistan and they still can’t win, or have total victory and the Taliban is turning the tide of the war now.. All this despite the fact usa has much more modern equipment compared to Vietnam war, 40 years more modern, like drones, sensors, Pgm, Flir, 3rd gen night vision, better trauma teams etc

   How could the usa won in Vietnam with 1960’s technology fighting in the jungle against a guerrilla army of millions? Who were being given Kalashnikov’s by the trainload by their backers?

   I think you have to study your history and military tactics alot more before making such claims when usa can’t even beat the Taliban who are running around in the open desert in their robes & slippers.

   So with your theories why can’t usa Annihilate the Taliban then like you said they could do in Vietnam if “Only they could have stayed longer”

   Also after over a decade of fighting the Taliban how can you explain this then? And this is in the open desert, no outside help or support for the Taliban by major powers.

   http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/21/afghan-troop-deaths-hit-record-amid-us-exit/

   http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014600207

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Problem is that US are treating war as a battle of attrition… one who kills more opponents wins. But they are doing it wrong: war, especially guerilla one, is primarly about moral and morale, you have to remove reason enemy is fighting against you to win. Focus on attrition during Vietnam war misguided US on how badly war was going for them. And they don’t even fully understand attrition itself: attrition does not only happen on the battlefield but also off the battlefield due to maintenance problems. More complex weapon is, harder it is to maintain, and more complex weapons have larger and more vulnerable supply chain. Ergo, avaliability will drop faster for more complex weapons, which is also one aspect of attrition, but one that everyone in the US military ignores.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   2. First of all the USA has a lot of experience fighting guerrilla wars, insurgencies and sundry rebellions either in person or through proxy. They seldom win outright but typically weaken their enemy enough to negotiate a favorable deal with him… example the Phillipines, Central America, et al.

      And if you take a studious look at Vietnam the Tet offensive was a North Vietnamese blunder of majestic proportions. After its chaotic ending the Viet Cong ceased to exist as a fighting organization and North Vietnam was forced to agree to negotiations in Paris.

      Picard mentioned that guerrilla fighting goes on until some one gets tired and quits. That is what happened here too. The Peace movement in the USA was reaching a crescendo at that same time as the Tet offensive took place and Johnson was unable to capitalize on its outcome. Johnson did not have enough support to win the nomination against the peace movement candidates like McGovern and even less political support to seek additional resources to finish off the war. So he had to back out and not seek re-election. Nixon was the winner of the next presidential election with a platform of “peace with honor”.

      That political circus in the USA was the reason the war did not end quickly after Tet but rather lasted far into the Nixon presidency. North Vietnam thought that the Americans where going through something similar to what happened to the French in Algeria and believed correctly that the country would not fight on.

      But a more united USA society would have finished off north Vietnam very quickly or at least forced it to negotiate for survival. Of this I am absolutely certain. Instead of that we got those long years of fighting and negotiations with Kissinger at the helm.

      Now… these inland Asia societies like the Afghanistan ones have more in common with the corrupt revolutionary bandidos from South America or the even older European robber barons than you want to give them credit. They fight for their economic survival and the independence to continue stealing and smuggling. And they are assisted by corruption in the ranks of the so call legitimate government. It is chaos and no way to win quickly unless you are willing to do something that even the Russians shrieked from doing. But long term is another question all together… remember the Sandinistas? they used to be bandits/revolutionaries too. Well, now they are a political party and hold seats in their legislature… that is where the USA is leading the Taliban.

      Picard: agreed… the admirals and the generals do that which you described. They upgrade capabilities. But don’t you think that they might have known about the need for those upgrades all along and just did not tell congress? The LCS is a good example of this. They know it will cost more… I know it too. It is not hard to figure that the ship needs more armament. They will add capabilities to it and the price tag will rise. You will see. Same story.

      LikeLike

      Reply

9. I think you got the sides wrong, it was the usa military that was at the end of collapse

   Breaking Rank: A History of Soldiers Refusing to Fight

   http://indyreader.org/content/breaking-rank-history-soldiers-refusing-fight

   On the ground in Vietnam, nearly 300 incidents of “fragging”—the killing of commanding officers—were reported over the course of the war; in all likelihood many more occurred and went unreported. In later years of the war, the US could no longer rely on ground troops, leading to an increased reliance on aerial bombings. In response, sailors demobilized three aircraft carriers through small acts of sabotage, and soldiers in intelligence units purposely sent incorrect data to pilots to save lives on the ground.

   In his 1971 red alert, “The Collapse of the Armed Forces,” Colonel Robert D. Heinl Jr. wrote: “By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous.” By the mid-70s, this GI movement defeated the draft and was a major force in bringing the Vietnam War to an end. It also radically altered the domestic and international reputation of the United States military.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Excellent post. George, you are absolutely right but at the same time looking at it through the wrong prism.

      Because wealthy and upper middle class kids could gain an exemption from the draft by going to college or enrolling on the National Guard they where absent from the armed forces in Vietnam. George Bush being an excellent example and Al Gore a notable exception. And all those draft dodgers in American College that saw themselves as potential candidates for the draft did what?

      So the USA army in Vietnam was made of unwilling conscripts drawn from the lower rungs of society and included a substantial criminal component in it. I think Wellington commented about the English soldier of his day something like “I do not know how the French feel about our men but they scare me” or something to that effect. he could very well have been talking about the USA soldier at the time with a conscription system that resembled a Press Gang.

      Plus conscription of any kind creates an amateur Army similar to what the USA took to France in WW1. That has notable deficiencies when compared to professional armies.

      But I urge you to read on about the Tet offensive and its aftermath as it relates to the Viet-Cong and the Regular North Vietnamese Army. Look for books on Guerrilla or Urban Guerrilla that deal with that subject and you will see that despite anecdotes like the one you mentioned the north Vietnamese where on the ropes right after its conclusion. The Tet offensive could have cost them the war if not for political issues in the USA.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Tet offensive was concieved precisely to play on these domiestic issues, so if it weren’t for them, it wouldn’t have happened.

         LikeLike

10. I really suggest that you watch this video by a guy who spent a decade researching the Vietnam war and why the U.S lost.

    The Vietnam War: Reasons for Failure – Why the U.S. Lost

    Us military went all out to win in Vietnam, but despite doing everything in it’s powers

    including

    (1) Using 20 million gallons of chemical weapons

    During the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of the use of contaminated batches[2] of the compound.[3][4][5][6] The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange.[7]

    In South Vietnam alone, an estimated 10 million hectares (25 million acres, 39,000 square miles) of agricultural land was ultimately destroyed.[16]

    Soldiers were told they were destroying crops because they were going to be used to feed guerrillas. They later discovered nearly all of the food they had been destroying was not being produced for guerrillas; it was, in reality, only being grown to support the local civilian population. For example, in Quang Ngai province, 85% of the crop lands were scheduled to be destroyed in 1970 alone. This contributed to widespread famine, leaving hundreds of thousands of people malnourished or starving.[56]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_orange

    (2) Making the area the most bombed place in human history

    By the end of the war, 7 million tons of bombs had been dropped on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia – more than twice the amount of bombs dropped on Europe and Asia in World War II by all sides. Some estimates in today dollars goes as high as half a trillion dollars spent bombing laos alone.

    http://libcom.org/history/1957-1975-the-vietnam-war

    http://www.hangthebankers.com/the-most-heavily-bombed-country-on-earth

    (3) Mass torture & war crimes programs

    The Phoenix Program (Vietnamese: Chiến dịch Phụng Hoàng, a word related to fenghuang, the Chinese phoenix) was a program designed, coordinated, and executed by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), United States special operations forces, special forces operatives from the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam (AATTV),[1] and the Republic of Vietnam’s (South Vietnam) security apparatus during the Vietnam War.

    Torture
    Methods of torture used at the interrogation centers included:
    “Rape, gang rape, rape using eels, snakes, or hard objects, and rape followed by murder; electric shock (‘the Bell Telephone Hour’) rendered by attaching wires to the genitals or other sensitive parts of the body, like the tongue; the ‘water treatment’; the ‘airplane’ in which the prisoner’s arms were tied behind the back, and the rope looped over a hook on the ceiling, suspending the prisoner in midair, after which he or she was beaten; beatings with rubber hoses and whips; the use of police dogs to maul prisoners.”[15]

    Military intelligence officer K. Milton Osborne witnessed the following use of torture:
    “The use of the insertion of the 6-inch dowel into the canal of one of my detainee’s ears, and the tapping through the brain until dead. The starvation to death (in a cage), of a Vietnamese woman who was suspected of being part of the local political education cadre in one of the local villages … The use of electronic gear such as sealed telephones attached to … both the women’s vaginas and men’s testicles [to] shock them into submission.”[16]

    According to one former CIA officer few of the detainees who were interrogated survived—most of them were tortured to death, and those that survived the torture sessions were generally killed afterwards.[17] The torture was usually carried out by South Vietnamese with the CIA and special forces playing a supervisory role.[17]
    Between 1968 and 1972, Phoenix “neutralized” 81,740 people suspected of NLF membership, of whom 26,369 were killed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program

    (4) Mass war crimes
    Was My Lai just one of many massacres in Vietnam War?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23427726

    Vietnam Horrors: Darker Yet
    http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/06/nation/na-vietnam6

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:War_crimes_in_Vietnam

    (5) Massive manpower

    Some reports show that the U.S and her allies of south Vietnam and others rotated as many as 8 million personal in during the Vietnam war in which 3 million were Americans, so it is not like the U.S did not have enough manpower.

    By early 1968, the cruelty of the war began touching the conscience of many Americans. For many others, the problem was that the United States was unable to win the war, while 40,000 American soldiers were dead by this time, 250,000 wounded, with no end in sight.

    In the autumn of 1973, with no victory in sight and North Vietnamese troops entrenched in various parts of the South, the United States agreed to accept a settlement that would withdraw American troops and leave the revolutionary troops where they were, until a new elected government would be set up including Communist and non-Communist elements.

    http://libcom.org/history/1957-1975-the-vietnam-war

    (6) Longest war in U.S history

    “The Vietnam War was the longest deployment of U.S. forces in hostile action in the history of the American republic. Although there is no formal declaration of war from which to date U.S. entry, President John F. Kennedy’s decision to send over 2,000 military advisers to South Vietnam in 1961 marked the beginning of twelve years of American military combat. U.S. unit combat began in 1965. The number of US. troops steadily increased until it reached a peak of 543,400 in April 1969.”

    So it’s not like the U.S did not stay long enough and have a long enough time to win.

    http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/anderson.htm

    What was one of the final nails of the coffin for the U.S in Vietnam was the fact the ground forces were approaching a state of collapse, and could not go on much longer. Soldiers tormented by the horrors of the Vietnam war turned to hard core drug heroin use in large numbers, suicide, and deserted, many suffered symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

    And when the U.S tried to invade countries around Vietnam to close supply routes entire units near the breaking point simply refused orders to move forward, when replacement units also refused to follow orders it was the beginning of the end for U.S effectiveness on the ground.

    GI Revolts
    The Breakdown of the U.S. Army in Vietnam
    by
    Richard Boyle
    May 1973

    “The result, for the military, was devastating. By 1969 the morale and discipline of the U.S. ground forces in Indochina had so broken own that it was no longer a reliable fighting force. This fact was one of the major causes for the change in U.S. strategy. The U.S. government had no choice but to withdraw American troops. Nixon may call the Vietnam settlement “peace with honor.” But his alternative was war without an army.”
    “So the press simply never heard of the fraggings, of officers shot in the back by their own men, of near-revolts of whole units.”

    “Another sign of the breakdown of the Army in Indochina was the drug epidemic. Well over half the troops in Vietnam smoked the easily available (and potent) marijuana. And in 1971, according to official estimates, 10-l5% of the American troops were addicted to heroin.”

    http://richgibson.com/girevolts.htm

    “Company A of the Third Battalion, 196th Light Infantry Brigade refuses the order of its commander, Lieutenant Eugene Schurtz, Jr., to continue an attack that had been launched to reach a downed helicopter shot down in the Que Son valley, 30 miles south of Da Nang. The unit had been in fierce combat for five days against entrenched North Vietnamese forces and had taken heavy casualties. Schurtz called his battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel Robert C. Bacon, and informed him that his men had refused to follow his order to move out because they had “simply had enough” and that they were “broken.” The unit eventually moved out when Bacon sent his executive officer and a sergeant to give Schurtz’s troops “a pep talk,” but when they reached the downed helicopter on August 25, they found all eight men aboard dead. Schurtz was relieved of his command and transferred to another assignment in the division. Neither he nor his men were disciplined. This case of “combat refusal,” as the Army described it, was reported widely in U.S. newspapers.”

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-unit-refuses-commanders-order

    In his 1971 red alert, “The Collapse of the Armed Forces,” Colonel Robert D. Heinl Jr. wrote: “By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non-commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous.”

    http://www.civsol.org/content/breaking-rank-2

    “More than three million Americans served in Vietnam. By war’s end, 58,193 soldiers were killed, more than 150,000 were wounded, and at least 21,000 were permanently disabled. Approximately, 830,000 Vietnam veterans suffered symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. An estimated 125,000 Americans fled to Canada to avoid the Vietnam draft, and approximately 50,000 American servicemen deserted.”

    “Between 1965 and 1975, the US spent $111 billion on the war ($686 billion in FY 2008 dollars). This resulted in a large federal budget deficit. The war demonstrated that no power, not even a superpower, has unlimited strength and resources.”

    http://www.masress.com/en/egyptiangazette/10959

    Henry Kissinger who was in constant contact with the military brass and advisers during the war that were stationed their finally concluded and gave the following message basically saying the U.S was incapable of winning in Vietnam.

    “Lessons of Vietnam – Secret Memoranda to The President of the United States by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger”

    U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in a secret memo to president Gerald Ford that “in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail.”[350]

    Even Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that “the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion.”[351]

    I spent hundreds of hours studying the Vietnam war… I know you are likely a proud American but it is what it is, and history can’t be changed, U.S lost and were outdone plain and simple, the Vietnamese peoples deserve my outmost respect for stopping the imperial power.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. I too have spent hundreds of hours researching the Vietnam War.

       A war like Vietnam can’t be analyzed in an episodic fashion.

       Even now a cursory web search of Tet offensive will bring articles stating that it was a defeat for the communist. The problem was that USA society was not united in purpose. With out your society behind you it is very difficult to win any war.

       Today, in the USA 10% of the population uses illegal drugs. Much more abuses alcohol and and prescription medicines but would use other drugs if those where not available to them; it is just that alcohol and prescription pills are the drugs of the middle class and there is no chance of them getting prohibited. Maybe 50% of the USA population is thus affected by drugs of one type or another for reason would take a long time to explain.

       Poor education and misery where more prevalent in the 1960’s than they are now. Almost all statistics that deal with how poorly we are doing today vs. our past start the comparison after that decade. Because before then legal racism, red-lining of districts for government spending, etc. was normal and created unbelievable urban and rural poverty.

       It is from these slivers of society that our troops where drafted from. men that had no choices.

       Middle class and rich avoided military service by entering college and thus indirectly our society placed a huge number of the draft dodgers in college campus where their activities could be easily coordinated. There are still a few universities that prohibit armed forces recruitment, etc. as a legacy of those days.

       Do you really think that if the sons of the rich and the middle classes had been among the front line troops this war would have lasted 10 years?

       This war, fought in the aftermath of the fall of China to the communists and predicated on geopolitical issues was never a war that the USA citizens understood that well. Today it is still difficult to explain to an average Joe the importance to our society of maintaining our presence in Korea, Japan, Philippines, supporting Taiwan and improving our relations with the new Vietnam. Those countries represent the defacto borders of the USA of America. The South China Sea is a USA lake and all of China’s trade as well as a huge amount of ours moves under the watchful eye of the USA Navy.

       To men like Nixon and Kissinger who where schooled in the realities of European Cold War and Nuclear weapons the fighting in Vietnam was not the sort of thing they understood that well and it distracted both from diplomatic efforts with countries such as Russia and China. Ditto for an air-force designed for nuclear war forced to fight in a rural inaccessible country with no industry or infrastructure.

       The Vietnam war ended as a matter of choice. If Russia and China choose as they did to have better relations with the USA then that choice involved them cutting off aid to Hanoi. That is how the war actually ended years after we stopped trying to win. The USA wanted to fracture the communist block, China needed its security improved in the face of frictions with Russia and the latter had to weight the cost of being excluded from all that. The windfall of improving relations with China and Russia was their cooperation ijn ending the Vietnam war.

       I do not want to leave your comments about torture unaddressed. The USA made mistakes which other countries in those same circumstances have also made. The British in Ireland for example. But those mistakes while important still rank lower than social disunity in the USA which was the highest and most relevant reason that war was lost.

       There is a second important reason too… one that is not often talked about. When seen through the media the Vietnamese all look alike. To the casual reader of news their leadership looked just like the rest of their people. But that was far from the truth. Vietnam had been a French colony and their leading political citizens where catholic, French speaking, urban and Westerners in terms of education and culture. These qualities had brought them economic gains during colonial days since they where French in all but appearance. This leadership which we supported was at odds with the bulk of the Buddhist, rural poor peasantry that represented the vast majority of the population. They where a divided society. Had the South won the war the economic gains of that war would have flowed mostly to those french speaking families and not to the poor who’s future would remain the same regardless of which side won.

       LikeLike

       Reply
11. Pingback: Modern aircraft flyaway costs « Defense Issues

12. I have quotes, annotations and references to prove all my facts right from the mouths of the generals of the U.S military and the American leaders who were their fighting the war or leading it and who had access to all the information and documents and to why they could not have won the war, and how it was hopeless….

    You have none.

    This is the difference between facts and fictions…

    A person who studies and researches a topic and provides facts and one who thinks he knows things but really does not.

    By the way, before I go, Good luck in Afghanistan…

    You’ll need it.

    I am done with this thread.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. I am sorry to see you go as well as I feel it is my responsibility to tell you that I as well have facts and references to all that I am mentioning in my posts regarding the Vietnam war. Please do not misinterpret what I am saying now to mean that I discredit your comments but rather that they are describing accurate symptoms and not the core problem.

       The outrage of 9/11 united this society in a common purpose that made all the difference. With out that level of unity the Afghanistan war would have been another Vietnam. While these two are extreme examples at least you should recognize that difference in societal attitudes.

       Afghanistan: a country cobbled together by the British rife with official corruption and dominated by tribes that live off smuggling and growing drugs. We are leaving behind exactly that minus the international terrorist heavens that used to be there. I am not afraid of Afghanistan and I am not afraid of Iran either. These are countries dominated by corruption. In Iran the Mullahs are the biggest thieves and recipients of official and unofficial bribes and represent an insurmountable weakness for that country. One of the best known secrets around is that Iran is defenseless against Israel and if not for Hamas the Iranians would have no way of striking back. Ditto for the USA and Afghanistan…

       This part of the world is not “normal” and you can’t have normal victories. You do something like what the USA has been doing with Central America for years. You leave behind a ruling class who value their association with you and you work through them.

       Good luck on your next post. I enjoy reading them and did gain a little knowledge. I will miss that.

       LikeLike

       Reply

13. “F-35 unit flyaway cost is between 180 and 300 million USD depending on variant. Costs are unlikely to go down, and are actually likely to go up. ”

    The ACTUAL costs as per the most recent contract signed with Lockheed Martin –

    LRIP 6 cost: $103 million/aircraft
    LRIP 7 cost: $98 million/aircraft

    CTOL F135 engine cost < $15 million.

    Cost of retrofit development aircraft:

    Average $15 million for LRIP 1-4.
    Average $5.8 million over 289 aircraft.

    As for those touting those USAF budget statistics to show the 'real price', let me just point out that as of Jan 2013, only LRIP 4 aircraft were being delivered to the air force.

    LRIP 6 & LRIP 7 deliveries will begin in 2014 & 2015 respectively, and will therefore be reflected in subsequent military budgets.

    Even the LRIP 7 costs are not final. Costs will continue to drop as production is scaled up. The final flyaway cost will be $90-100 million.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. Please, read the article before responding, you have links in it and I suggest that you read documents and articles linked. Your “actual” costs are BS – I have never heard of combat aircraft that does not have an engine, for example. As for rest, LRIP is the actual current cost; USAFs projections you are quoting are bogus and are simply too optimistic. No modern fighter aircraft has experienced such reduction is flyaway cost as F-35 would have in order to reach “final flyaway cost” you have mentioned.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. I suggest you go back and read the article again. It gives the costs of the LRIP 4 & 5. I’m giving you the costs of the more recent LRIP 6 & 7. $112 million for Lot 7. Plus another $8 million or so to retrofit it.

          As for the engine, the contract is awarded separately to P&W and the current cost is around $14 million for the CTOL variant.

          (The author is article is completely wrong with his figure of $38 million for the engine; that’s for the F-35B and even that figure has fallen now.)

          Unit recurring fly away cost: $120 million or thereabouts.

          With regard to the projections of final cost, please note that the current rate of production is about 30 aircraft annually and the production line and system of subcontractors is still maturing.

          By 2019, the line will be putting out about 110 aircraft annually and production is expected peak at over 150 units/year.

          Reducing the flyaway cost from current $120 mil to $90-100 mil is over-optimistic.

          LikeLike

       2. To restate –

          LRIP 7:

          $98 mil for aircraft
          $14 mil for engine
          $08 mil for retrofits

          $120 mil total

          LikeLike

       3. You are utterly wrong. Read documents and articles I have linked in my post.

          Bottom line is:
          F-35A cost 197 million in 2012, 184 million in 2013, and 189 million in 2014.
          F-35B/C cost 217 million in 2012 and 278 million in 2013.

          These costs do not include R&D. And my figures are based on official US Government document, which has been linked to in the post. I have also linked to several articles which roughly agree with that. So either you are not reading whatever article you are taking figures from correctly, or guy who wrote the article didn’t know what he was writing about.

          LikeLike

       4. Don’t just declare it wrong just because it doesn’t go with your preconceived notions of its cost. Specifically tell me what part of it is flawed/faulty/incorrect.

          All the links posted in the article (including USAF budgets) deal with the LRIP 1-5. They’re not the most recent and therefore not the most relevant costs.

          Here’s the LRIP 7 cost breakdown WITH references:

          F-35A : $98 million

          Jane’s: http://www.janes.com/article/27695/latest-f-35-contracts-mark-new-strategy-to-reduce-costs
          Lockheed Martin: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lrip-6-7-contract-agreements

          Cost of engine:

          F135 CTOL: $16 million (LRIP 3)/ $14 million (current cost)

          http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_03_2013_p26-583081.xml&p=2
          http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_08_05_2013_p30-602514.xml

          Cost of retrofit:

          Assuming $8 million for LRIP 7.

          $5.8 million average over 289 SDD aircraft.

          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-06/pentagon-says-cost-to-retrofit-first-f-35s-drops-by-500-million.html
          DoD House Report: http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/06/F-35-Concurrency-Costs-RTC_May-2013.pdf

          Therefore, current total fly away cost: $120 million.

          NOTE: The USAF budget figures are for the LRIP 4 & 5 signed in 2010/11. These figures on the other hand are for the most recently signed contract.

          LikeLike

       5. Funny. You have failed to even consider, let alone read, documents and articles I have linked to in my post, yet you talk about “preconcieved notions” while at the same time believeing marketing prognoses of F-35s cost. So I’ll pass through documents again, just so you don’t have any excuses.

          Click to access AFD-120210-115.pdf

          pg11: 18 F-35A for 3,55 billion USD, or 197 million USD per aircraft, in 2012
          pg12: 19 F.35A for 3,35 billion USD, or 176 million USD per aircraft, in 2013

          http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=133433&shop=dae&modele=feature
          LRIP 5 cost is above 200 million USD per aircraft; 172 million for F-35A, 292 million for F-35B, 236 million for F-35C.

          http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/141238/**f_35-lot-5-unit-costs-exceed-$223m.html
          Average LRIP 5 cost above 200 million USD.

          http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/2562009/lightning.asp
          Israel, which can’t use US military help, was offered F-35s at price of over 200 million USD per aircraft.

          As for LRIP 6 and 7, they are irrelevant: acquisition has not, as you point out, started and therefore their cost is not known. All we have are projections, which are unreliable at best of times. “Final” flyaway cost you are quoting are also irrelevant for that very reason. They are projections, and all that can be known is that actual costs will likely be higher than projected costs. To give an example, F-22s production cost averaged 200 million USD per aircraft, climbing up to 250 million USD for last several aircraft produced, despite original projections being that it will cost 30 million USD (in 1988 USD; that would be 60 million USD in 2013). As you can see, F-22 actual cost ended up being 800% as large as originally projected. There is no reason to believe that F-35 will fare much better.

          LikeLike

       6. *should be “400% as large”.

          LikeLike

       7. I have taken a look at the costs quoted by you. They are out of date or erroneous [viz. engine cost (I assume you’re the author of the main article)].

          To repeat, the deliveries to the USAF reflect the LRIP 4 & 5 costs. LRIP 4 & 5 figures have been superseded by the LRIP 6 & 7.

          For the record, I never said that the LRIP 6 & 7 acquisition hasn’t begun and I’d thank not to insinuate the same.

          What I did say was that DELIVERIES will begin only in 2015 (LRIP 7). The contracts HAVE been signed. Also, as per the contract, production cost overruns will be borne by the contractor i.e. Lockheed Martin.

          So the cost of $120 million/unit stands.

          Coming to cost projections, you’re comparing cost projections made when the F-22 was on paper to the actual cost in production, two decades later.

          I’m talking about projections for an aircraft that is ALREADY in production ($120 mil), for when it reaches FULL rate of production ($90-100 mil). Apples to oranges.

          Also, with regard to the sale of Israel –

          $2.75 billion contract for 19 aircraft signed in 2010.

          Flyaway cost is $96 million per aircraft (remainder for support) delivered from LRIP 8,9,10 batches.

          http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3966219,00.html

          LikeLike

       8. The Israeli costs are not apples to oranges since they are adding their technology to their aircrafts… “and the integration of Israeli capabilities in the aircraft Israel will purchase.” So their cost should be lower than anyone’s else who is buying the USA airplane fully loaded.

          I had known of this approach from the Israelis and had read that their rationale was that for the F-35 to remain competitive against others an up-date might be required in as little as 5 years and they wanted to do those plus integrate their own equipment to it (not USA).

          Also, the Israelis are known for being able to make military equipment on a budget and the fact that they will be included in future developments and production might have something to do with a lack of faith on the USA contractor’s ability. Just possible.

          Since in the military cost are not calculated in a normal fashion as it would be elsewhere I need to also remind everyone that the cost of keeping legacy aircrafts flying for a longer period of time to allow for the F-35 delays is also a cost of the F-35 program as well as up-grades that will be needed in as little as 5 years if the Israelis are also correct should almost be consider part of the adquisition since they will not deploy until then.

          Jerrick, this F-35 was supposed to be cheaper and bought in large numbers similar to the F-16. Well it is not that and one point there was a rumor that the Navy was going to bail out of it due to cost… imagine them doing that! It was serious.

          That this aircraft is crazy expensive and that is one thing most people agree. I do not think it will stay at below $100 million for long… this might be a ploy to quiet the political opposition.

          Knowing how USA procurement politics work do not be surprise if they go to Northup and ask them to come up with a cheaper alternative… wait and see.

          LikeLike

       9. HGR,

          The Israeli ‘upgrades’ to the aircraft are purely supplementary and pertain only to the addition of elements of EW system. The F-35’s avionics including the radar, DAS, EOTS remains unchanged. Also it will be adding its own domestic munitions including but probably not limited to the Spice PGM kit and Rafael Python 5 (or Python 6).

          Also these modification will not be carried for a while yet, the initial lot of the F-35s is identical to those being delivered to the USAF except for Israeli data-links.

          Point is, the contract signed with Israel, DOES reflect the aircraft’s true cost.

          As far as the motivations behind the F-35I go, its purely industrial. The F-35 will be only fighter inducted by the IAF for at least the next two decades. Having a captive market, allows Israel to productively invest in its domestic industry and maintain core competencies, without which it would wither away (and its exports would go with it).

          But to be fair it does also allow the Israeli to customize their equipment particularly against US-origin equipment operated by hostile states (eg. RSAF F-15SA, UAEAF F-16E/F).

          LikeLike

       10. “So the cost of $120 million/unit stands.”

           No it doesn’t. You can’t know the cost until procurement has been finished.

           “I’m talking about projections for an aircraft that is ALREADY in production ($120 mil), for when it reaches FULL rate of production ($90-100 mil). Apples to oranges.”

           F-35 is 180 million USD per unit, and that is F-35A. Pretending that documents (and I’m talking about official US document I linked to) show something else than they do show is self-delusionary.

           LikeLike

14. Rather than keeping this uni dimensional at cost it would be better to analyze the number of sorties, maintenance and operating cost, the suitability of this aircraft for the mission, etc. How fewer sorties and how more expensive is it now compared to before?

    Almost every one seems to think that with in visual range this aircraft is at a severe disadvantage. No one believes it is a close support aircraft and it seems to be a bomber.

    If it is a bomber how cost effective is it when compared to others? It was my understanding that current munitions allow current aircrafts to bomb targets in Syria with out entering Syrian air space and staying away from their SAM. Those are current technologies.

    What does this plane add?

    If he is fighting mostly from beyond visual range then how affective are the new missiles?

    Bear in mind that even supporters of the USA AF and Navy acknowledge that their propaganda machine will distort information.

    I still believe that an economical aircraft will be in the pipeline mostly based on these technologies that have been paid with the F-22 and F-35. Specially with the software and the sensors.

    I happen to think that Picard and George are up to something that approaches truth here even with the lack of clarity on cost.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. Cost is important, but you are correct that it is only a part of the problem. To give an example, in World War II, Panzer IV cost half as much as Tiger did. So Germans could have produced twice as many Panzer IVs as Tigers? No, since it was easier to produce, did not require as complex machinery and as educated workers, actual ratio was estimated to be more like 4:1.

       Number of sorties depends partly on cost. For 1 billion USD, you can get either 5 F-35A, 13 Rafale C, 14 F-16C or 30 Gripen C. However, these aircraft don’t have the same sortie rate, so we end up with 1,5 F-35A, 26 Rafale C, 16,8 F-16C or 60 Gripen C sorties per day.

       Operating cost will likely be cca 50.000 USD per hour for F-35A, 18.000 USD per hour for Rafale C, 7.000 USD per hour for F-16C or 4.700 USD per hour for Gripen C. So if sorties last 1 hour each, 1 million USD results in 20 F-35A sorties, 55 Rafale C sorties, 142 F-16C sorties or 212 Gripen C sorties.

       As for suitability, F-35 is inherently unsuitable for air superiority. Part of it is the cost – it is bound to be outnumbered against any larger power, and you don’t need anything better than F-5 to kick ass of Arab air forces, even if latter are flying Typhoons (or F-22s, or Rafales), simply because Arabs are incompetent to hell. So why use 3 F-35s flying 10 sorties per week when you can have 40 Gripen As flying 80 sorties per week? It also doesn’t have anything required for air superiority – it is not agile, it is not stealthy in IR spectrum, its sensor suite is inferior to that on Rafale even though sensor suite is about only good thing about the F-35… and radar-guided missiles are inherently unreliable.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Jerrick, Can you give me your vision of the aircraft?

          I ask you this because in official circles all one hears is that the price of these aircrafts (F-35) is too high. But in unofficial circles one hears a much richer story of lack of capability, spending a lot and getting very little for it and how the small numbers and few sorties can will defeat it even if it worked as advertised.

          One thing that bothers me is not knowing how this aircraft fits in a battlefield. What is it supposed to do well that the others cannot do? We are looking at an investment we will live with for 40 years.

          Hector

          LikeLike

       2. F-35 is designed for deep interdiction, low-level strike and SEAD, and these roles are about only ones it can do adequately. And even SEAD is questionable. Everything else has been tackled on to a) compensate for cessation of F-22 production and b) purify the Air Force by retiring the A-10s and thus finally get rid of the Close Air Support mission. F-35 has no capacity for CAS whatsoever, and neither do other multirole aircraft.

          LikeLike

       3. With the proliferation of SAMs and MANPADS, even dedicated CAS aircraft like the A-10 can’t fly their standard low-low flight profile with an acceptable degree of safety, in a conventional conflict. The only safe solution is to fly out of the SAM envelope i.e. at higher altitudes, and rely on PGMs for effect with designation done by LDPs or FACs.

          LikeLike

       4. Picard,

          The currently projected F-35 operating cost is $24000/hr. $465 billion over 2443 aircraft with lifespans of 8000 hours each.

          The figures that you’re using viz. $4,700/h for Gripen & $7,000/h for F-16 were compiled by Jane’s. The same study put the tentative cost of the F-35 at $21,000/h. Your claim of $50,000/h is off by a factor of 2.

          As for capability, Gripen is certain a very cost effective aircraft. As long as fighting a first rung adversary is not amongst the tasks that the air force/navy may be called on to perform. Fighting the PAK FA or J-20 is whole different ball game.

          For an example of what happens when legacy aircraft go up against a fifth generation aircraft, I suggest you take a look at the result of Ex. Northern Edge, Alaska 2005. The F-22 racked up a 144-0 kill ratio over just two weeks.

          LikeLike

       5. Jerrick,

          “Ex. Northern Edge, Alaska 2005. The F-22 racked up a 144-0 kill ratio over just two weeks.” – do you have a link that I can read/look at?

          LikeLike

       6. A-10 has proven more survivable than F-117 against the competent opponent, and yes CAS mission is just about the most dangerous mission one can be given. Which underlines the stupidity of trying to get multirole aircraft like the F-35 do it. And flying very high is only one solution to SAMs and MANPADS, another is to fly very low, but in that case you’ll have a lot of small-arms fire, which A-10 can tolerate but F-35 can’t. Even F-16s had to do gun-strafing runs in Afghanistan, where were your magic PGMs then?

          As for F-35 costs, “projected” costs mean nothing, try to get that in your head at last. F-22 was projected to cost about as much as F-16C, now it costs 4 times as much as F-16C does; so much about projections. F-35 operating cost will be at least twice as much as projections you are quoting assume.

          And F-22 racked up that kill ratio in fights that completely misinterpreted operating environment. It was not a single fight but rather a series of small engagements, usually 4 F-22s vs 8 “legacy” aircraft. It has been proven that, as engagements grow larger, kill:loss ratio goes towards parity, so small engagements favored the F-22. Also, 4th generation aircraft used did not have modern EW suites, including the RWR, and BVR missiles were assumed to have probability of kill of around 0,65 (thus 6-8 BVR missiles carried gave F-22 total Pk of 3,9 to 5,2). Even AIM-120 never managed to achieve probability of kill above 0,5 against utterly incompetent opponents, and if numbers were realistic F-16Cs would have outnumbered F-22s 9:1, and F-15Cs 4:1 (so if F-22s faced a mix of F-15Cs and F-16Cs, they should have been outnumbered 6,5:1; in that case, assuming 4 F-22s, even 0,65 BVR missile Pk would have meant 5-6 opponents getting to the visual range).

          LikeLike

       7. A-10 more survivable than the F117? For the record, the F117 has continued to be used in the role it was designed for – entering striking ground targets in highly defended airspace. In the Gulf War ’91, it was the only aircraft that continued to hit Baghdad after the failure of the Package Q strike. The A-10 on the other hand stopped the low level flying it was originally designed for, by the time the Balkan operations took place. While the A-10 can tolerate small arms fire, it is not immune to MANPADS.

          As for F-16 gun strafing in the Afghanistan; it could do so only because there were zero threats to air assets in the region. The F-35A would have done just the same as well. Push some AC-130s into the sector and it’ll provide even superior ground support. Throw in militias equipped with Iglas into this comfortable equation, and the whole thing goes to hell. At that point, EVERY aircraft (including the A-10) starts flying higher altitudes.

          LikeLike

       8. “A-10 more survivable than the F117? For the record, the F117 has continued to be used in the role it was designed for – entering striking ground targets in highly defended airspace. In the Gulf War ’91, it was the only aircraft that continued to hit Baghdad after the failure of the Package Q strike. The A-10 on the other hand stopped the low level flying it was originally designed for, by the time the Balkan operations took place. While the A-10 can tolerate small arms fire, it is not immune to MANPADS.”

          In Gulf War and balkans operations, F-117 flew 2.600 sorties, suffering 1 aircraft shot down and 1 written off due to damage. A-10 flew 12.400 sorties, suffering 4 losses, of which 3 were shootdowns and 1 written off due to damage. So shootdown rate for F-117 was 0,04% and loss rate was 0,08%; shootdown rate for A-10 was 0,02% (half of F-117s) and loss rate was 0,03% (1/3 of F-117s). F-117 flew exclusively at night, and A-10s that flew at night suffered zero losses.

          “As for F-16 gun strafing in the Afghanistan; it could do so only because there were zero threats to air assets in the region. The F-35A would have done just the same as well. Push some AC-130s into the sector and it’ll provide even superior ground support. Throw in militias equipped with Iglas into this comfortable equation, and the whole thing goes to hell. At that point, EVERY aircraft (including the A-10) starts flying higher altitudes.”

          A-10 actually can operate in MANPADS-infested environment if required, though it is preferred not to do so. And F-16s tried to do CAS too… they were never anywhere as successful as A-10s, I have written an article about it. It took F-16s several hours of gun strafing to resolve situation similar to those that A-10s resolved for 10 minutes to half an hour.

          LikeLike

       9. The A-10 and F-117 didn’t fly the same missions so comparing their attrition rate is no more productive than comparing that of the USMC Harrier II to the USAF’s B-2. Besides, you’ve missed the main thrust of my post altogether. The A-10 was DESIGNED to fly low level whereas the USAF has STOPPED flying low level in conflicts where a MANPADS threat exists. The A-10’s PRIMARY mission was strafing mobile forces whereas today a SINGLE CBU-105 dropped from 20,000 ft can destroy upto 40 vehicles on ground (including tanks).

          And while the A-10 is better suited to a low-threat COIN campaign than the F-16 and F-35, fact is, a turbo-prop attack aircraft like the Super Tucano are even more effective.

          LikeLike

       10. Yes, in fact, A-10s flew far more dangerous mission than the F-117 (daytime Close Air Support vs nighttime “precision” strike). And A-10 will still have to go low and dirty to be effective in certain situations, MANPADS or no MANPADS. And to survive such an excursion, you need a sturdy aircraft that is slow enough to effectively use the terrain masking.

           And yes, single GBU-105 can destroy 40 vehicles, and kill God knows how many friendly troops with shrapnel. “Precision” munitions are not very suitable for CAS.

           For COIN aircraft, I agree.

           LikeLike

       11. You’re sidestepping the point again viz. the A-10 flew most missions well over 10,000ft in the Balkans. And since its not being risked in the MANPAD envelope, there’s no point to building a custom replacement and its no surprise that the USAF is consolidating on multi-role types.

           With regard to PGMs, if you scroll up and read the post, you’ll find there was no reference to employing the CBU-105 for CAS. It’ll not be employed where friendly ground vehicles are deployed and it doesn’t rely on a blast effect to kill, so your statement about killing friendlies with shrapnel doesn’t hold water.

           There are a host of PGMs that can and have been used for close support including Paveways, JDAMs, Hellfire, Brimstone (and now the SDB-II). Also, for the record the A-10 has doing CAS with a (supposedly very hazardous) PGM for 40 years now i.e. AGM-65 Maverick.

           LikeLike

       12. F-117 also flew at night and mostly at medium to high altitude.

           ANY explosive weapon produces shrapnel, even AP ones do, and shrapnel can easily kill or maim. It has nothing to do with purpose of the bomb or missile, but the way it is built. So gun is going to remain an important CAS weapon in future.

           LikeLike

       13. ‘F-117 also flew at night and mostly at medium to high altitude.’

           Most aircraft tasked with CAS in a region with a high SAM/MANPAD threat, will stick to medium altitude flight.

           ‘ANY explosive weapon produces shrapnel, even AP ones do, and shrapnel can easily kill or maim. It has nothing to do with purpose of the bomb or missile, but the way it is built. So gun is going to remain an important CAS weapon in future.’

           The Maverick/Brimstone/Hellfire/SDB-II are hit-to-kill munitions, while the SDB-I has been equipped a very an ‘ultra-low fragmentation’ warhead for strikes involving the risk of collateral damage. Also the CBU-105 doesn’t use an explosive warhead, relying instead on KE penetrators.

           LikeLike

       14. “Most aircraft tasked with CAS in a region with a high SAM/MANPAD threat, will stick to medium altitude flight.”

           Agreed, but unlike other aircraft, A-10 can survive low for long enough to make a difference.

           “The Maverick/Brimstone/Hellfire/SDB-II are hit-to-kill munitions, while the SDB-I has been equipped a very an ‘ultra-low fragmentation’ warhead for strikes involving the risk of collateral damage. Also the CBU-105 doesn’t use an explosive warhead, relying instead on KE penetrators.”

           “Ultra-low fragmentation” strikes me as nothing but a marketing ploy. And non-HE cluster bombs existed since Vietnam, yet gun remained an important CAS weapon since it affects the lesser area.

           LikeLike

    2. I am sorry… “apples to apples”… but hopefully you get the meaning. Not the same thing.

       LikeLike

       Reply

    3. HGR,

       To answer your question (and gosh it really took time) –

       PROS,

       With regard to operational issues,

       If you’re concerned about maintenance and sortie rates, I suggest you read up about the ALIS.

       http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_09_16_2013_p45-614645.xml
       http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/you-can-track-your-f-35s-at-alis-maintenance-hub-04368/

       The effect on turnaround time and manning requirements is nothing short of revolutionary.

       Its been developed to generate the same sortie rates as current aircraft including the F-16, Rafale, Gripen etc.

       Within visual range combat,

       As a rule of thumb the pilot with superior situational awareness almost always wins. The F-35’s DAS provides constant 360 degree IR tracking of the ground and airspace, while the HMDS allows so-called ‘X-ray vision’. The pilot can look through the airframe of aircraft providing him field of view that is …absolute. [The Eurofighter has a similar albeit much less sophisticated helmet operational (without DAS equivalent system)]. Add to which it will be first aircraft to field DIRCM allowing to counter IIR missiles. Quite simply the F-35 is unmatched in this area.

       Beyond visual range combat,

       This part is less cut and dried. Against 4 & 4.5 gen aircraft like the F-15E/Eurofighter/Su-35, it dominates utterly. While fielding a radar that is the best-in-class by a fair margin, its LO to both radar and IR sensors/seekers. It will always have the first-look-first-shoot advantage.

       Against fifth generation threats, the equation is a lot less lopsided. The Russian PAK FA, like the F-22, will field an AESA radar with a very large antenna, to add to which it fields L-band antennas in its wings’ leading edges which have a long detection range, but can’t effectively track a target. It also fields auxiliary radars in the tail and cheeks to provide 360 degree tracking as well. It’ll enter combat with a kinematic advantage getting into optimal firing position quicker and can ‘toss’ a missile farther. Also has a greater payload and longer range. The downside is its larger EM and IR footprint. The jury is still out on whether the F-35’s higher degree of stealth will prevail against the PAK FA’s more powerful sensors. Note: The PAK FA will cost more to acquire and much more to operate compared to the F-35.

       Strike/SEAD/CAS,

       For opening day strikes against high level integrated air defences networks, operating in a stealth configuration, enemy radar, C4I node or logistics depot, it can do the job better than any other aircraft out there including the somewhat stealthier F-22, or the PAK FA for that matter. Current 4th gen aircraft don’t even come into picture until subsequent stages.

       Once the air and SAM threat has been whittled away, it can fly a dirty profile (external payload) and do everything that current aircraft can.

       Same goes for CAS; between the DAS, EOTS and SDB II it handle any ground threat/target at stand off ranges.

       Misc,

       In addition, owing to its outstanding sensor fusion, it operates as a outstanding reconnaissance asset, literally soaking up information from every source in range and dispersing to friendly units just as fast. Unlike previous generations of aircraft it can operate without support from dedicated EW aircraft (eg. EA-6B, EA-18G), while functioning as EW asset itself when necessary.

       Exports,

       While its not likely to be built in the same quantities as the F-16, its set to dominate the market far more effectively. With three branches of the US military signed on, over 15 countries are committed to the F-35. With the exception of the French and Germans, every major US ally has signed on or will sign on to program. Nominally non-allied India is currently involved in the PAK FA program, but even it has been evaluating the F-35 (though only for its navy so far). The Russians and Chinese will have relatively poor pickings (Algeria, Indonesia, Pakistan and the like) once their products are up and running. With one aircraft, the US has simply buttoned away almost the entire fighter market post-2020.

       CONS

       Operating cost,

       While the acquisition cost is moderate, the operating costs are much higher than originally foreseen. Less than the F-15E and far less than the F-22, but total will be substantial for fleet strength in excess of 3000 aircraft (including export)

       Payload,

       The F-35’s internal payload is the biggest concern. In the air to ground mode, 8 SDBs carried internally are usually sufficient for most missions, but it can also carry heavier munitions. But in either case its left without any space for air-to-air missiles for self defence. Even in air superiority configuration it carries only 4 AMRAAMs (compared to the standard 8+ on legacy aircraft). There’s a plan to increase that to 6 missiles eventually but even that is not completely reassuring. The small new all-purpose CUDA missile under development at LM might provide a solution but its a work in progress. Note: It can fly with substantial payload externally, so its not inferior to existing fighters, in this regard. But the PAK FA and J-20 will almost certainly have larger weapons bays.

       ALTERNATIVES

       There are none.

       Tooling for F-22 production is still in storage, but the F-22 was expensive to build, more expensive to operate (because of its maintenance intensive stealth coatings) and more expensive yet to modify/upgrade (because it did not employ an open architecture like the F-35).

       The F-35 is the result of over $55 billion invested over 15 years. Its already been productionalized. There is no such thing as a cheap Northrop Grumman product that could serve as a quick and cheap substitute.

       Opting for conventional fighter like the Gripen, a F-16 variant or F-15SE is certainly an option. It’ll be sufficient to handle any air force in the Middle East. However as much as one hopes for peace for peace with China and Russia, they cannot be wished away as potential adversaries. They will continue to develop the PAK FA, PAK DA, J-20 & J-31, even if the F-35 is cancelled.

       The numbers of F-35s being acquired could be cut with other less sophisticated aircraft inducted as replacements. However the saving would be eaten away by the spike in the F-35’s cost; the costs have been suppressed because its been built at an unprecedented scale.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Thank you very much. Your post is really appreciated.

          Question: I have seen and read videos about the ability of these aircrafts to share information and the possibility of having a “bomb-truck” and decoys fly with them that would be used as an off-board arsenal and to confuse. Is this real?

          Can you comment on Naval version of the aircraft having the gun in a pod?

          LikeLike

       2. @HGR

          With regard to decoys, they’ve been around for a long while now (eg. ADM-160 MALD). Launched in swarms from platforms like the B-52, they could indeed throw a major spanner into enemy air ops machinery. It doesn’t get a lot of attention today, given the focus on the Middle East, but given a conflict with a near peer (PLAAF post-2020), at least in a particular theater of war, the employment of these sort of curve-balls is a given.

          With regard to the F-35C gun-pod, it seems to have been retained as a ‘just in case’ accessory. The F-35 isn’t the most nimble of aircraft and only a desperate pilot would ever get into an aerial gunfight instead of bugging out after expending his missiles. When discussing the possibility of the gun becoming redundant, invariably one is quoted the example of the Phantom deployment in Vietnam minus guns, results being terrible. However keep in mind that missiles have come a long way since the 60s, and possibility of dog-fighting with guns is remote to say the least. Guns can (and do) jam on the battlefield, but soldiers still don’t carry swords into combat. Even legacy fighters equipped with guns carry only enough ammunition for one or two burst (hardly enough to carry the day).

          LikeLike

15. @Picard – No it doesn’t. You can’t know the cost until procurement has been finished.

    The LRIP 6 & 7 contract has be SIGNED. And it specifies that cost overruns are to be borne by the contractor.

    I don’t see why you would have an issue with that.

    Also as I said before, the USAF budget figures reveal the cost of older LRIPs.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. LRIP 6&7 contract has been signed, but in US procurement cost underestimations are a regular thing. And wether Lockheed Martin pays the difference or USAF does makes no difference wrt the actual F-35 cost.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Underestimations only apply to projections. This is a signed contract that we’re discussing. And unless Lockheed Martin is an altruistic mood, the figure in the LRIP contracts remains the actual cost to the customer. There’s also the Israeli contract which puts the price under $100 million/unit and this is for LRIP aircraft i.e. even before its gone into full production. At full production, $90 million/unit flyaway is more than achievable.

          LikeLike

       2. Signed contracts can also underestimate costs, and costs do not stop when aircraft has been bought – any F-35 delivered will need heavy modifications to even fly, if state of the program is any indication.

          And F-35 models, on average, cost over 200 million USD unit flyway right now. F-35A, cheapest one, is 170 million USD – after cost reduction that got it there from cca 200 million USD. Show me a single fighter in history that has achieved reduction you are suggesting.

          LikeLike

    2. No contractor will sign a contract where it shoulders the burden of cost escalation unless the prices have more or less stabilized. The older LRIPs were higher priced because aircraft was still at a earlier stage of development and the production line was still far from maturity.

       The cost for the LRIP 7 will remain under $115 million/unit. And as the Israeli order shows the flyaway cost for the following LRIPs is under $100 million.

       Coming to the cost of modification, its $7-8 million for the LRIP 6 & 7 and under $5 million for subsequent aircraft. For the entire 289 SDD aircraft the average cost is $5.8 million/unit. Not nominal amounts certainly, but hardly a heavy cost either.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Jerrick,

          Thank you for the answer to the decoys and the gun.

          What are your thoughts about the number of planes… that is one of the critiques, that there are not enough F-22 and F-35 to do the job. Do you think we will see a cheaper plane in the future or just a long steady production of these ones?

          I happen to think that this plane does not answer enough needs and others are needed for more sundry missions but I am eager to read your opinion on this.

          LikeLike

       2. HGR,

          The F-35 is a very cost-effective aircraft. Post-SDD it’ll cost only as much as the Eurofighter and Rafale, and at peak production it’ll cost a lot lower (after accounting for inflation). Expecting any stealth aircraft to come cheaper is futile. There are a few economical designs currently under study in South Korea, Turkey and India, but without a similar production scale to suppress costs, they too will cost as much if not more than the F-35.

          A good example is the Mirage 2000; more than decent aircraft and had a fair bit success in the export market. However, its sales are thoroughly dwarfed by the F-16, primarily due to the latter’s lower cost. And that cost was achieved by building it on a massive scale (at peak production LM was rolling out over 250 aircraft annually). Its the same with the F-35; the infrastructure has been built up, the production has begun, and major changes or diversification at this point will only lead to a higher overall cost.

          LikeLike

       3. Thank you. I do understand that with volume the aircraft’s fix costs will be diluted over a larger and larger base of production. But they will still be too expensive to operate and risk their loss in many Army and Marine Corp related missions as well as unable to operate from rustic airfields, etc. The F-35 can’t be the only plane. And for example for counter insurgency the Super Tucano might be OK but it is no “Super” either.

          In my opinion there are problems with the overall mix of aircraft that is planned.

          LikeLike

16. One of my previous comments seems to be stuck in moderation for some reason. I hope its not a problem if I repost.

    HGR,

    To answer your question (and gosh it really took time) –

    PROS,

    With regard to operational issues,

    If you’re concerned about maintenance and sortie rates, I suggest you read up about the ALIS.

    http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_09_16_2013_p45-614645.xml
    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/you-can-track-your-f-35s-at-alis-maintenance-hub-04368/

    The effect on turnaround time and manning requirements is nothing short of revolutionary.

    Its been developed to generate the same sortie rates as current aircraft including the F-16, Rafale, Gripen etc.

    Within visual range combat,

    As a rule of thumb the pilot with superior situational awareness almost always wins. The F-35′s DAS provides constant 360 degree IR tracking of the ground and airspace, while the HMDS allows so-called ‘X-ray vision’. The pilot can look through the airframe of aircraft providing him field of view that is …absolute. [The Eurofighter has a similar albeit much less sophisticated helmet operational (without DAS equivalent system)]. Add to which it will be first aircraft to field DIRCM allowing to counter IIR missiles. Quite simply the F-35 is unmatched in this area.

    Beyond visual range combat,

    This part is less cut and dried. Against 4 & 4.5 gen aircraft like the F-15E/Eurofighter/Su-35, it dominates utterly. While fielding a radar that is the best-in-class by a fair margin, its LO to both radar and IR sensors/seekers. It will always have the first-look-first-shoot advantage.

    Against fifth generation threats, the equation is a lot less lopsided. The Russian PAK FA, like the F-22, will field an AESA radar with a very large antenna, to add to which it fields L-band antennas in its wings’ leading edges which have a long detection range, but can’t effectively track a target. It also fields auxiliary radars in the tail and cheeks to provide 360 degree tracking as well. It’ll enter combat with a kinematic advantage getting into optimal firing position quicker and can ‘toss’ a missile farther. Also has a greater payload and longer range. The downside is its larger EM and IR footprint. The jury is still out on whether the F-35′s higher degree of stealth will prevail against the PAK FA’s more powerful sensors. Note: The PAK FA will cost more to acquire and much more to operate compared to the F-35.

    Strike/SEAD/CAS,

    For opening day strikes against high level integrated air defences networks, operating in a stealth configuration, enemy radar, C4I node or logistics depot, it can do the job better than any other aircraft out there including the somewhat stealthier F-22, or the PAK FA for that matter. Current 4th gen aircraft don’t even come into picture until subsequent stages.

    Once the air and SAM threat has been whittled away, it can fly a dirty profile (external payload) and do everything that current aircraft can.

    Same goes for CAS; between the DAS, EOTS and SDB II it handle any ground threat/target at stand off ranges.

    Misc,

    In addition, owing to its outstanding sensor fusion, it operates as a outstanding reconnaissance asset, literally soaking up information from every source in range and dispersing to friendly units just as fast. Unlike previous generations of aircraft it can operate without support from dedicated EW aircraft (eg. EA-6B, EA-18G), while functioning as EW asset itself when necessary.

    Exports,

    While its not likely to be built in the same quantities as the F-16, its set to dominate the market far more effectively. With three branches of the US military signed on, over 15 countries are committed to the F-35. With the exception of the French and Germans, every major US ally has signed on or will sign on to program. Nominally non-allied India is currently involved in the PAK FA program, but even it has been evaluating the F-35 (though only for its navy so far). The Russians and Chinese will have relatively poor pickings (Algeria, Indonesia, Pakistan and the like) once their products are up and running. With one aircraft, the US has simply buttoned away almost the entire fighter market post-2020.

    CONS

    Operating cost,

    While the acquisition cost is moderate, the operating costs are much higher than originally foreseen. Less than the F-15E and far less than the F-22, but total will be substantial for fleet strength in excess of 3000 aircraft (including export)

    Payload,

    The F-35′s internal payload is the biggest concern. In the air to ground mode, 8 SDBs carried internally are usually sufficient for most missions, but it can also carry heavier munitions. But in either case its left without any space for air-to-air missiles for self defence. Even in air superiority configuration it carries only 4 AMRAAMs (compared to the standard 8+ on legacy aircraft). There’s a plan to increase that to 6 missiles eventually but even that is not completely reassuring. The small new all-purpose CUDA missile under development at LM might provide a solution but its a work in progress. Note: It can fly with substantial payload externally, so its not inferior to existing fighters, in this regard. But the PAK FA and J-20 will almost certainly have larger weapons bays.

    ALTERNATIVES

    There are none.

    Tooling for F-22 production is still in storage, but the F-22 was expensive to build, more expensive to operate (because of its maintenance intensive stealth coatings) and more expensive yet to modify/upgrade (because it did not employ an open architecture like the F-35).

    The F-35 is the result of over $55 billion invested over 15 years. Its already been productionalized. There is no such thing as a cheap Northrop Grumman product that could serve as a quick and cheap substitute.

    Opting for conventional fighter like the Gripen, a F-16 variant or F-15SE is certainly an option. It’ll be sufficient to handle any air force in the Middle East. However as much as one hopes for peace for peace with China and Russia, they cannot be wished away as potential adversaries. They will continue to develop the PAK FA, PAK DA, J-20 & J-31, even if the F-35 is cancelled.

    The numbers of F-35s being acquired could be cut with other less sophisticated aircraft inducted as replacements. However the saving would be eaten away by the spike in the F-35′s cost; the costs have been suppressed because its been built at an unprecedented scale.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. In WVR combat, Rafale has same situational awareness as the F-35, but with a caveat that if sensors fail, it also has good rearward visibility from the cockpit; F-35 has no such thing. Typhoon may be behind but not by much.

       In BVR combat F-35 will not dominate since if it turns on the radar, it gets attacked. If it relies on data from another platfrom, that platform is in danger and F-35 still has to use its own radar for mid-flight update. If it uses only passive sensors, its huge IR signature and comparatively underperforming IRST leaves it at disadvantage against Rafale (less so against actual threat aircraft such as the Su-35).

       Against PAK FA, F-35 will get eaten just as utterly as against Rafale.

       In CAS, F-35 is unable to loiter for prolonged periods of time, unable to accurately hit targets (higher altitude = less accuracy even if PGMs are used, and PGMs regularly go ballistic or simply decide to hit somewhere other than where they were directed), unable to attack targets that are close to friendly troops (all PGMs have danger radius measured in hundreds of meters).

       It can function as a reconnaissance asset, but it lacks the second crewmember to handle the input and speed to get out of trouble.

       Rafale is far more capable aircraft in all missions excepting the low-level strike and when vertical takeoff/landing is required, and it can replace the F-35.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Rafale has the same situational awareness as the F-35? Where did you get such a notion? The French aircraft in service don’t even have a simple HMS installed (though it is offered as an option for export customers), let alone something like the Eurofighter’s Striker helmet (the F-35 VSI HMDS is of course in a completely different league). To add to which in has nothing in the DAS’ class (nor does any other aircraft).

          Also, saying ‘if sensors fail the F-35 loses, therefore Rafale is better’ is akin to saying ‘if its flight computers fail the Rafale crashes, therefore the non-FBW F-4 or Jaguar is a better option’.

          Coming to BVR, first off the APG-81 radar is likely to offer unprecedented sophistication in terms of its LPI capabilities. To add to which the F-35 has been designed for a low IR signature and I’ve never heard it claimed that its IRST is ‘under-performing’ vis a vis its peers. As for data-linked operations, of course the emitting aircraft is in some degree of danger, however it will still be operating at standoff ranges – well outside the enemy’s weapons envelope, while the silent ‘shooter’ moves in closer. This is standard practice, not specific to the F-35. The difference being that most fourth generation aircraft will come up on the enemy’s radar at a long distance even when radar silent, unlike the F-35.

          As for the PAK FA, being ‘eaten up’ by it is unfortunately just rhetoric. The PAK FA will have to employ its radar, the emissions of which (as you point out) aren’t always stealthy. It has a far higher RCS and a far higher IR signature. And given its high cost of acquisition and operation, it can’t be acquired in similar numbers.

          At CAS, the F-35 is better than EVERY other aircraft out there. First off, no aircraft gets into the MANPAD envelope if it can be avoided (even the A-10 stayed above 10,000ft in the Balkans, opting for diving attacks when necessary). And at medium to high altitude the DAS and EOTS give it a far superior target acquisition and ID capability than any other aircraft. Also, your statement about PGMs having ‘danger radius radius measured in hundreds of meters’ is just wrong. The SDB-II has a CEP under 5m with minimum collateral damage (even lower for the CUDA). When operating with an internal payload the F-35 can carry 8 SDBs internally, and still operate in unsanitized air space.

          With regard to reconnaissance, the degree of sensor fusion especially with supporting assets, allows the F-35 to operate without a second crewman. Also for the record, the PAK FA, J-20, J-31 and F-22 were ALL developed without any allowance for a WSO.

          The Rafale is neither cost-effective nor particular combat effective, and its ZERO exports orders in the over 10 years of operation has surprised relatively few people.

          LikeLike

       2. Rafale has IRST superior to F-35s, good cockpit visibility, and 360 degree IR MAWS coverage. HMD has nothing to do with situational awaeness.

          “Coming to BVR, first off the APG-81 radar is likely to offer unprecedented sophistication in terms of its LPI capabilities.”

          Yes, promises and PR. Tell me when it happens, and even then it is still an active sensor.

          “To add to which the F-35 has been designed for a low IR signature”

          Right, which is why it has no IR signature reduction measures as far as engine is concerned…

          “and I’ve never heard it claimed that its IRST is ‘under-performing’ vis a vis its peers.”

          You don’t need to hear it, it is quite simple. Wavelengths required for optimum air-to-air and optimum air-to-ground performance are not the same, PIRATE, OSF and OLS are optimized for air-to-air, EOTS is optimized for air-to-ground.

          “The difference being that most fourth generation aircraft will come up on the enemy’s radar at a long distance even when radar silent, unlike the F-35.”

          “Shooter” will appear on IRST, and “scanner” will also appear on RWR far before it notices enemy right in front of him.

          “The PAK FA will have to employ its radar, the emissions of which (as you point out) aren’t always stealthy.”

          PAK FA is equipped with IRST, OLS-50 to be specific. No idea about performance, but OLS-35 (used on Su-35) can detect subsonic fighter at 50 km from front and 90 km from rear.

          “At CAS, the F-35 is better than EVERY other aircraft out there.”

          Only if goal of CAS is to kill as many of your own people as possible along with the enemy.

          “First off, no aircraft gets into the MANPAD envelope if it can be avoided ”

          For CAS? It can’t be avioded. Which does not prevent the A-10 to loiter above it and then rapidly descend when call comes. F-35 can’t loiter, and it can’t hit target from the altitude, nor can it survive a hit from anything including .30 cal.

          “And at medium to high altitude the DAS and EOTS give it a far superior target acquisition and ID capability than any other aircraft.”

          A man with -10 on both eyes is better than man with no eyes, is that what you’re saying?

          “Also, your statement about PGMs having ‘danger radius radius measured in hundreds of meters’ is just wrong. The SDB-II has a CEP under 5m with minimum collateral damage (even lower for the CUDA). When operating with an internal payload the F-35 can carry 8 SDBs internally, and still operate in unsanitized air space.”

          Sorry, but you plainly don’t know what you’re talking about. CEP is defined as a “radius in which 50% of all munitions are expected to hit”. But PGMs can go miles off target, and when dropping bombs they can strike each other, even the aircraft, bending fins. And collateral damage… LOL! Fragments from a 500 kg bomb can kill people hundreds or thousands of meters away.

          “The Rafale is neither cost-effective nor particular combat effective, and its ZERO exports orders in the over 10 years of operation has surprised relatively few people.”

          Rafale is not the most cost-effective aircraft out there but it is the most combat-effective air superiority platform that exists. And exports are irrelevant, if they were a measure of capability why did the MiG-21 get so many exports? According to you then, MiG-21 is superior to the F-35, F-22, Rafale, Typhoon, F-15…

          LikeLike

       3. ‘Rafale has IRST superior to F-35s, good cockpit visibility, and 360 degree IR MAWS coverage. HMD has nothing to do with situational awaeness.’

          The Rafale having a better IRST is not backed up by any source. Its cockpit visibility ‘good’ but still no comparable to the F-35’s total visibility in all sectors. The IR MAWS is just that… MAWS. Its not capable of cueing the aircraft’s weapon systems unlike the EODAS. The HMS (Topsight?) has nothing to with situational awareness only in the Rafale’s case. The same doesn’t apply to the VSI HMDS on the F-35 (and to a lesser extent the Striker on the Eurofighter).

          ‘Yes, promises and PR. Tell me when it happens, and even then it is still an active sensor.’

          Fine. Lets proceed while also accepting that the RBE-2AA on the Rafale, N036 on the PAK FA and APG-77 on the F-22 are active sensors as well.

          ‘Right, which is why it has no IR signature reduction measures as far as engine is concerned…’

          That’s your opinion. The presence of the LOAN nozzle and ceramic coatings are blatantly obvious. That’s without going into internal components engineering for IR signature reduction.

          ‘You don’t need to hear it, it is quite simple. Wavelengths required for optimum air-to-air and optimum air-to-ground performance are not the same, PIRATE, OSF and OLS are optimized for air-to-air, EOTS is optimized for air-to-ground.’

          FLIR for both lies in the 2-12µm range. Saying X or Y is ‘optimized’ for a certain function doesn’t say anything about its actual performance; in actual combat conditions most IRSTs have a range well under 25nm.

          ‘“Shooter” will appear on IRST, and “scanner” will also appear on RWR far before it notices enemy right in front of him.’

          IRST ranges are far lower than even older PD radars, not say nothing of AESAs. Most manufacturers advertise ranges observed in pitch perfect conditions.

          ‘PAK FA is equipped with IRST, OLS-50 to be specific. No idea about performance, but OLS-35 (used on Su-35) can detect subsonic fighter at 50 km from front and 90 km from rear.’

          So in this case, you’re willing to believe in the PR?

          In your opinion then, the aircraft with the lower IR signature (which isn’t the PAK FA in any case) will have the first-look first-shoot advantage.

          ‘Only if goal of CAS is to kill as many of your own people as possible along with the enemy.’

          Rafale – significant RCS, no DAS equivalent, no HMD. Eurofighter – significant RCS, no DAS equivalent. PAK FA – no DAS equivalent, large visual signature. A-10 – high RCS, no DAS, no HMD.

          There is no evidence that target acquisition by the F-35 is any less discerning than any of the above aircraft.

          ‘For CAS? It can’t be avioded. Which does not prevent the A-10 to loiter above it and then rapidly descend when call comes. F-35 can’t loiter, and it can’t hit target from the altitude, nor can it survive a hit from anything including .30 cal.’

          When the ‘call comes’ every aircraft in the world stays out of the MANPADS/VSHORAD range and engages from standoff ranges. And the A-10, which is being retired, is not immune to SAMs either. Even when it returns to base after surviving a missile hit, its removed from active operations as a battle casualty.

          ‘Sorry, but you plainly don’t know what you’re talking about. CEP is defined as a “radius in which 50% of all munitions are expected to hit”. But PGMs can go miles off target, and when dropping bombs they can strike each other, even the aircraft, bending fins. And collateral damage… LOL! Fragments from a 500 kg bomb can kill people hundreds or thousands of meters away.’

          This isn’t primitive 80s era Paveway kits we’re talking about. The SDB II/Brimstone/Maverick don’t go ‘miles off target’, are always released in a staggered fashion, and their low fragmention/shaped charge warheads don’t ‘kill people hundreds of thousands of meters away’.

          ‘Rafale is not the most cost-effective aircraft out there but it is the most combat-effective air superiority platform that exists. And exports are irrelevant, if they were a measure of capability why did the MiG-21 get so many exports? According to you then, MiG-21 is superior to the F-35, F-22, Rafale, Typhoon, F-15…’

          ‘Not the most cost effective aircraft out there’ is one way of putting the fact that its UPAC is $210 million/unit and this before the numbers were cut from 287 to 225.

          And heck even the French don’t claim that its the most combat effective air superiority fighter. Its got an under-powered radar and high speed high altitude performance is lower than the F-22 and Eurofighter. And for now it lacks a long range AAM and HMDS.

          As for exports, they aren’t the sole measure of an aircraft’s value but they’re a good indication of its value versus its cost. Also in its day, the MiG-21 was a very successful aircraft.

          LikeLike

       4. “The Rafale having a better IRST is not backed up by any source.”

          Rafale’s IRST is optimized for air-to-air combat, F-35s IRST is optimized for ground attack, so OSF is bound to be superior to EOTS in air-to-air combat. That is assuming identical technology level, but IR detection is one of areas where Europe (France in particular) has a lead over the United States. Ref. usage of two (to be increased to four) fish-eye IR missile warners on Rafale vs six cameras on F-35. That and the fact that F-35 is the first US fighter to operationally use the imaging IRST.

          “Its cockpit visibility ‘good’ but still no comparable to the F-35′s total visibility in all sectors.”

          It has 360 degree visibility with DDM, similar to F-35s DAS, and unlike DAS we know that DDM works.

          “The IR MAWS is just that… MAWS. Its not capable of cueing the aircraft’s weapon systems unlike the EODAS.”

          DDMs primary function is MAWS, but it is an imaging IR system and has enough angular accuracy for weapons cueing, including DIRCM. So even if capability does not exist right now, which I doubt, it is simply a matter of software development.

          “Fine. Lets proceed while also accepting that the RBE-2AA on the Rafale, N036 on the PAK FA and APG-77 on the F-22 are active sensors as well.”

          They are all active sensors, but I know that AdlA trains specifically for passive air-to-air engagements, which means that radar may be there for air-to-ground work, mostly. PAK FA will similarly rely primarly on its IRST, and F-22 is only one of the three listed that does not have IRST.

          “That’s your opinion. The presence of the LOAN nozzle and ceramic coatings are blatantly obvious. That’s without going into internal components engineering for IR signature reduction.”

          F-35s nozzle is primarly designed for radar LO, and ceramic coatings are there to stop the nozzle from melting due to extreme temperatures involved. It has nothing to do with IR signature reduction, and though certain IR signature reduction certainly is a side effect, you simply don’t use a 19.500 kgf engine if you’re planning in having a low IR signture. FYI, exhaust from two 10.000 kgf engines is going to cool down far faster than exhaust from single 20.000 kgf engine, and Rafale’s two engines produce 15.422 kgf total.

          “FLIR for both lies in the 2-12µm range. Saying X or Y is ‘optimized’ for a certain function doesn’t say anything about its actual performance; in actual combat conditions most IRSTs have a range well under 25nm.”

          As usual, it depends on various factors, in combat conditions range of any radar is also going to be far less than usually assumed due to presence of clutter, EM noise and other factor. Same goes for effective range of weapons, and so on.

          “IRST ranges are far lower than even older PD radars, not say nothing of AESAs. Most manufacturers advertise ranges observed in pitch perfect conditions.”

          So do most radar manufacturers, which leaves us where? And at altitudes where F-22 will operate you rarely have anything but pitch perfect conditions. F-35, meanwhile, isn’t much of a threat to anything else that flies.

          “So in this case, you’re willing to believe in the PR?”

          As I have made it clear before, and I believe that I shouldn’t have to repeat it because it is so obvious, any range data for either sensors or weapons is only true in ideal conditions. PIRATE isn’t going to have 145 km range any more than AIM-120D is going to have 100 km range, but it is still far better than radar (if you use it, enemy detects you at far more than twice the distance you can detect him at, if you don’t use it, its range is 0).

          “In your opinion then, the aircraft with the lower IR signature (which isn’t the PAK FA in any case) will have the first-look first-shoot advantage.”

          Correct. So it basically goes Rafale > F-22 > PAK FA >= F-35, though as usual there are other factors as well, none favorable to the F-35 (ability to get into firing position quickly, maximum dash speed allowing aircraft to impair as much energy as possible to the missile, maximum acceleration allowing it to achieve that speed as soon as possible, etc.).

          “Rafale – significant RCS, no DAS equivalent, no HMD. Eurofighter – significant RCS, no DAS equivalent. PAK FA – no DAS equivalent, large visual signature. A-10 – high RCS, no DAS, no HMD.

          There is no evidence that target acquisition by the F-35 is any less discerning than any of the above aircraft.”

          Except F-35 is too flimsy to get low and slow when needed, when at normal altitude flies too fast and high to get a good look, let alone a good shot, too maintenance-intensive to be based alongside troops it is supporting or even in forward air bases.

          “When the ‘call comes’ every aircraft in the world stays out of the MANPADS/VSHORAD range and engages from standoff ranges.”

          Then why so many A-10s were hit by MANPADS (with good survival rate) if they always stayed outside MANPADS’ range?

          “And the A-10, which is being retired, is not immune to SAMs either. Even when it returns to base after surviving a missile hit, its removed from active operations as a battle casualty.”

          Agreed, but it at least has some change of surviving. And in case you don’t know – you obviously don’t – maximum survivability altitude against SAMs, MANPADS and machine guns is below 30 and above 30.000 feet. When Mujahedeen deployed Stingers in Afghanistan against USSR, Mi-24 pilots did not go high, they went low. This not only allowed them to use terrain masking to prevent a visual acquisition until they were literally on top of the enemy troops, it also blocked the sound from spreading which meant that often the first warning Mujahedeen got of their presence was when they opened fire. Of course, being helicopters, they were still excessively vulnerable despite heavy armor, but imagine same tactic used by far faster, more agile and survivable A-10.

          “This isn’t primitive 80s era Paveway kits we’re talking about.”

          Modern PGMs are no better, any complex technology is bound to fail when used in as demaning environment as combat. And more complex it is, more often will it fail

          “‘Not the most cost effective aircraft out there’ is one way of putting the fact that its UPAC is $210 million/unit and this before the numbers were cut from 287 to 225.”

          F-35s unit flyaway cost is around 200 million USD, F-22s unit flyaway cost is 273 million USD. Typhoon’s unit procurement cost is 200 million USD, despite far greater number of aircraft procured compared to Rafale.

          “Its got an under-powered radar ”

          A conscious choice as AdlA has developed tactics centered around IRST and RWR.

          “and high speed high altitude performance is lower than the F-22 and Eurofighter.”

          No, it isn’t. It’s supercruise speed is lower than Typhoons for M 0,1 (Rafale can supercruise at Mach 1,4 with 6 AAMs compared to 1,5 for Typhoon), and it isn’t far inferior to F-22s either (by M 0,3 at most). Meanwhile, it is bound to have superior maneuverability compared to Typhoon or F-22 due to lower wing loadig, higher structural load and lower drag when turning.

          “As for exports, they aren’t the sole measure of an aircraft’s value but they’re a good indication of its value versus its cost.”

          And of political clout of the country exporting it. MiG-21 got many exports because it was a) cheap and b) produced in USSR, not because it was a good aircraft.

          LikeLike

       5. Jerrick and Picard, very technical discussion and very interesting. The F-35 is certainly a controversial aircraft in no small measure because of its cost and because it invites comparisons with other aircrafts that are apparently less expensive and more maneuverable. I think that time will tell if they made the right compromises when they built it. It is possible that the F-22 and the F-35 will make sitting ducks of all rival aircrafts or itself be shot down by a more maneuverable opponent that consistently survives the beyond visual range fight.

          I am more concerned by other things. I find it hard to believe that the entire USA Air Force will be made up of these F-35 and a few F-22 while at the same time I am very aware of other needs that go unmet. It might be that once the Harriers and the A-10 are finally retired the Army and Marine Corps will have to plan their tactics around an all F-35 fleet. I think they need other aircrafts.

          LikeLike

       6. Picard,

          First with regard to the F-35 and CAS-

          ‘Agreed, but unlike other aircraft, A-10 can survive low for long enough to make a difference.’
          ‘Except F-35 is too flimsy to get low and slow when needed, when at normal altitude flies too fast and high to get a good look, let alone a good shot, too maintenance-intensive to be based alongside troops it is supporting or even in forward air bases.’

          I’m surprised you haven’t recognized the contradiction that statement. On one hand you want to dismiss PGMs employed in CAS because there is the risk of ‘shrapnel damage’, but on the other hand are more than willing to unnecessarily risk an expensive aircraft and its crew.

          ‘Then why so many A-10s were hit by MANPADS (with good survival rate) if they always stayed outside MANPADS’ range?’

          There was only one confirmed MANPAD hit for the A-10s in Kosovo and the aircraft returned to base as a casualty. Also ‘survival rate’ is important to the bean counters in the DoD, but for the force commander on ground, almost every aircraft sustaining a missile hit is a write-off incapable of continuing operations.

          ‘Agreed, but it at least has some change of surviving. And in case you don’t know – you obviously don’t – maximum survivability altitude against SAMs, MANPADS and machine guns is below 30 and above 30.000 feet.’

          The A-10 doesn’t fly at 30 ft in hostile airspace.

          To quote Admiral Scott from a press briefing during Allied Force –

          With respect to the A-10s, you get back to the issue of the robustness of his air defense systems. It isn’t just the mobile SAMs and the communication links between them and the radars, but there are thousands of MANPADs, and once you get down below 15,000 feet with the weather as bad as it’s been, but even in good weather, worse in good weather, you’re going to place our pilots at a tremendous amount of risk, and we’ve got to weigh that as we proceed with this campaign.

          From the article by John Sponauer –

          However, due in part to the increase in civilian deaths, specifically the April 14 convoy attack, some Rules of Engagement were changed to allow pilots to go below 15,000 ft., the previous hard deck for missions. FACs could now fly at around 5,000 ft., and strike aircraft, around 8,000 ft., although few A-10s descended to these levels, preferring to stay about 15,000 ft. due to the threat conditions.

          ‘“Ultra-low fragmentation” strikes me as nothing but a marketing ploy. And non-HE cluster bombs existed since Vietnam, yet gun remained an important CAS weapon since it affects the lesser area.’

          Do you have any actual evidence that Boeing selected to deliver a variant of the SDB for the USAF’s ‘Focused Lethality Munition’ contract, instead delivered a ‘marketing ploy’ and no one noticed?

          To add to which the utility of hit-to-kill munitions such as the Maverick/Brimstone remains undiminished.

          And which is this non-explosive cluster bomb employed in Vietnam? Because as far as I know the CBU-97/105 has no predecessor.

          LikeLike

       7. “I’m surprised you haven’t recognized the contradiction that statement. On one hand you want to dismiss PGMs employed in CAS because there is the risk of ‘shrapnel damage’, but on the other hand are more than willing to unnecessarily risk an expensive aircraft and its crew.”

          There is no contradiction. A-10 has one crewmember, so does the F-35. But if they bomb from 10 kilometers up, they may kill tens of their own. If you’re not willing to get down low, you shouldn’t do CAS. And FYI, maximum survivability altitudes are below 15 and above 15.000 meters. Flying above 15.000 meters is not an option for CAS fighter, so it must get very low. But if it is too fast, it won’t be able to use terrain masking, and pilot will be averse to flying low enough for understandable reason. So it will fly at 15 kilometers, but from that altitude it can’t do much.

          People are more important than hardware, but you have apparently decided that F-35 with one pilot is worth more than dozen or so infantrymen.

          “There was only one confirmed MANPAD hit for the A-10s in Kosovo and the aircraft returned to base as a casualty. Also ‘survival rate’ is important to the bean counters in the DoD, but for the force commander on ground, almost every aircraft sustaining a missile hit is a write-off incapable of continuing operations.”

          I’m not talking about Kosovo only. In Gulf War, 6 A-10s were hit by MANPADS. 3 were shot down, 1 was written off and 2 were put back into service. It also suffered quite a few AAA hits, but I don’t know any A-10 that was lost due to it. Adding that one MANPAD hit, survivability rate was cca 50%.

          And it is funny that you mention ground commanders. To them, effects matter, and all ground commanders prefer A-10 to the F-16 or F-18. Reasons are survivability, ability to get down low and slow, ability to loiter for prolonged periods – none of which F-35 can do.

          “The A-10 doesn’t fly at 30 ft in hostile airspace. (…) To quote Admiral Scott from a press briefing during Allied Force”

          It can do it, that limit you have cited is due to the politics.

          “However, due in part to the increase in civilian deaths, specifically the April 14 convoy attack, some Rules of Engagement were changed to allow pilots to go below 15,000 ft., the previous hard deck for missions. FACs could now fly at around 5,000 ft., and strike aircraft, around 8,000 ft., although few A-10s descended to these levels, preferring to stay about 15,000 ft. due to the threat conditions.”

          Again, 8.000 feet limit is way above 45 feet upper limit. Is there any surprise they stayed high up?

          “Do you have any actual evidence that Boeing selected to deliver a variant of the SDB for the USAF’s ‘Focused Lethality Munition’ contract, instead delivered a ‘marketing ploy’ and no one noticed?”

          Marketing ploys are regularly delivered and noone notices – F-35, F-22, F-105, F-104, F-4, AIM-7, P-38, B-17, B-29, yet nobody notices.

          “To add to which the utility of hit-to-kill munitions such as the Maverick/Brimstone remains undiminished.”

          Indeed, but they can’t replace cannon. In fact, RAF Typhoons were fitted with guns because it was required for CAS.

          “And which is this non-explosive cluster bomb employed in Vietnam? Because as far as I know the CBU-97/105 has no predecessor.”

          Yellow Dog, also called Lazy Dog. And it was the most effective cluster bomb deployed in Vietnam: unlike explosive cluster bombs, these could actually penetrate layer of earth protecting Viet Cong underground structures (penetration 60 cm). And they cost cents to make.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_Dog_(bomb)

          LikeLike

       8. With regard to the F-35 and Rafale –

          ‘Rafale’s IRST is optimized for air-to-air combat, F-35s IRST is optimized for ground attack, so OSF is bound to be superior to EOTS in air-to-air combat. That is assuming identical technology level, but IR detection is one of areas where Europe (France in particular) has a lead over the United States.’

          France has a lead over the US in IR detection based on what?

          ‘Ref. usage of two (to be increased to four) fish-eye IR missile warners on Rafale vs six cameras on F-35. That and the fact that F-35 is the first US fighter to operationally use the imaging IRST.’

          For that matter has France ever even fielded a dedicated IRST on a fighter before the Rafale (which isn’t the same as rigging an MICA to work as an ad-hoc sensor)? The USAF fielded its first IRST in 1963 on the F-101 IIRC.

          ‘It has 360 degree visibility with DDM, similar to F-35s DAS, and unlike DAS we know that DDM works.’

          The aircraft’s sensors have 360 degree coverage. But unlike his counterpart in the EF and F-35, a Rafale pilot’s vision is limited to what he sees out of his cockpit. Also what evidence or news do you have suggesting that DAS will not be operational or is otherwise subject to cancellation?

          ‘DDMs primary function is MAWS, but it is an imaging IR system and has enough angular accuracy for weapons cueing, including DIRCM. So even if capability does not exist right now, which I doubt, it is simply a matter of software development.’

          Alas software development is not that ‘simple’ a matter. If it were the F-35 would have received its IOC today. The bulk of work remaining until the Block 3F in 2017 primarily relates to software development.

          ‘They are all active sensors, but I know that AdlA trains specifically for passive air-to-air engagements, which means that radar may be there for air-to-ground work, mostly. PAK FA will similarly rely primarly on its IRST, and F-22 is only one of the three listed that does not have IRST.’

          Then why are they blowing millions upgrading the PESA with an AESA and working on GaN technologies, if the radar is already redundant (as per your theory)?

          ‘F-35s nozzle is primarly designed for radar LO, and ceramic coatings are there to stop the nozzle from melting due to extreme temperatures involved. It has nothing to do with IR signature reduction, and though certain IR signature reduction certainly is a side effect,’

          You’re mistaken. Objectives of the LOAN program included BOTH types – RCS reduction as well as IR reduction.

          ‘you simply don’t use a 19.500 kgf engine if you’re planning in having a low IR signture. FYI, exhaust from two 10.000 kgf engines is going to cool down far faster than exhaust from single 20.000 kgf engine, and Rafale’s two engines produce 15.422 kgf total.’

          The engine thrust is only factor. For example, the F135 has a much higher bypass ratio vis-a-vis the M88. Also you’re assuming here that they’ve both evolved out of comparable technological bases.

          ‘As usual, it depends on various factors, in combat conditions range of any radar is also going to be far less than usually assumed due to presence of clutter, EM noise and other factor. Same goes for effective range of weapons, and so on.’

          There isn’t much clutter or ambient EM noise except at low altitudes.

          ‘So do most radar manufacturers, which leaves us where? And at altitudes where F-22 will operate you rarely have anything but pitch perfect conditions. F-35, meanwhile, isn’t much of a threat to anything else that flies.’

          It leaves us with a vastly different ranges for an IRST and radar. Even advertised head-on ranges for IRST are around 50km. Actual combat conditions would reduce that to perhaps 30km.

          In contrast the best estimates for modern AESAs are upwards of 200km for fighter sized targets. Even adjusted downwards depending on target aspect they far far out-range even the best IRST.

          ‘As I have made it clear before, and I believe that I shouldn’t have to repeat it because it is so obvious, any range data for either sensors or weapons is only true in ideal conditions. PIRATE isn’t going to have 145 km range any more than AIM-120D is going to have 100 km range, but it is still far better than radar (if you use it, enemy detects you at far more than twice the distance you can detect him at, if you don’t use it, its range is 0).’

          The enemy detects ONLY the emitting platform. There could be a dozen others flying ahead data-linked to it and the enemy wouldn’t know any better.

          ‘Correct. So it basically goes Rafale > F-22 > PAK FA >= F-35, though as usual there are other factors as well, none favorable to the F-35 (ability to get into firing position quickly, maximum dash speed allowing aircraft to impair as much energy as possible to the missile, maximum acceleration allowing it to achieve that speed as soon as possible, etc.).’

          :O

          Hmm.. ‘Picard’. You aren’t French by any chance are you? 🙂

          Anyway, by that logic you may as well add an IRST to the Super Tucano and TA-50/YAK-130. That way we’ll get Super Tucano>YAK-130>TA-50>Rafale>F-22 and so on.

          Trouble is this logic of radar having become a liability and IRST replacing it as the primary long range sensor hasn’t been adopted by any air operator.

          ‘Modern PGMs are no better, any complex technology is bound to fail when used in as demaning environment as combat. And more complex it is, more often will it fail’

          Eh? ‘Bound to fail’ Why? Zero progress in improving accuracy over the last fifteen years? And presumably zero progress fifteen years from today?

          If more complex was worse the world would still be flying Spitfires and Bf 109s, if not Camels and Albatroses.

          ‘F-35s unit flyaway cost is around 200 million USD, F-22s unit flyaway cost is 273 million USD. Typhoon’s unit procurement cost is 200 million USD, despite far greater number of aircraft procured compared to Rafale.’

          Its been amply proved from the LRIP 6-7 cost, the Israeli contract and the Japanese contract that the flywawy cost is under $100 million and weapon system cost under $150 million.

          ‘A conscious choice as AdlA has developed tactics centered around IRST and RWR.’

          A less charitable explanation would be that they’re forced to work around the aircraft’s deficiencies. In either case, the French are the only ones. Everyone else including the USAF, USN, Russians, Chinese and so on are investing heavily in their radars.

          ‘No, it isn’t. It’s supercruise speed is lower than Typhoons for M 0,1 (Rafale can supercruise at Mach 1,4 with 6 AAMs compared to 1,5 for Typhoon), and it isn’t far inferior to F-22s either (by M 0,3 at most).’

          Honestly, I can’t figure out whether you’re skeptical about PR or not. Or do you reserve your skepticism only for American aircraft?

          While some documents/brochures have mentioned Rafale having supercruise, Dassault has been rather coy about it while lavishing attention on its ‘omni-role’ capabilities. In contrast, Lockheed Martin, BAE/EADS, Saab have all played up their aircraft’s supercruise abilities.

          I suppose the trouble with making such claims is that customers eventually want it demonstrated for them. Has the Rafale ever publicly demonstrated supercruise?

          ‘And of political clout of the country exporting it. MiG-21 got many exports because it was a) cheap and b) produced in USSR, not because it was a good aircraft.’

          The Su-30 has racked up 150 export orders, not including those to China and India. The Similarly, the Eurofighter has over 100 confirmed exports and is almost certain to win more in the Middle East. Gripen has six operators today and is the leading choice for air forces looking for a budget fighter (and this includes Brazil).

          Political pressure explains only so much. There are many countries (Israel and Australia being the most prominent) that would ditch the F-35 if the F-22 ever became available. They’d leaped on the Rafale were it truly the F-22/PAK FA killer than you say it is.

          LikeLike

       9. “Political pressure explains only so much. There are many countries (Israel and Australia being the most prominent) that would ditch the F-35 if the F-22 ever became available” – correct, I have read this more than once myself.

          Jerrick, I am not qualified to get in the middle of what you and Picard are discussing but I have to tell you a couple of things that bother me…
          When providing ground support the USA also has a reliance on designating targets using laser operated from the ground. What will happen when those ground operators are not available.

          Will the aircraft continue to have that same success with out them?

          In open country moving vehicles can be found easily. But in Vietnam the North used jungle trails and camouflaged trucks moving at night. Those could not be located from altitude back then. In Vietnam there are many examples of low flying attack planes locating their target by following their tracks during the day until they ran into the convoy. These same trucks could not be found unless one flew low and had knowledge of the area so the pilot could notice subtle differences in the terrain and figure out where the enemy was hiding. In Iraq we had difficulty finding missile launchers.

          Has this changed?

          Just like I have read about the Australians and the Israeli’s preferring the F-22 if they could get it I have also read about the high cost of operating jet aircrafts and of a growing interest on propeller aircrafts because they are simply cheaper. The Super Tucano is not a great choice here because if can’t carry enough bombs. USA manufacturers aware of these needs are simply dusting off old designs that are too small or adapting civilian designs to military use which is not great either and muddies the water but does not muddy the reason. These new aircrafts are too expensive and often do not do enough.

          I read somewhere too that the USA prefers very large air transports until there is a war and they have to supply small remote outpost on rough strips… it is not until then that they gat interested is smaller transports. Is that something that is also happening with these fighter aircrafts? Not interested in small and simple until there is a need for small and simple?

          LikeLike

       10. ‘This not only allowed them to use terrain masking to prevent a visual acquisition until they were literally on top of the enemy troops, it also blocked the sound from spreading which meant that often the first warning Mujahedeen got of their presence was when they opened fire. Of course, being helicopters, they were still excessively vulnerable despite heavy armor, but imagine same tactic used by far faster, more agile and survivable A-10.’

           (Missed this part in my post on CAS)

           The Soviets lost 16 Su-25s in Afghanistan. And while the Soviet might have been able to lump it, NATO forces in contrast prefer to avoid those sort of casualties.

           ‘There is no contradiction. A-10 has one crewmember, so does the F-35. But if they bomb from 10 kilometers up, they may kill tens of their own. ‘

           Whether you’re doing it from 20,000ft or from 2,000ft, a PGMs accuracy does not change signficantly. And PGMs have been employed by the thousands for CAS, yet have not led to the hundreds of friendly casualties that you’re predicting.

           ‘If you’re not willing to get down low, you shouldn’t do CAS.’

           The F-35 will not fly low since its ‘flimsy’, but for the record conventional aircraft like the F-16 and Rafale aren’t much better.

           Which would imply that the only air forces capable of providing ‘effective’ CAS in the world are the USAF and RuAF (plus a few other Su-25 operators).
           so as per you, everyone else including the RAF, AdlA, Luftwaffe, IAF etc would be handicapped in this particular role.

           ‘And FYI, maximum survivability altitudes are below 15 and above 15.000 meters. Flying above 15.000 meters is not an option for CAS fighter, so it must get very low. But if it is too fast, it won’t be able to use terrain masking, and pilot will be averse to flying low enough for understandable reason. So it will fly at 15 kilometers, but from that altitude it can’t do much.’

           When was the last time a fighter flew below 15 meters in a combat zone?

           ‘People are more important than hardware, but you have apparently decided that F-35 with one pilot is worth more than dozen or so infantrymen.’

           I don’t subscribe to the idea that the only means from providing CAS is from 15m. And the risk to an infantry squad from an off course Brimstone or SDB-II is far lower than the risk to an aircraft from VSHORAD/MANPADS.

           ‘I’m not talking about Kosovo only. In Gulf War, 6 A-10s were hit by MANPADS. 3 were shot down, 1 was written off and 2 were put back into service. It also suffered quite a few AAA hits, but I don’t know any A-10 that was lost due to it. Adding that one MANPAD hit, survivability rate was cca 50%.’

           so 50% of the aircraft hit were killed outright. All six were rendered inoperational so far as the conflict on ground was concerned. And only two returned to service. Its no surprise that the air force now chooses to fly its aircraft at higher altitudes.

           BTW one A-10 was lost to AAA. Serial No. 800248

           ‘And it is funny that you mention ground commanders. To them, effects matter, and all ground commanders prefer A-10 to the F-16 or F-18. Reasons are survivability, ability to get down low and slow, ability to loiter for prolonged periods – none of which F-35 can do.’

           Commander on ground referred to the theater commander. As far as ground forces are concerned, they’ve been fighting COIN for over a decade now, so its no wonder that they value support from the A-10. In fact, they’d prefer a turboprop operated by Army Aviation even more. But they’re not the one’s who have to cater to survival in an environment populated by MANPADS and SAM.

           ‘It can do it, that limit you have cited is due to the politics.’

           You have that backwards. The NATO forces flew higher altitude missions to reduce casualties but political pressure generated by few incidents causing collateral damage forced it to start flying lower altitudes.

           There was absolutely no political reason to abstain from flying nap-of-the-earth.

           ‘Again, 8.000 feet limit is way above 45 feet upper limit. Is there any surprise they stayed high up?’

           I’ll ask again, when was the last time an aircraft flew at 45 feet in a combat zone? The only examples I can think of are RAF Tornados in the Gulf War and they took heavy losses before switching to higher altitudes.

           ‘Marketing ploys are regularly delivered and noone notices – F-35, F-22, F-105, F-104, F-4, AIM-7, P-38, B-17, B-29, yet nobody notices.’

           But that’s not what I asked. I had a specific question – what information do you have suggesting that the USAF’s ‘Focussed Lethality Munition’ program was a sham?

           ‘Indeed, but they can’t replace cannon. In fact, RAF Typhoons were fitted with guns because it was required for CAS.’

           Actually they were fitted for guns because replacing them ballast was found to be even more expensive.

           Its the training ammunition that was issued on basis of strafing support in Afghanistan. But while employing in the COIN is one thing, it is not any more survivable at low altitude in hostile airspace than the F-35.

           Also the Tornado that has a gun, primarily uses the Brimstone for close air support and anti-armor missions.

           ‘Yellow Dog, also called Lazy Dog. And it was the most effective cluster bomb deployed in Vietnam: unlike explosive cluster bombs, these could actually penetrate layer of earth protecting Viet Cong underground structures (penetration 60 cm). And they cost cents to make.
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_Dog_(bomb)‘

           Good to know. But its hardly comparable to the CBU-105. Unlike the ‘Lazy Dog’ the SFW is not a freefall munition, and far more effective against a large armoured formation than dangerous strafing runs.

           LikeLike

       11. HGR,

           ‘When providing ground support the USA also has a reliance on designating targets using laser operated from the ground. What will happen when those ground operators are not available.

           Will the aircraft continue to have that same success with out them?’

           Actually majority of strike missions are performed with the aircraft self-designating the target using LDPs (Sniper, Litening, Damocles and the F-35s case EOTS or DAS). Alternatively you can have wing-man designate/laze the target while the pilot employs the munition.

           FACs on ground usually used to call in close air support. Joint Terminal Attack Controllers or JTACs play a critical element in US military operations and individuals trained in the role will always be retained for support. Also, at the same time UAVs are being integrated into the command structure as FACs, so targets that are not line-of-sight can be designated as well.

           ‘These same trucks could not be found unless one flew low and had knowledge of the area so the pilot could notice subtle differences in the terrain and figure out where the enemy was hiding. In Iraq we had difficulty finding missile launchers.’

           In Vietnam all targets had to be acquired visually. Today, camouflaged trucks will be a lot easier to identify with modern IR sensors, and the resolution and ranges for these sensors will only improve with time.

           ‘Just like I have read about the Australians and the Israeli’s preferring the F-22 if they could get it I have also read about the high cost of operating jet aircrafts and of a growing interest on propeller aircrafts because they are simply cheaper. The Super Tucano is not a great choice here because if can’t carry enough bombs. USA manufacturers aware of these needs are simply dusting off old designs that are too small or adapting civilian designs to military use which is not great either and muddies the water but does not muddy the reason. These new aircrafts are too expensive and often do not do enough.’

           As a COIN aircraft there is a lot of merit to employing a turboprop attack aircraft particularly for extended deployments like those in Iraq or Afghanistan. With regard to their payload, the Super Tucano has five hardpoints on it can carry a gun pod (in addition to its internal gun), an LDP, 8 SDB IIs bombs and an external fuel tank, which is quite respectable. Also keep in mind, that such an aircraft needn’t replace a F-16, F-35 or Rafale on a 1-1 basis. A fairly large fleet can be fielded and operated for a fraction of the cost of a corresponding fast jet fleet.

           ‘I read somewhere too that the USA prefers very large air transports until there is a war and they have to supply small remote outpost on rough strips… it is not until then that they gat interested is smaller transports. Is that something that is also happening with these fighter aircrafts? Not interested in small and simple until there is a need for small and simple?’

           There is some merit to that. The downside to a turboprop CAS aircraft or light transports is that they serve a niche role. Its a good idea if the plan is to spend years fighting a war or rather fighting an insurgency. But in peacetime or in conventional operations most of the workload is shouldered by the jet aircraft and large transports.

           Few people could have predicted that the US would remain in Afghanistan for fifteen years after it deployed there in 2001. Today, very few predict that the US would commit itself to any similar new open ended conflict, so the response to a light attack aircraft requirement has been predictably lukewarm.

           LikeLike

       12. Thanks.

           LikeLike

       13. “France has a lead over the US in IR detection based on what?”

           AdlA tactics are based around the passive detection (IRST + RWR), that is the reason why Rafale has a relatively small radar for its size. OSF can direct RBE2, SPECTRA can direct both. As for technical side, refer the sentence after it (which, BTW, you quoted only to ignore its meaning). France is the only NATO nation to field fish-eye IRST detectors and to field IR missile warners. F-35 has IR missile warners giving a 360-degree coverage, but these are narrow-view, low-resolution cameras. DDM NG is precise enough to be capable of directing DIRCM.

           “For that matter has France ever even fielded a dedicated IRST on a fighter before the Rafale (which isn’t the same as rigging an MICA to work as an ad-hoc sensor)? The USAF fielded its first IRST in 1963 on the F-101 IIRC.”

           USAF has done many good things only to completely ignore them afterwards. First fighter designed specifically for low RCS was designed by Germans in 1940s, yet I don’t think anyone would argue that Germany has a lead in radar LO because of it:
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

           In all US aircraft which have used IRST, it was only a supplement for radar and first models could not even be used as a standalone sensor but had to be cued by radar. Contrary to that, both OSF and PIRATE are designed to be used as a standalone sensors, and both can cue the radar. Rafale in fact doesn’t need radar for aerial combat, though it is used for ground attack.

           >Jun 1999
           Thomson Optronique declines to give exact performance details of the FSO, but it is understood that at 20,000ft, for example, in air-to-air mode, the system will have an infrared detection capability of around 130km, while laser ranging is possible out to about 33km, and the TV is capable of looking out to 45km.
           http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/seeker-gets-on-track-51953/ <>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofradir
           “Sofradir is a B2B company with headquarters in Châtenay-Malabry, France” “Sofradir’s MCT IR detectors are being used by space agencies to observe deep space, observe the Earth, monitor the environment, and provide data on meteorological phenomena.[1] Other Sofradir detectors are being used in thermal infrared cameras, missile seekers, research and development as well as surveillance and targeting equipment.”

           >Sofradir pioneered the development of second- and third-generation IR detectors. It was one of the first to produce second-generation IR detectors. Second-generation IR detectors have a high level of sophistication because they require the integration of readout electronics on the Focal Plane Array (FPA) as well as signal processing.<< <YAK-130>TA-50>Rafale>F-22 and so on.”

           Incorrect. First, PAK FA/T-50 and Rafale already have IRST, and second, I never said that IRST is the whole factor.

           “Trouble is this logic of radar having become a liability and IRST replacing it as the primary long range sensor hasn’t been adopted by any air operator.”

           Except AdlA, though they still use radar as a supplement and as a primary sensor for ground attack.

           “Eh? ‘Bound to fail’ Why? Zero progress in improving accuracy over the last fifteen years? And presumably zero progress fifteen years from today?”

           “Bound to fail” as in “bound to disappoint”. AtG PGM that achieves 90% accuracy in tests will be lucky to achieve 20% in combat.

           “If more complex was worse the world would still be flying Spitfires and Bf 109s, if not Camels and Albatroses.”

           Reductio ad absurdum. Some complexity is required, but any more than minimum is not good.

           “A less charitable explanation would be that they’re forced to work around the aircraft’s deficiencies.”

           Rafale was designed according to AdlA requirements, not the opposite. BTW, Rafale already uses AESA technology – not in radar, but in SPECTRA.

           “In either case, the French are the only ones. Everyone else including the USAF, USN, Russians, Chinese and so on are investing heavily in their radars.”

           Germans were also the only ones to move beyond World War I trench warfare mentality in 1930s.

           Results:
           http://homepages.wmich.edu/~hega/PSCI340/images/map19.jpg – Europe in 1917
           http://www.zonu.com/images/500X0/2009-12-21-11435/World-War-II-in-Europe-1941-1942.png – Europe in 1942

           “Honestly, I can’t figure out whether you’re skeptical about PR or not. Or do you reserve your skepticism only for American aircraft?”

           I know that Rafale has achieved M 1,4 with 6 AAMs. F-22s, however, figures are all over the place – Mach 1,5, 1,7, 1,8… 1,5 I know it can do, 1,7 probably, 1,8 I doubt. And I know it can’t go over Mach 2 (dash or otherwise) due to its air intakes’ design, not that speeds over Mach 2 are useful to begin with. F-22s engines are more efficient than Rafale’s when in supersonic flight, but neither F-22 or Rafale have anywhere close to the fuel fraction required for useful supersonic endurance.

           And Rafale A is said that “During the first flight, it hit Mach 2 and almost 15.000 meters without using the afterburner.”. Rafale C has better aerodynamics and higher thrust-to-weight ratio, so according to this it should be capable of supercruise at Mach 2. Yet you won’t find me touting Rafale’s Mach 2 supercruise capability. It later turned out that I was correct, one of engines was in afterburner so it actually didn’t supercruise.

           “While some documents/brochures have mentioned Rafale having supercruise, Dassault has been rather coy about it while lavishing attention on its ‘omni-role’ capabilities. In contrast, Lockheed Martin, BAE/EADS, Saab have all played up their aircraft’s supercruise abilities.”

           Gripen C’s supercruise capability is same as F-35s – none, Gripen E can supercruise but it is open question as of speed and endurance. And supercruise is not significant by itself, English Electric Lightning could do it – it could reach and sustain Mach 1,22 without using the afterburner. What matters in achieving supercruise is dry thrust and aerodynamics, including but not limited to wing’s sweep angle, Gripen C has aerodynamics but not the engine, F-22 has both, so do Rafale and Typhoon, F-35 doesn’t have either. FYI, Rafale has 48* wing sweep and 70* LERX, same as the F-22.

           “I suppose the trouble with making such claims is that customers eventually want it demonstrated for them. Has the Rafale ever publicly demonstrated supercruise?”

           It did, that is where I got the figure.
           http://imageshack.us/f/164/frommiragetorafale5lv.jpg/

           “Political pressure explains only so much. There are many countries (Israel and Australia being the most prominent) that would ditch the F-35 if the F-22 ever became available. They’d leaped on the Rafale were it truly the F-22/PAK FA killer than you say it is.”

           And incidentally, both F-22 and F-35 are US-produced whereas Rafale is not. Did Israel and Australia ever consider the PAK FA? If they did, you might have a point.

           LikeLike

       14. “The Soviets lost 16 Su-25s in Afghanistan. And while the Soviet might have been able to lump it, NATO forces in contrast prefer to avoid those sort of casualties.”

           You can’t avoid casualties in war, but 32 aircraft crewmembers is better than 320 ground troops.

           “Whether you’re doing it from 20,000ft or from 2,000ft, a PGMs accuracy does not change signficantly.”

           Yes, in ideal conditions it doesn’t change but reality is not ideal. There are many things that can go wrong with PGM, and more time spent in flight means more time for something to go wrong.

           “The F-35 will not fly low since its ‘flimsy’, but for the record conventional aircraft like the F-16 and Rafale aren’t much better.”

           And I never suggested that F-16 or Rafale are more capable at CAS than F-35. A-10, Su-25 and L-159 are the only true CAS aircraft I can remember of right now.

           “Which would imply that the only air forces capable of providing ‘effective’ CAS in the world are the USAF and RuAF (plus a few other Su-25 operators). so as per you, everyone else including the RAF, AdlA, Luftwaffe, IAF etc would be handicapped in this particular role.”

           Not “handicapped” but “almost completely incapable of”. And it isn’t true, since as noted Czech air force has L-159 and there are some operators of Super Tucano which can also provide CAS, though turboprops are more limited.

           “When was the last time a fighter flew below 15 meters in a combat zone?”

           Last time political limits on flight altitude weren’t in place. And BTW, during World War II, B-25s flew at altitudes that could be measured in single-digit meters.

           “I don’t subscribe to the idea that the only means from providing CAS is from 15m.”

           If PGMs are such a silver bullet, why were F-15Es and F-16s forced to gun strafe Taliban forces on several occasions?

           “And the risk to an infantry squad from an off course Brimstone or SDB-II is far lower than the risk to an aircraft from VSHORAD/MANPADS.”

           Yes, because aircraft of course have 50% casualty rate when flying low. And you forget that even on-target PGM can be dangerous to supported troops, depending on distance.

           “so 50% of the aircraft hit were killed outright. All six were rendered inoperational so far as the conflict on ground was concerned. And only two returned to service. Its no surprise that the air force now chooses to fly its aircraft at higher altitudes.”

           With F-35 casualty rate would have been 100%, plus the fact that unlike A-10 it can be shot down by small-arms fire. And flying at high altitude is not an option, so considering dangers, you best provide pilots with aircraft that is not a certain loss even if hit.

           “Commander on ground referred to the theater commander.”

           Yes, because theater commander really has a good view of how effective certain weapon is in actual combat without asking his troops first.

           “You have that backwards. The NATO forces flew higher altitude missions to reduce casualties but political pressure generated by few incidents causing collateral damage forced it to start flying lower altitudes.”

           And you were claiming that flying at high altitudes does not mean more danger of collateral damage? And it doesn’t make me wrong, altitude limits were set by political considerations, it is just that those considerations changed.

           “I’ll ask again, when was the last time an aircraft flew at 45 feet in a combat zone? The only examples I can think of are RAF Tornados in the Gulf War and they took heavy losses before switching to higher altitudes.”

           RAF Tornadoes can’t tolerate even small arms fire, so it is no wonder they took casualties.

           “But that’s not what I asked. I had a specific question – what information do you have suggesting that the USAF’s ‘Focussed Lethality Munition’ program was a sham?”

           Because you can’t have focused lethality to an extent you are claiming unless munition is a kinetic impactor, and even in that case there are limits on mass and speed.

           “Actually they were fitted for guns because replacing them ballast was found to be even more expensive.

           Its the training ammunition that was issued on basis of strafing support in Afghanistan. But while employing in the COIN is one thing, it is not any more survivable at low altitude in hostile airspace than the F-35.”

           Gun without ammunition is worthless. And yes, it is true that Typhoon is no more survivable than the F-35 (actually it is since it is more maneuverable, but that is not significant compared to the A-10s survivability) point is that it could have bombed from 30.000 feet up yet they still found gun required.

           LikeLike

       15. ‘AdlA tactics are based around the passive detection (IRST + RWR), that is the reason why Rafale has a relatively small radar for its size. OSF can direct RBE2, SPECTRA can direct both. As for technical side, refer the sentence after it (which, BTW, you quoted only to ignore its meaning).’

           I don’t not ignore its meaning. I very clearly pointing out that it was based on flawed reasoning. Just because A fielded a system before B, doesn not imply that A has a technological lead over B. Just fielding a imaging IRST first does not prove that France has ‘lead’ over the US in IR technologies. Otherwise one could say the fact that the US fielded an operational AESA in 2000 implied that the US had a 15 year lead over France in radar technologies (clearly an overstatement).

           ‘F-35 has IR missile warners giving a 360-degree coverage, but these are narrow-view, low-resolution cameras. DDM NG is precise enough to be capable of directing DIRCM. ‘

           The F-35’s DAS has a resolution high enough to cue weapon systems against ground targets. And FYI the F-35’s DIRCM will be cued by DAS as well.

           ‘USAF has done many good things only to completely ignore them afterwards. First fighter designed specifically for low RCS was designed by Germans in 1940s, yet I don’t think anyone would argue that Germany has a lead in radar LO because of it:
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229‘

           Precisely. Merely fielding a technology first does not translate into a technological edge vis a vis the competition.

           ‘In all US aircraft which have used IRST, it was only a supplement for radar and first models could not even be used as a standalone sensor but had to be cued by radar. Contrary to that, both OSF and PIRATE are designed to be used as a standalone sensors, and both can cue the radar. Rafale in fact doesn’t need radar for aerial combat, though it is used for ground attack.’

           We’re talking about IRST units fielded decades ago, we can hardly expect technological parity with modern variants.

           ‘Incorrect. First, PAK FA/T-50 and Rafale already have IRST, and second, I never said that IRST is the whole factor.’

           The reference was to the KAI TA-50 not the PAKFA. Pursuing your theory, a TA-50 or YAK-130 AJT equipped with a first rate IRST would have the first-look-first-shot advantage against the Rafale or PAK FA or even the F-22, owing to their low IR signature.

           ‘Except AdlA, though they still use radar as a supplement and as a primary sensor for ground attack.’

           So in your opinion the AdlA has got it right and everyone else has got it wrong?

           Also, the primary sensor for ground attack is the Damocles pod (to be replaced by PDL NG), not the RBE2.

           ‘“Bound to fail” as in “bound to disappoint”. AtG PGM that achieves 90% accuracy in tests will be lucky to achieve 20% in combat.’

           That’s only your opinion. Its not supported by any academic study or by combat records. For example 98% of the Brimstones employed in Libya were on target, and the remainder off only be a few feet. While the accuracy with GPS guidance is relatively lower for a IR/LG munition
           1-3 meter accuracy is standard for most PGMs.

           Also, for PGM accuracy in testss doesn’t not significantly vary from combat anymore than that for say… an assault rifle.

           ‘Reductio ad absurdum. Some complexity is required, but any more than minimum is not good.’

           I have never heard it claimed that modern PGMs are ‘over complex’ for their role.

           ‘Rafale was designed according to AdlA requirements, not the opposite. BTW, Rafale already uses AESA technology – not in radar, but in SPECTRA.’

           The AESA is being employed both in the radar (RBE2 AA) and SPECTRA. Clearly the AdlA doesn’t share your belief about radars becoming a liability.

           ‘Germans were also the only ones to move beyond World War I trench warfare mentality in 1930s.’

           ‘Only ones’ is a little rich when there were only three major powers and only one major theatre of war. Nor was the concept behind the Blitzkrieg developed in isolation (eg JFC Fuller, BH Liddell Hart, Charles De Gaulle). For that matter, while the Germans operated on a far larger scale than any other, they were hardly the only military to employ armored forces in maneuver warfare (read: Zhukov; Khalkhin Gol, O’Connor; Op Compass).

           Its a weak parallel to your claim that every major military in the world has gotten it wrong, save for the French.

           ‘Gripen C’s supercruise capability is same as F-35s – none,’

           The Gripen C has been advertised as a super-cruiser.

           ‘Gripen E can supercruise but it is open question as of speed and endurance. And supercruise is not significant by itself, English Electric Lightning could do it – it could reach and sustain Mach 1,22 without using the afterburner. What matters in achieving supercruise is dry thrust and aerodynamics, including but not limited to wing’s sweep angle, Gripen C has aerodynamics but not the engine, F-22 has both, so do Rafale and Typhoon, F-35 doesn’t have either. FYI, Rafale has 48* wing sweep and 70* LERX, same as the F-22.’

           ^^ This has nothing to do with the question – ‘has the Rafale ever demonstrated supercruise’?

           ‘It did, that is where I got the figure.
           http://imageshack.us/f/164/frommiragetorafale5lv.jpg/‘

           Either that page is TOTALLY wrong (or misprinted), or the Rafale can truly fly Mach 2 without afterburner (something that the F-22 and PAK FA are probably incapable of, to say nothing of the EF).

           ‘And incidentally, both F-22 and F-35 are US-produced whereas Rafale is not. Did Israel and Australia ever consider the PAK FA? If they did, you might have a point.’

           Australia and Israel are both former operators of the Mirage III. To add to which Australia operates refuelers from Airbus and operates rotary wing aircraft from Europe.

           The implication that France is fundamentally incapable of winning an export order when pitted against competition from America is false. Especially for an aircraft supposedly superior to everything else available on the market and unavailable on the market.

           LikeLike

       16. ‘You can’t avoid casualties in war, but 32 aircraft crewmembers is better than 320 ground troops.’

           You can support the troops on ground without putting the aircraft at risk.

           ‘Yes, in ideal conditions it doesn’t change but reality is not ideal. There are many things that can go wrong with PGM, and more time spent in flight means more time for something to go wrong.’

           PGMs don’t fall apart on the way down. And higher altitudes allow for a longer flight time allowing multiple updates from the launch/support platforms enabling a higher CEP.

           ‘Not “handicapped” but “almost completely incapable of”. And it isn’t true, since as noted Czech air force has L-159 and there are some operators of Super Tucano which can also provide CAS, though turboprops are more limited.’

           So every air force in the world except for the USAF, RuAF and CzAF is ‘completely incapable of’ performing CAS.

           ‘Last time political limits on flight altitude weren’t in place. And BTW, during World War II, B-25s flew at altitudes that could be measured in single-digit meters.’

           So WWII then? Or maybe Vietnam.

           ‘If PGMs are such a silver bullet, why were F-15Es and F-16s forced to gun strafe Taliban forces on several occasions?’

           How often have F-15Es and F-16s engaged in strafing? How many LGBs and missiles have been employed in the same period? And this in completely secure airspace. Fighter aircraft have been routinely flown operational sorties involving no weapons release i.e. flypast for psyops. Should that sort of show-of-force now be a design consideration for future aircraft?

           ‘Yes, because aircraft of course have 50% casualty rate when flying low. And you forget that even on-target PGM can be dangerous to supported troops, depending on distance.’

           That’s not borne out by their actual combat records.

           ‘With F-35 casualty rate would have been 100%, plus the fact that unlike A-10 it can be shot down by small-arms fire. And flying at high altitude is not an option, so considering dangers, you best provide pilots with aircraft that is not a certain loss even if hit.’

           The F-35’s casualty rate would be 0% and it would stay out of the MANPAD envelope and engage from altitude.

           ‘Yes, because theater commander really has a good view of how effective certain weapon is in actual combat without asking his troops first.’

           The theater commander is one that writes off an aircraft as a casaulty therefore REDUCING the number of aircraft still available to fly CAS and strike.

           ‘And you were claiming that flying at high altitudes does not mean more danger of collateral damage? And it doesn’t make me wrong, altitude limits were set by political considerations, it is just that those considerations changed.’

           This was 15 years ago. As a matter of fact, A-10s pilots operating as FAC were using binoculars to identify enemy targets. The issue was IFF and not PGM accuracy as you have claimed.

           In contrast today C4I has come a long long way and the resolution and acuity of modern EO sensors is superior by an order of magnitude.

           BTW you have still sidestepped the question i.e. WHAT political considerations stopped the A-10 from flying at 45 feet altitude (that you consider safe)?

           ‘RAF Tornadoes can’t tolerate even small arms fire, so it is no wonder they took casualties.’

           They were shot down by missiles and AAA not small arms. And the A-10 isn’t immune to AAA or SAMs.

           ‘Because you can’t have focused lethality to an extent you are claiming unless munition is a kinetic impactor, and even in that case there are limits on mass and speed.’

           You mean you can’t have to the extent that the USAF had requested and they had no idea that the requirements were shoddy? And that they accepted non-performing products and kept quiet about it.

           Do have any literature, references, accounts, audits.. anything at all to support your claims about the whole thing being a scam?

           And secondly, are you still claiming that employing HTK munitions like the Brimstone and SDB II will result in heavy friendly casualties?

           ‘Gun without ammunition is worthless. And yes, it is true that Typhoon is no more survivable than the F-35 (actually it is since it is more maneuverable, but that is not significant compared to the A-10s survivability) point is that it could have bombed from 30.000 feet up yet they still found gun required.’

           You’re mistaken again. The Eurofighter is less maneuverable than the F-35 at lower speeds and altitudes (compare their max AoA). At strafing missions, the F-35 will be more effective than the Eurocanards. Fortunately, seeing as even the A-10 is being flown in safer profiles, its safe to say that the F-35 will operate at safer altitudes while a strong MANPAD/SAM threat exists.

           LikeLike

       17. “I don’t not ignore its meaning. I very clearly pointing out that it was based on flawed reasoning.”

           Radar-based combat never was decisive against competent opponent, and pilots often shut down the radar exactly to avoid warning the opponent. AdlA has recognized it, as did Dassault, and they chose not to sacrifice aerodynamics for uselessly large radar since Rafale is primarly air superiority fighter. Thus developing capable IR systems was imperative, and it shows: F-35 uses several narrow-view IR cameras as missile warners while Rafale uses two fisheye ones, a simpler and more reliable system.

           “We’re talking about IRST units fielded decades ago, we can hardly expect technological parity with modern variants.”

           You can also likewise hardly expect an IRST optimized for ground attack to have parity with IRSTs otpimized for air-to-air.

           “Pursuing your theory, a TA-50 or YAK-130 AJT equipped with a first rate IRST would have the first-look-first-shot advantage against the Rafale or PAK FA or even the F-22, owing to their low IR signature.”

           First look it certainly would be (especially against PAK FA or F-22), at least if equipped with capable radar warners in addition to the IRST, first shot is doubtful due to kinematic disadvantage.

           “So in your opinion the AdlA has got it right and everyone else has got it wrong?”

           Yes.

           “That’s only your opinion. Its not supported by any academic study or by combat records. For example 98% of the Brimstones employed in Libya were on target, and the remainder off only be a few feet. While the accuracy with GPS guidance is relatively lower for a IR/LG munition 1-3 meter accuracy is standard for most PGMs.”

           I’d wait for few years before using Libya as an example. 98% accuracy claimed at first often turns out to be 9,8% after some time.

           “Also, for PGM accuracy in testss doesn’t not significantly vary from combat anymore than that for say… an assault rifle.”

           Apples and watermelons comparision, assault rifle is far simpler weapon, and even then its accuracy does vary, primarly due to conditions in combat.

           “I have never heard it claimed that modern PGMs are ‘over complex’ for their role.”

           Except for NATO running out of PGMs during Bosnian and Lybian campaigns?

           “The AESA is being employed both in the radar (RBE2 AA) and SPECTRA. Clearly the AdlA doesn’t share your belief about radars becoming a liability.”

           Except unlike US and Eurofighter consortium, they chose not to sacrifice Rafale’s aerodynamic performance for sake of mounting a larger radar.

           “‘Only ones’ is a little rich when there were only three major powers and only one major theatre of war.”

           I did not include only major powers, and I did not include only powers which were fighting in 1939-1940. USSR was still in World War I mentality, so were United States, and especially all smaller countries (Netherlands with its water barricade system, Belgium with their forts, Yugoslavia, etc.).

           “Nor was the concept behind the Blitzkrieg developed in isolation (eg JFC Fuller, BH Liddell Hart, Charles De Gaulle).”

           I never said it war, in fact Great Britain had a major influence on it, but Germany was only country to actually employ it.

           “The Gripen C has been advertised as a super-cruiser.”

           Gripen E has been advertised as super-cruiser, never heard about Gripen C being advertised as such. And while Gripen C may be able to supercruise, it depends on altitude and temperature.

           “Either that page is TOTALLY wrong (or misprinted), or the Rafale can truly fly Mach 2 without afterburner (something that the F-22 and PAK FA are probably incapable of, to say nothing of the EF).”

           One of engines was in afterburner, another was in dry thrust.

           “Australia and Israel are both former operators of the Mirage III. To add to which Australia operates refuelers from Airbus and operates rotary wing aircraft from Europe.”

           This has nothing to do with procuring modern fixed-wing tactical aircraft, which is far more lucrative.

           “You can support the troops on ground without putting the aircraft at risk.”

           Not effectively.

           “PGMs don’t fall apart on the way down.”

           No, but they bump against each other and sometimes against the aircraft when released, bending the fins; guidance system always has a margin of error, and higher the speed and altitude, more likely it is to over- or under- -correct; guidance system can be improperly maintained, or fail during the flight; weather conditions can interfere with some types of PGMs (laser-guided bombs are especially vulnerable to this); it can hit a target that has been misidentified from high altitude (even satellites can’t tell cardboard cutaways from real things)…

           “And higher altitudes allow for a longer flight time allowing multiple updates from the launch/support platforms enabling a higher CEP.”

           In best case there will be no change in CEP, but usually… see above.

           “So every air force in the world except for the USAF, RuAF and CzAF is ‘completely incapable of’ performing CAS.”

           There are Su-25 operators beyond Russia (Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijian, Belarus, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Gambia, Iran, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Peru, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan). Plus there are Super Tucanos, which are good CAS aircraft albeit more vulnerable than Su-25s (operated by Angola, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Indonesia, Mauritania).

           “So WWII then? Or maybe Vietnam.”

           Vietnam I think.

           “How often have F-15Es and F-16s engaged in strafing? How many LGBs and missiles have been employed in the same period?”

           No idea, but fact that aircraft which are not designed for strafing, and whose pilots in some cases did not even train for it were forced to do it should be answer enough.

           “That’s not borne out by their actual combat records.”

           You mean except for numerous friendly-fire incidents (some of which I have mentioned in another article BTW).

           “The F-35′s casualty rate would be 0% and it would stay out of the MANPAD envelope and engage from altitude.”

           At first, but it would change after few friendly fire incidents.

           “This was 15 years ago. As a matter of fact, A-10s pilots operating as FAC were using binoculars to identify enemy targets. The issue was IFF and not PGM accuracy as you have claimed.”

           Issue was both.

           “In contrast today C4I has come a long long way and the resolution and acuity of modern EO sensors is superior by an order of magnitude.”

           In ideal circumstances.

           “BTW you have still sidestepped the question i.e. WHAT political considerations stopped the A-10 from flying at 45 feet altitude (that you consider safe)?”

           Politicians wanted to minimize casualties and air force generals wanted to make the A-10 look bad.

           “They were shot down by missiles and AAA not small arms. And the A-10 isn’t immune to AAA or SAMs.”

           A-10 can survive both most of the time.

           “You mean you can’t have to the extent that the USAF had requested and they had no idea that the requirements were shoddy? And that they accepted non-performing products and kept quiet about it.”

           That is their standard modus operandi. F-22 for example, which was not properly tested before being put into production and was underperforming in several major characteristics, including stealth.

           “You’re mistaken again. The Eurofighter is less maneuverable than the F-35 at lower speeds and altitudes (compare their max AoA).”

           Less maneuverable despite having lower wing loading? And BTW, high angle of attack does not make you more maneuverable beyond the maximum lift AoA.

           LikeLike

17. @HGR

    With regard to the Ex Northern Edge, the original link to the story is not active anymore (http://www.langley.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123025375).

    But I’ll post the text anyway –

    RAPTOR SUMMER STATS IMPRESS CRITICS

    by Capt. Elizabeth Kreft
    1st Fighter Wing Public Affairs

    8/18/2006 – LANGLEY AFB, VA. — The news here isn’t that the F-22A Raptor went out of town and participated in exercises this summer. Critics and fans alike have heard that by now.

    What they haven’t heard: the facts and figures produced during the training.

    “We took the jets and our people more than 3,200 miles from their support structure at home,” said Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver, 27th FS commander. “Yet the very next day we had those same jets up and flying.”

    That was just the first day.

    “Over the next few weeks, we were able to engage in some of the best training I’ve seen in my 17-year Air Force career,” Colonel Tolliver said. “We showed that the Raptor can be an immediate contributor across a large spectrum of military missions,” he said.

    Notable numbers

    During a 6-week stay in Alaska, the 27th FS engaged in its first-ever, full-length exercise with the F-22, Northern Edge. In the first exercise week, while flying in joint teams with F-15 Eagles and F/A-18 Hornets, the Raptor was able to produce a whopping 144-to-0 kill ratio.

    In the majority of missions, Raptors consisted of just one-quarter to one-third of the defending force, yet F-22s destroyed more than half of the enemy targets.

    “With our unique capability to see the battle space, we were able to stay in the fight, contributing to the entire package,” said Col. Tolliver.

    During one engagement, a team of just eight Raptors and 21 Eagles killed 83 adversary aircraft.

    “In another exercise engagement we saw some of the most challenging training scenarios to date for the F-22,” Colonel Tolliver said. “Yet, the Raptor’s enabled us to destroy more than 60 percent of the targets, with zero losses.”

    Bombs away all day

    Better still, the Raptor’s influence was witnessed by those on the ground.

    More than 60 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (1,000-pound bombs) were dropped by Raptor pilots this summer; each punished the targets below hitting within six meters or less of the intended bull’s-eyes. 26 bombs were dropped during Close Air Support exercises using a forward air controller, another first-attempt and complete success for the F-22.

    Not to be outdone, the 94th FS took to the skies over Hill AFB in Utah and accomplished the first supersonic bomb drops for the F-22.

    “Until then, no operational F-22 had ever done that,” explained Lt. Col. Michael Hoepfner, 94th Fighter Squadron director of operations. “No other aircraft can get up to 1.5 mach at 50,000 feet and deliver a JDAM.”

    It’s kinematics as it’s best: Faster plane = faster bomb. Faster bomb = more dead targets.

    “We also engaged in a scenario escorting two B-2s into a heavily defended anti-access environment,” said Colonel Tolliver. “All of the targets were completely destroyed, and we lost zero blue forces.”

    Anti-access environments, guarded by sophisticated surface-to-air missile sites and advanced aircraft, are an emerging threat that tests the capabilities of American’s current jets.

    “With the Raptor’s stealth and advanced maneuvering, we have the ability to move freely in those integrated defense areas where our legacy fighters couldn’t,” said Colonel Tolliver.

    Superior synergy

    Weapons aside, just having the Raptor in the air proved to be a valuable intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance asset many of the joint exercise partners weren’t expecting.

    “For example, we were able to supplement AWACS information, telling the other players if they were double-targeting an enemy, and we were able to warn some crews about threats they hadn’t even seen yet,” said Brig. Gen. Burt Field, 1st Fighter Wing commander.

    The Raptor helps make the entire team more effective, and that is not lost on anyone who flies with it or against it, he said.

    “We are seeing more and more opportunities where we can be a value-added asset to any military engagement,” General Field said. “No matter the threat, the Raptor’s capabilities benefit any joint team.”

    The F-22’s reliability also impressed audiences this summer. Raptor maintenance and flying teams produced a 97 percent mission-effectiveness rate during exercise Northern Edge, flying 102 out of 105 tasked missions.

    The 94th and 27th FS combined for an unprecedented 854 sorties during two months of travel, gaining an additional 1,000 flight hours for its pilots.

    “The Raptor team is ready to deploy now,” said Colonel Tolliver. “We have the training and the experience to contribute to any situation that the combatant commanders see fit,” Colonel Tolliver said.

    Some say there’s no place like home, but this summer Langley Airmen proved to many critics that any base can be a fruitful nest for the F-22 Raptor, and any target has less than 144-0 chance of survival.

    http://www.langley.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123025375

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. Thanks again.

       LikeLike

       Reply

18. I have two posts still stuck in moderation. There’s nothing offensive in either. I wonder what the deal is.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. Issue is that my internet speed is crappy, so sometimes I have to re-post articles because they don’t appear on the blog, or blog doesn’t register that I have approved posts in taskbar at the top.

       LikeLike

       Reply
19. Pingback: Guest Post: Our Era’s Definitive Dynamic: Diminishing Returns | peoples trust toronto

20. This is proof that this article is completely wrong:

    http://whythef35.blogspot.ca/2013/11/f-35-engine-prices-keep-coming-down-as.html

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. Disproving one blog article with another. Really great way of doing things.

       LikeLike

       Reply

21. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/112513-680586-beijing-east-china-sea-maritime-grab.htm

    This or similar is the likely scenario for the next non-nuclear conflict… China taking away small slices of this or that not worth a nuke but still worth fighting for.

    From the article, ” The islands became Japan’s territory after it defeated China in their 1894-1895 war. It was only after a 1968 United Nations survey reported the huge oil and gas potential of the area that Beijing began to protest the 1972 U.S. return of the islets to Japanese control as part of Okinawa. The U.S. is obligated to defend the islands under the 1960 U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, which covers all territories under Japanese administration, including the Senkakus.”

    The oil part reminds me of the Chaco war; they also thought there was oil there.

    If one looks at this it will be entirely Naval and over 3000 miles away from the USA. We will have Guam, Okinawa and what else to base our forces in and the carriers will have to be careful how close they get to this patch of land since they would be very vulnerable among those islands that will no doubt be infested with submarines.

    LikeLike

    Reply

22. Radar-based combat never was decisive against competent opponent, and pilots often shut down the radar exactly to avoid warning the opponent. AdlA has recognized it, as did Dassault, and they chose not to sacrifice aerodynamics for uselessly large radar since Rafale is primarly air superiority fighter. Thus developing capable IR systems was imperative, and it shows: F-35 uses several narrow-view IR cameras as missile warners while Rafale uses two fisheye ones, a simpler and more reliable system.

    The AdlA/MN/MoD is hugely cutting back on Rafale orders, haven’t ordered an HMDS to save money, but is STILL spending millions of euros during a financial crunch to induct GaAs AESAs and develop GaN technology. And YOU still think radars are useless.

    You can also likewise hardly expect an IRST optimized for ground attack to have parity with IRSTs otpimized for air-to-air.

    Only if the IRSTs are comparable technologically. You’re yet to substantiate your assertion about France being ahead or even at par with the US.

    First look it certainly would be (especially against PAK FA or F-22), at least if equipped with capable radar warners in addition to the IRST, first shot is doubtful due to kinematic disadvantage.

    And yet the world including France isn’t racing to buy IRST equipped AJTs at a fifth of the cost of a conventional aircraft. Nor are air forces that are buying AJTs or light fighters overly concerned with getting an IRST onboard ASAP.

    It would appear your theory about radar based air combat becoming redundant has very few takers.

    Yes.

    And you don’t believe this opinion about ‘France being right and everyone else wrong’ is biased somewhat by your being French?

    I’d wait for few years before using Libya as an example. 98% accuracy claimed at first often turns out to be 9,8% after some time.

    In which conflict has PGM accuracy ever been recorded as 9.8%.

    So far we have your gut feeling vs actual records in combat.

    Except for NATO running out of PGMs during Bosnian and Lybian campaigns?

    Just goes to make my point. PGMs stocks ran low because PGMs were being expended. How much gun strafing took place?

    Except unlike US and Eurofighter consortium, they chose not to sacrifice Rafale’s aerodynamic performance for sake of mounting a larger radar.

    They wouldn’t have bothered with a radar if strapping an IRST for air-to-air and LDP for air-to-ground would have sufficed. For that matter they could have saved about $20 billion by foregoing the Rafale altogether, and upgrading the Mirage 2000 with an IRST instead.

    Yet not only did they put a radar on it, they’ve spend billions upgrading it.

    I did not include only major powers, and I did not include only powers which were fighting in 1939-1940. USSR was still in World War I mentality, so were United States, and especially all smaller countries (Netherlands with its water barricade system, Belgium with their forts, Yugoslavia, etc.).

    There WERE only three major powers during the day viz. Britain, France and Germany. The US had an isolationist military policy, the Soviet forces were militia centric and coping with the results of the Great Purge. NOBODY else had the industrial strength to implement mechanized maneuver warfare.

    So Germany being the ‘only’ one to figure it out is less impressive than it sounds. And the factors that influenced France and UK i.e. bureaucratic inertia and financial conservatism don’t apply to modern militaries.

    Every major air force today fields IRSTs and is well aware of what their real capabilities are. And there are extensive theoretical and field exercises carried out every year to validate existing operational theories and test futuristic theories of warfare. So the parallel to WWII doesn’t hold water.

    I never said it war, in fact Great Britain had a major influence on it, but Germany was only country to actually employ it.

    Both the UK and US fielded experimental mechanical forces between the wars, before funding was withdrawn. In France however, the influence of Foch and Petain curtailed the development of combined arms warfare.

    In war, the Germans were hardly the only ones to employ those precepts. Zhukov’s operation in Manchuria (Khalkhin Gol) precedes the invasion of Poland. Patton didn’t study under Guderian before taking command of the Third US Army. And before Rommel earned his sobriquet ‘Desert Fox’, armored forces under O’Connor had pulled off a major triumph in North Africa during Op Compass.

    Gripen E has been advertised as super-cruiser, never heard about Gripen C being advertised as such. And while Gripen C may be able to supercruise, it depends on altitude and temperature.

    That was a typo. The intended sentence was – the Gripen C has never been advertised as a supercruiser. So referring to its lack of supercruise is pointless.

    One of engines was in afterburner, another was in dry thrust.

    I’d like to see references, if you have any, to that. what was point of such an exercise? Besides that still isn’t supercruise in any case.

    This has nothing to do with procuring modern fixed-wing tactical aircraft, which is far more lucrative.

    What does ‘more lucrative’ have to do with it? The contracts cumulatively are worth over $7 billion, hardly something to scoff at, even for the US industry.

    LikeLike

    Reply

23. Not effectively.

    Of course they’re effective. That’s why they’ve been employed by the thousands while the

    A-10 is being retired early.

    No, but they bump against each other and sometimes against the aircraft when released,

    bending the fins; guidance system always has a margin of error, and higher the speed and

    altitude, more likely it is to over- or under- -correct; guidance system can be improperly

    maintained, or fail during the flight; weather conditions can interfere with some types of

    PGMs (laser-guided bombs are especially vulnerable to this); it can hit a target that has

    been misidentified from high altitude (even satellites can’t tell cardboard cutaways from

    real things)…

    Unless the aircraft is engaging violent jinxing, there’s no bumping against the fuselage

    and as long as they are released in a staggered manner, there’s no question of PGMs bumping

    against each other.

    Modern guidance systems can and do steer the munition to within a meter of the target. MMW

    seekers are not affected by weather. And resolution of current EO sensors is three

    generations ahead of the Vietnam-era units that you have used to form your template.

    There are Su-25 operators beyond Russia (Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijian, Belarus, Chad,

    Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Gambia, Iran, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Peru,

    Sudan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan). Plus there are Super Tucanos, which are good CAS

    aircraft albeit more vulnerable than Su-25s (operated by Angola, Brazil, Burkina Faso,

    Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Indonesia, Mauritania).

    Right. So air forces of Georgia, Ethiopia, North Korea, Sudan and Peru are capable for far

    superior CAS than those of any NATO force minus the US. Can’t say I’ve heard that before.

    Vietnam I think.

    So the last time CAS was ‘properly’ performed was 40 years ago in Vietnam?

    No idea, but fact that aircraft which are not designed for strafing, and whose pilots in

    some cases did not even train for it were forced to do it should be answer enough.

    Occassionally soldiers in the field employ sidearms. That doesn’t mean a pistol is in any

    way a substitute for a carbine or rifle. The fact that strafing has been perform on the odd

    occassion means nothing, especially when compared to the tens of thousands of PGMs employed

    over the last decade.

    You can’t take an aberration and standardize around it.

    You mean except for numerous friendly-fire incidents (some of which I have mentioned in

    another article BTW).

    Really? And how many of those friendly fire incidents happened because of wayward PGMs (as

    opposed to IFF issues)? And this is out of the thousands of times they’ve been employed.

    At first, but it would change after few friendly fire incidents.

    Other way round. Most operations in the Gulf and Balkans were flown at over 10,000 feet.

    So far we have only your opinion that PGMs are a hazard to ground forces. The sheer scale

    of their employment over the last decade is conclusive evidence against it.

    Issue was both.

    Issue was not both. The non-combatant casualties were sustained because of IFF issues.

    In ideal circumstances.

    In normal circumstances.

    Politicians wanted to minimize casualties and air force generals wanted to make the A-10

    look bad.

    You mean it was the politicians who concluded that flying medium to high altitude (instead

    of 45 feet like you suggest) was safer and not the air force? You’d be wrong if that’s the

    case. You’re the ONLY one suggesting that the A-10 can fly safely at 45 feet.

    A-10 can survive both most of the time.

    The A-10 was a casualty 100% of the times it was hit. And a write-off 66% of the time.

    That is their standard modus operandi. F-22 for example, which was not properly tested

    before being put into production and was underperforming in several major characteristics,

    including stealth.

    ^^

    These are called allegations. What actual EVIDENCE do you have that the FLM program was a

    scam?

    Less maneuverable despite having lower wing loading? And BTW, high angle of attack does

    not make you more maneuverable beyond the maximum lift AoA.

    Yes its less maneuverable despite having lower wing loading. The Mirage 2000 has a lower

    wing loading than the A-10C, it doesn’t make it more maneuverable than the latter at low

    speeds?

    At the low speeds associated with strafing and carrier operations, the aircraft with the

    higher AoA will almost always be more maneuverable.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. “The AdlA/MN/MoD is hugely cutting back on Rafale orders, haven’t ordered an HMDS to save money, but is STILL spending millions of euros during a financial crunch to induct GaAs AESAs and develop GaN technology. And YOU still think radars are useless.”

       Radar is primarly useful for ground attack and terrain mapping.

       “Only if the IRSTs are comparable technologically. You’re yet to substantiate your assertion about France being ahead or even at par with the US.”

       And what proof you have that US are at par with or ahead France, despite latter’s greater focus on, and experience with, IR technologies?

       “It would appear your theory about radar based air combat becoming redundant has very few takers.”

       It wouldn’t be first time entire world was wrong… sheep following a blind shepherd.

       “And you don’t believe this opinion about ‘France being right and everyone else wrong’ is biased somewhat by your being French?”

       Except I’m not French, I’m Croatian. Or maybe being fan of Star Trek makes me French?

       “In which conflict has PGM accuracy ever been recorded as 9.8%.”

       It never was 9,8%, but it never was as high as it was claimed.

       “Just goes to make my point. PGMs stocks ran low because PGMs were being expended. How much gun strafing took place?”

       PGM stocks ran low because expenditure was high and they were too costly to be produced in quantities required – and that against a minor opponent. In an actual war, gun strafing would have to take place because after some time there wouldn’t be any PGMs left.

       “They wouldn’t have bothered with a radar if strapping an IRST for air-to-air and LDP for air-to-ground would have sufficed. For that matter they could have saved about $20 billion by foregoing the Rafale altogether, and upgrading the Mirage 2000 with an IRST instead.”

       Radar is required to enable high-speed aircraft some level of ground attack ability, as for upgrading Mirage 2000, it is obvious that you don’t understand what you’re talking about. Mirage 2000 doesn’t come close to Rafale either aerodynamically or structurally. Plus there is always “we always used radar, let’s continue using it even though better tech is avaliable” mentality.

       “And the factors that influenced France and UK i.e. bureaucratic inertia and financial conservatism don’t apply to modern militaries.”

       If you knew anything about modern-day militaries you wouldn’t be saying so. Bureocratic inertia and financial conservativism are inherent parts of any military, even French and Swedish ones, and especially US military.

       “In war, the Germans were hardly the only ones to employ those precepts.”

       They were first ones to employ combined arms warfare in organized manner.

       “Of course they’re effective. That’s why they’ve been employed by the thousands while the A-10 is being retired early.”

       A-10 is being retired early because it is effective, as it is antithesis to dogma that more expensive weapons are more capable.

       “Unless the aircraft is engaging violent jinxing, there’s no bumping against the fuselage”

       Wrong. Ever heard about air flow? Vortexes?

       “and as long as they are released in a staggered manner, there’s no question of PGMs bumping against each other.”

       Again wrong.
       
       
       
       

       Better read the whole article:
       http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/the-myth-of-the-precision-bombing/

       “So air forces of Georgia, Ethiopia, North Korea, Sudan and Peru are capable for far superior CAS than those of any NATO force minus the US. Can’t say I’ve heard that before.”

       If somebody does everything he can to destroy his capability in a certain area…

       “So the last time CAS was ‘properly’ performed was 40 years ago in Vietnam?”

       Probably, if you’re talking about US and ignoring incidents (quite frequent) when A-10 pilots broke the altitude limits in order to perform CAS.

       “Occassionally soldiers in the field employ sidearms. That doesn’t mean a pistol is in any way a substitute for a carbine or rifle. The fact that strafing has been perform on the odd occassion means nothing, especially when compared to the tens of thousands of PGMs employed over the last decade.”

       Does it mean that soldiers should be denied their sidearms and knives, as “assault rifle is a primary weapon”? Besides, such incidents aren’t really rare.

       “You can’t take an aberration and standardize around it.”

       I’m not doing it.

       “Really? And how many of those friendly fire incidents happened because of wayward PGMs (as opposed to IFF issues)?”

       Wayward PGMs = caused by high-altitude flying.
       IFF issues = caused by high altitude flying.

       It’s the same problem, no matter how much you and USAF bureocrats want to separate it.

       “Other way round. Most operations in the Gulf and Balkans were flown at over 10,000 feet. So far we have only your opinion that PGMs are a hazard to ground forces. The sheer scale of their employment over the last decade is conclusive evidence against it.”

       Most operations in Gulf and Balkans were not CAS, and even then they caused far more harm to Coalition efforts than did they help them.

       “In normal circumstances.”

       “Normal” being “lab” to you.

       “You mean it was the politicians who concluded that flying medium to high altitude (instead of 45 feet like you suggest) was safer and not the air force? You’d be wrong if that’s the case. You’re the ONLY one suggesting that the A-10 can fly safely at 45 feet.”

       Air Force generals are also politicians, unfortunately. At least in USAF, and I’m afraid other NATO air forces aren’t much better.

       “The A-10 was a casualty 100% of the times it was hit. And a write-off 66% of the time.”

       If you’re talking about large SAMs, maybe.

       “These are called allegations. What actual EVIDENCE do you have that the FLM program was a scam?”

       They had to add more stealth coating to get original performance. Oh, and F-22s not being able to fly in the rain.

       “Of course they’re effective. That’s why they’ve been employed by the thousands while the A-10 is being retired early.”

       A-10s are being retired early exactly because they are effective.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. The retiring of the A-10 is not exactly a done deal yet. The A-10 is victimized by USA AF politics and the excuse being given is that it is not “multi-role” and when forced to choose the multi-role aircraft is more valuable than the single role. And Picard has spoken about this subject… the single role is always superior at its one role than the multi-role is.

          Congress has not bought these AF arguments just yet and they might mandate that the airforce keep the A-10. Also possible is that the Army could complain and threaten to obtain permission from Congress to operate their own aircrafts like the Marines do and this will help the AF make up their mind to keep the A-10. Has happened before.

          All this fuels a huge fleet of rotary wing aircrafts that the Army has no problem operating and can rely on not being retired. But helicopters only go so far.

          LikeLike

    2. Radar is primarly useful for ground attack and terrain mapping.

       That’s a weak excuse and you know it. The primary sensor for ground attack is ALWAYS the

       LDP. Also the RBE 2 PESA could carry out terrain mapping just fine. You don’t need an AESA

       let alone a GaN AESA to reproduce the basic multi-functionality of PESAs and late model

       MSAs.

       And what proof you have that US are at par with or ahead France, despite latter’s greater

       focus on, and experience with, IR technologies?

       I don’t need proof. Its YOUR assertion that the EOTS is underranged, and the onus is on you to back that up. So far you’ve presented only hazy generalizations to support that.

       If you have actual range estimates or concerns about its range voiced by credible authorities, please share, otherwise all you have so far is guesswork.

       It wouldn’t be first time entire world was wrong… sheep following a blind shepherd.

       Well then, come out and say it.

       EVERYONES who’s developing, purchasing or considering advanced radars or stealth fighters

       (this including the French thanks to their AESA program) is a fool who can’t see that air

       combat involving radars is over and ONLY you i.e. Picard578 are right.

       If you believe it who am I to say otherwise. 🙂

       In which conflict has PGM accuracy ever been recorded as 9.8%.”

       It never was 9,8%, but it never was as high as it was claimed.

       So the 9.8% figure was rhetoric?

       PGM stocks ran low because expenditure was high and they were too costly to be produced in quantities required – and that against a minor opponent. In an actual war, gun strafing

       would have to take place because after some time there wouldn’t be any PGMs left.

       Since the British Army found itself short of ammunition in both Afghanistan and Iraq,

       perhaps they should give up bullets since they are ‘over-sophisticated’ and return to

       muskets if not swords.

       85% of employment in the Balkans in the 90s consisted of PGMs. If the Europeans ran short

       of PGMs in Libya than that is either an indictment of their pre-campaign planning or a

       result of biting off more than they could chew. Its certainly no reflection on the utility

       of PGMs itself, nor of strafing as an alternative.

       Radar is required to enable high-speed aircraft some level of ground attack ability, as

       for upgrading Mirage 2000, it is obvious that you don’t understand what you’re talking

       about. Mirage 2000 doesn’t come close to Rafale either aerodynamically or structurally.

       Plus there is always “we always used radar, let’s continue using it even though better tech

       is avaliable” mentality.

       The Rafale aerodynamic advantages vis a vis the Mirage aren’t something known only to you.

       And its equally true that the difference is not worth $25 billion.

       Also the Mirage doesn’t have an AESA but the RDY-2 is capable of all air to ground

       operations including SAR functions. It is curious however that despite knowing that the Mirage 2000 would serve till at least till 2030, the French didn’t integrate a dedicated IRST on even the newer Mirage 2000-5s (acc. to you its the aircraft’s PRIMARY sensor), leaving the Mirage with only a limited feed from its MICAs (and none once they’re expended).

       If you knew anything about modern-day militaries you wouldn’t be saying so. Bureocratic

       inertia and financial conservativism are inherent parts of any military, even French and

       Swedish ones, and especially US military.

       ALL bureaucratic organisations are slow and conservative. But you’ve clearly not studied the situation that prevailed during the inter-war years. Its not comparable in the least to the years when most current aircraft were designed. They was genuinely little money or political will available for mass scale mechanization of their armies.

       In contrast, if radars were obsolete (as you claim) current air forces have had more than adequate opportunity to discover it as well as enough incentive to sideline it operationally.

       They were first ones to employ combined arms warfare in organized manner.

       Wrong. Combined arms warfare played a critical role in breaking the stalemate in 1918. And as far as armoured manever warfare is concerned it was employed under Zhukov’s forces in Manchuria even before the invasion of Poland.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. “That’s a weak excuse and you know it.”

          Cut the bullshit. It is not an excuse, it is fact. Can you use LDP for terrain mapping?

          “Its YOUR assertion that the EOTS is underranged, and the onus is on you to back that up. So far you’ve presented only hazy generalizations to support that.”

          I did not present hazy generalizations, I have explained that EOTS is optimized for grund attack, which means different wavelengths when compared to air-to-air optimized OSF or PIRATE.

          “So the 9.8% figure was rhetoric?”

          It was.

          “Since the British Army found itself short of ammunition in both Afghanistan and Iraq, perhaps they should give up bullets since they are ‘over-sophisticated’ and return to muskets if not swords.”

          Unlike PGMs, bullets are comparably easy to produce.

          “85% of employment in the Balkans in the 90s consisted of PGMs.”

          And US ran out of PGMs while achieving almost nothing of military value.

          “In contrast, if radars were obsolete (as you claim) current air forces have had more than adequate opportunity to discover it as well as enough incentive to sideline it operationally.”

          No, they didn’t. As I have explained, militaries are inherently conservative bureocracies, which means that they require a VERY hard kick in the ass to change their faulty ways. US received milder version of it in Vietnam, resulting in the F-16, F-18 and A-10; first of which came to account for half of US tactical air power, second of which outlasted “more capable” F-14 in US Navy service, and last of which is the only US aircraft capable of carrying out Close Air Support.

          “Wrong. Combined arms warfare played a critical role in breaking the stalemate in 1918. And as far as armoured manever warfare is concerned it was employed under Zhukov’s forces in Manchuria even before the invasion of Poland.”

          It was employed in World War I but that was, to my knowledge, rather ad-hoc and happened on operational, as opposed to doctrinal, level.

          LikeLike

    3. A-10 is being retired early because it is effective, as it is antithesis to dogma that more expensive weapons are more capable.

       A sentiment that is contradicted by the induction of UAVs in the USAF on a huge scale.

       Wrong. Ever heard about air flow? Vortexes?

       A hardpoint isn’t hinged. And unless there is a strong cross-wind blowing, the direction of the munition is always DOWNWARDS.

       Again wrong.
       
       
       
       http://www.combatreform.org/oops4.jpg

       Firstly, that’s not a staggered launch. The munitions in the pictures were deployed near simultaneously.

       Secondly, of the munitions mentioned i.e. Brimstone, Hellfire, Maverick and SDB II, the SDB II is the ONLY a glide bomb.

       Better read the whole article:
       http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/the-myth-of-the-precision-bombing

       You’re quoting YOURSELF as credible expert?! Ookay…

       Lets see there’s the expected but irrelevant reiteration of CAS in WWII, Vietnam and so on.
       Then there is misleading information such as the 2001 deaths of US SF members in a B-52 strike being an indictment of high altitude employment/PGM accuracy (the actual cause was an error in updating coordinates by the team on ground).

       Then there is altogether wrong information, such as the Tornado proving itself survivable in Iraq and only 14 militants being killed by drones in Afghanistan (Morning Star? Really?)

       But the biggest flaw is that you’ve entirely sidestepped the performance of the actual munitions that will be employed in CAS. Brimstone. Hellfire. Maverick. SDB-II.

       If somebody does everything he can to destroy his capability in a certain area…

       And this ‘someone’ includes nearly ‘everyone’, huh? UK, France, China, India, Japan … ALL sleeping.

       Does it mean that soldiers should be denied their sidearms and knives, as “assault rifle is a primary weapon”? Besides, such incidents aren’t really rare.

       Their use in combat vis a vis rifles/carbines is rare. And just like their one off employment in combat doesn’t change the rifle’s utility, the occasional strafing run in Afghanistan doesn’t change the PGM’s utility.

       Wayward PGMs = caused by high-altitude flying
       IFF issues = caused by high altitude flying.

       Please post actual evidence of PGM altitude changing with altitude (studies, reports and so on).

       Civilian casualties are more often than not a result of intelligence failure. There’s no evidence to prove that inadequate resolution on EO sensors has resulted in any significant casualties. On the other hand, if you have such evidence (actual evidence, not a gut feeling) do share.

       It’s the same problem, no matter how much you and USAF bureocrats want to separate it.

       Your asking your reader to take at your word, since you’ve posted very little supporting data.

       Most operations in Gulf and Balkans were not CAS, and even then they caused far more harm

       to Coalition efforts than did they help them.

       That they were flown above 10,000ft illustrates the AF’s threat perception (which is predictably at 180 degrees from your own). As for air operations being useless/detrimental, that’s your ‘opinion’. Devoid of supporting data, it doesn’t translate into fact.

       Air Force generals are also politicians, unfortunately. At least in USAF, and I’m afraid

       other NATO air forces aren’t much better.

       You’ve again sidestepped the question. What POLITICAL considerations prevented A-10 flights at low altitude (if they were perfectly safe as you suggest)?

       If you’re talking about large SAMs, maybe.

       I’m not talking about large SAMs. The A-10 was a casualty when hit by AAA, SAMs and MANPADS. 100% of the time.

       They had to add more stealth coating to get original performance. Oh, and F-22s not being able to fly in the rain.

       You’re sidestepping the question yet again. I asked for evidence for your claim about the FLM program being a scam, not about F-22’s stealth coating.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. “A sentiment that is contradicted by the induction of UAVs in the USAF on a huge scale.”

          UAVs are neither cheap or effective. Reason they are inducted in USAF is that they crash a lot, thus providing a secure source of profit for military industry.

          “A hardpoint isn’t hinged. And unless there is a strong cross-wind blowing, the direction of the munition is always DOWNWARDS.”

          Air flow around the aircraft is turbulent.

          “Firstly, that’s not a staggered launch. The munitions in the pictures were deployed near simultaneously.

          Secondly, of the munitions mentioned i.e. Brimstone, Hellfire, Maverick and SDB II, the SDB II is the ONLY a glide bomb.”

          Irrelevant. Point is that munitions released bump into aircraft and each other, so even PGMs can get bent fins.

          “You’re quoting YOURSELF as credible expert?! Ookay…”

          I’m trying to explain you my position and reasons why I hold it.

          “Then there is misleading information such as the 2001 deaths of US SF members in a B-52 strike being an indictment of high altitude employment/PGM accuracy (the actual cause was an error in updating coordinates by the team on ground).”

          Cause of death was usage of high-altitude aircraft.

          “And this ‘someone’ includes nearly ‘everyone’, huh? UK, France, China, India, Japan … ALL sleeping.”

          Yes.

          “Their use in combat vis a vis rifles/carbines is rare. And just like their one off employment in combat doesn’t change the rifle’s utility, the occasional strafing run in Afghanistan doesn’t change the PGM’s utility.”

          No, but it means that using aircraft that are incapable of proper strafing is just as idiotic as denying soldiers their knives. I’m not denying that PGMs are useful. I’m denying that they are magical.

          “Civilian casualties are more often than not a result of intelligence failure. There’s no evidence to prove that inadequate resolution on EO sensors has resulted in any significant casualties. On the other hand, if you have such evidence (actual evidence, not a gut feeling) do share.”

          Check employment of drones, well, everywhere.

          “That they were flown above 10,000ft illustrates the AF’s threat perception (which is predictably at 180 degrees from your own). As for air operations being useless/detrimental, that’s your ‘opinion’. Devoid of supporting data, it doesn’t translate into fact.”

          Yes, because bombing embassies and schools really helps war effort…

          “You’ve again sidestepped the question. What POLITICAL considerations prevented A-10 flights at low altitude (if they were perfectly safe as you suggest)?”

          1) I never said they were “perfectly” safe, I said they were safe enough.
          2) I have already explained political considerations: USAF hatred of cheap (but effective) weapons. Including teh A-10.

          “I’m not talking about large SAMs. The A-10 was a casualty when hit by AAA, SAMs and MANPADS. 100% of the time.”

          Anything supporting that 100%?

          “I asked for evidence for your claim about the FLM program being a scam, not about F-22′s stealth coating.”

          LM did not deliver on their promises. They underestimated the cost, and modern F-22 is several times as expensive as LM predicted.

          LikeLike

24. Apparently the cost per flight hour of the Marine Corps variant may be even higher:

    “Advances in simulator technology have allowed the equipment to evolve from being a tool used to train standard procedures for pilots to support advanced tactics training, because the software is more realistic. Ultimately, 52% of the training syllabus for the F-35B will be handled in the simulator, also reducing the CPFH for the aircraft, Schmidle says. ”

    http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_15_2013_p42-594937.xml&p=2

    The Marine Corps counts simulator hours as part of their flight hours now.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. Hi Chris,

       With respect, your reference article is somewhat dated and a bit biased and short on facts, For instance it supposes that no lessons were learned from the F 22 experience. here is another viewpoint with an entirely different set of estimates.

       http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-unitedtechnologies-pratt-idUSBRE9BJ1CD20131220

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Without solid numbers, unfortunately, the article doesn’t present much. There’s also no unit costs.

          All it says really is that they’re aiming to lower the costs, which considering their past performance doesn’t mean much.

          LikeLike

       2. You should read the entire article because there are unit costs in it along with dates. Note the part that states $75M per unit by 2019. Again you make assumptions that some very smart people did not learn from the F 22 experience. An erroneous assumption because as stated in the article, the recent P & W experience proves otherwise and this will be the model for cost reductions going forward. Anyway it is clear that since you obviously did not even bother to read the article, that you have already formed your own opinion and are too closed minded to be swayed from it, even when facts and logic are counter to it.

          LikeLike

       3. Lockheed Martin are not very smart and they definetly didn’t learn from F-22 experience.

          LikeLike

       4. Duh OK genius, I guess they aren’t as smart as you eh??

          BTW Just exactly how many aircraft have you designed and built?

          LikeLike

       5. “You should read the entire article because there are unit costs in it along with dates.”

          You misunderstand me. The $75 million is highly dubious at best, an outright lie at worst. I did read the article. It’s just that I do not believe that Lockheed Martin’s claims can be taken seriously.

          Earlier I said: “Without solid numbers, unfortunately, the article doesn’t present much.”

          What I want to see is a projection of what it costs now, what the problems are, what they are doing to fix them, how much it will cost to fix the problems, what modifications have to made for future models, and how much that will cost. That and the costs to fly, maintain, the existing ones.

          There are several other issues to consider:

          Testing is not yet complete and it’s likely that additional problems will be found. Given that by the time testing is finished, there will be many planes complete, they will all have to be retrofitted.
          If testing reveals further problems, then it’s inevitable that unit costs will have to rise for future aircraft as well.
          Certain capabilities have not yet been delivered. For example, the USAF wants nuclear capability on their F-35As. The costs are yet unknown.

          In fact, at the moment, I would not be surprised if anybody does not know how much it actually costs.

          Here though are the SAR figures:

          Click to access FY2014_Weapons.pdf

          Go to page 14.

          Procurement costs are $6,149.4B for 29 fighters, 10 for the USN and 19 for the USAF.

          LikeLike

       6. I find it interesting that you are demanding that level of detail from my source while yours offers nowhere close to that level of detail when presenting their position but you are willing to take that source at face value. This is because you have already closed your mind on the subject. A point evidenced by the fact that you believe everything LM and the US DoD says is a lie. Citing current and next FY costs for test and low production aircraft and R&D costs at this point is meaningless because they have nothing to do the actual full scale production costs. As for all of the future improvements you want figures on, these are impossible to predict and you know that or at least should know. They are after all FUTURE (post production) costs and therefore not included in initial full scale production costs. You should also know that the cost of future improvements and operating costs will be inherent with any new aircraft and are not unique to the F 35 so this is just a red herring.

          Also, you didn’t answer my question. Just exactly how many fighter aircraft have you designed and built? You sure talk like you are an expert. What are your credentials?

          LikeLike

       7. “I find it interesting that you are demanding that level of detail from my source while yours offers nowhere close to that level of detail when presenting their position but you are willing to take that source at face value.”

          Ok let’s talk about this for a moment.

          What have you provided? So far you have linked an article with a claim from a senior Lockheed employee (the program manager) claiming that the cost will go down to $75 million. That is hardly “detailed information”.

          I have provided the SAR figures from the government’s own figures:

          Click to access FY2014_Weapons.pdf

          Although admittedly not of the same level of detail that I would like, it does give the procurement numbers for 2013 and 2014.

          “Citing current and next FY costs for test and low production aircraft and R&D costs at this point is meaningless because they have nothing to do the actual full scale production costs”

          Why is that? These aircraft that are being used for tests are highly similar to the ones that will eventually enter service in a couple of years (possibly later if the associated problems are not resolved). At the very least, it gives us a base to work with. We can expect x% of cost reduction per x number of planes. However, it rests on several assumptions as well:

          That no future problems are discovered (and given that the plane has not completed testing, this is unlikely)
          That the current order number does not change

          2 is highly in doubt at the moment, because many of the foreign partners have expressed concerns about the rising costs of the program and may back out or reduce their orders. That and given the delays, it’s possible that even in the US, alternatives may be sought out. Also, in the event that the costs cannot be reduced, there will be a “death spiral” in the number of domestic US orders as well.

          “As for all of the future improvements you want figures on, these are impossible to predict and you know that or at least should know. They are after all FUTURE (post production) costs and therefore not included in initial full scale production costs.”

          Incorrect.

          They are not so much improvements as they are “fixes” to problems that should have been discovered by this point (this program is already late). They are not post-production costs. This includes the various software problems, the helmet sight problems, and other problems that will need fixing before the aircraft can enter service (ex: lightning protection which is standard on all aircraft).

          “You should also know that the cost of future improvements and operating costs will be inherent with any new aircraft and are not unique to the F 35 so this is just a red herring.”

          No, they are not. These fixes as you call them must by addressed before this plane enters service.

          An improvement is something that you add onto a plane once it enters service and you want to enhance existing capabilities or give new abilities. A better IRST sensor that replaces existing sensors for example would be an “improvement”. The current sensor is working, but a new sensor is being added to improve the airplane.

          I call the issues that the F-35 are facing “fixes” because well, the aircraft has yet to enter service and it cannot until the issues stated are addressed.

          “Also, you didn’t answer my question. Just exactly how many fighter aircraft have you designed and built? You sure talk like you are an expert. What are your credentials?”

          I have never built a fighter. But does that make everything I say invalid right away? I do have some training in cost accountancy. I am currently studying to be a professional accountant for one. And I do have experience in manufacturing (granted in the automotive sector).

          I find this to be something of a red herring. I should mention that there have been people who have designed fighters and who are very critical of the way the JSF program has proceeded.

          LikeLike

       8. Merry Xmass to all. Well, Chris you could be right but you are probably wrong. Since coming into this page I have learned more and more about this aircraft and why it’s costs seem over the top. They have been increases there but the overall cost of the aircraft is highly dependent on the production totals and the larger those are the lower the cost. So it is more probable that the aircraft will be less expensive.

          Something that is indirectly helping the F-35 is China and North Korea. They are single handily promoting an arms race where there used to be none and the F-35 has become the indispensable aircraft to confront China’s very real threats as well as North Korea’s. More countries in the Pacific Rim are expressing interest. I guess that as an attack aircraft it appears to be getting decent reviews.

          This is not to detract from useful discussions and I noticed that Picard has a new post on the F-22 which is interesting. It seems to hint at the F-22 not being any better than a Rafale with in visual range. That is something interesting not necessarily to prove it right or wrong but to keep an eye on and follow on the news, etc.

          As a side bar; New Zealand just bought some Penguin missiles for its helicopters. they have no jet aircrafts but they do have helicopters and the Chinese are making them nervous too so they have decided to enhance their sea defenses a tad. Those are decent missiles of Norwegian manufacture and we own them too. It is a nice missile to have.

          LikeLike

       9. If you take a look at modern aircraft costs, larger number of aircraft produced does mean lower production cost, but reductions are in single digit percentages at best. What gets reduced are R&D and production line set-up expenses per aircraft.

          LikeLike

       10. Sorry Chris but anyone who knows anything about production of anything knows that quantity produced equals price per unit reductions and much more than a few percentage points. Higher numbers of product are directly proportional to reduced PRODUCTION COSTS (not R&D costs) because it allows for the purchase of more parts from suppliers who are in turn making more parts and therefore cutting their production costs. Higher production results in a small increase in wage and material costs but also allows for far greater efficiencies in assembly with the corresponding savings far outweighing any increase in production costs. This is business economics 101 stuff and why the more product you buy the cheaper it is and fighter planes are no exception. Once again, how many planes (or anything else for that matter) have you designed and produced?

           LikeLike

       11. That is a myth that has long ago been dispelled for modern fighters, they simply undergo too many modifications for learning curve to really kick in.

           LikeLike

       12. Sure, whatever. have any proof to dispel that “myth” or is that myth just mouth?

           LikeLike

       13. Take a look at all modern fighters:
           – F-15: cost increased between models
           – F-16: cost increased between models and with each new block
           – Typhoon: cost is increasing with each new Tranche
           – Rafale: cost is increasing with each new standard
           – F-22: cost increased for much of production

           LikeLike

       14. Check your facts’

           F15 and F16, no cost increase above inflation except for the F15 Strike Eagle and Stealth Eagle which added a new capability to the aircraft.
           Typhoon and Rafale. Actual production costs went down once it went into production and continue to go down however the reduction in orders for the Typhoon will from cash strapped EU nations will affect the price of that aircraft negatively.
           F 22 costs went up when the order was slashed by more than half.

           What was your point again?

           LikeLike

       15. You don’t know or don’t want to know.

           F-16A: 30 million USD in FY2013 USD
           F-16C: 70 million USD in FY2013 USD

           F-15A: 43 million USD in FY2013 USD
           F-15C: 126 million USD in FY2013 USD

           Typhoon’s unit flyaway cost has gone up between Tranche 1 and 2, and stayed level between 2 and 3 – in the best case.

           F-22s unit flyaway cost kept increasing until they stabilized at 200 million USD.

           So you’re full of it.

           LikeLike

       16. “F-16A: 30 million USD in FY2013 USD
           F-16C: 70 million USD in FY2013 USD
           F-15A: 43 million USD in FY2013 USD
           F-15C: 126 million USD in FY2013 USD”

           These increases are not due to inefficiencies of project mismanagement. These are two different versions of the same aircraft. One has far more and newer technological capabilities in it than the other. You are confusing improvements in an aircraft after initial development and production with later (years later) improvements in technology. This is like saying that costs have increased on a Ford sedan from when they were first developed and marketed to now. Yeah, of course. This a ridiculous argument and shows once again that you haven’t got a hot clue on this subject.

           “Typhoon’s unit flyaway cost has gone up between Tranche 1 and 2, and stayed level between 2 and 3 – in the best case.”

           Nope, not true. Check your facts. The cost increase was due to improvements made to the planes. The same improvements that were then applied to Tranche one aircraft making them more expensive overall than Tranche two aircraft.

           “F-22s unit flyaway cost kept increasing until they stabilized at 200 million USD.”

           Yes, then when they reached peak production costs started to go down until Congress cut the order by over 50%.

           What was your point again, or do you have one? Never mind, please stop talking to me.

           LikeLike

       17. You are one who doesn’t have a clue. Modern fighters are constantly “upgraded” and for this very reason any dream of cost going down by any significant amount is nothing short of idiotism, since that requires long time of no changes in design. Having a fighter’s design constantly fixed has the same effect since design cannot stabilize enough for learning curve to set in.

           LikeLike

       18. Yeah, OK. I see that the basic economics of production versus R&D are completely lost on you.

           You are stuck on the fact that an “A” version of a fighter plane is cheaper than a later variant like for instance an “A” version of an F 15 vs an F 16 C or D version or an F 18 C vs an F18 E. Yeah they are but not for the reasons you advocate. Anyway, I joined this site to have an intelligent debate not waste my time on this nonsense. Merry Xmas.

           LikeLike

       19. No one ever said that later, improved models will be cheaper. I am talking about the cost per version while in the R&D phase vs the cost for per plane for full up initial production. You do not even know the difference. You also do not have a clue about the F 35s capabilities and are stuck on the Rafale which is probably the best 4.5 generation plane on the market in my view, just nowhere near the F 35 in capability.

           LikeLike

       20. I do know the difference, what I am showing is that plane is unlikely to get its price reduced by much more, cost reduction has already happened in fact, take a look at how much did first few F-35s cost.

           LikeLike

       21. “Sorry Chris but anyone who knows anything about production of anything knows that quantity produced equals price per unit reductions and much more than a few percentage points.”

           When I say, I mean that the individual partners at the moment backing out will cause the price to increase by a few percentage points.

           Here is an example:
           http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/09/22/drop-in-numbers-of-f-35s-being-ordered-could-mean-increased-costs-for-a-canadian-f-35/

           Have you looked at military aircraft historically after WWII? Even after adjusting for inflation, their costs increase with time. There isn’t so much a learning curve as much as there is a curve of how much the future generations will increase in cost.

           For example, look at the Eurofighter. Each successive “tranche” has increased in costs. Some of that is due to many nations cooperating (issues there caused the French to drop out), but even national programs like the F-15 have progressively gained in unit cost.

           That’s because with each successive generation, the amount of complexity has gone up, which increases cost and the mass of the aircraft.

           “anyone who knows anything”

           That’s a dangerous fallacy to be making.

           A lot of “conventional wisdom” (if it can be called wisdom) does not stand up to reality. I often find for example that among Americans, there’s a tendency to believe that the “conventional wisdom” is that American equipment is automatically superior for no reason other than it being … well, from the US.

           Sometimes that’s true. Sometimes though … it can be a surprise.

           ” This is business economics 101 stuff and why the more product you buy the cheaper it is and fighter planes are no exception.”

           The thing is, in case you haven’t noticed, a lot of foreign partners are walking away (or reducing their orders) from this plane. So the total life cycle costs per plane are going to increase rather than decrease.

           Similarly, there has been talk of buying less JSFs due to the budget constraints in the US.

           “Once again, how many planes (or anything else for that matter) have you designed and produced?”

           Seeing as I have already answered that question, are you really looking for an answer? Let me ask that question back to you. How many have you designed? What experience do you have in manufacturing?

           Oh, and one more thing:

           Earlier you said this:
           “Citing current and next FY costs for test and low production aircraft and R&D costs at this point is meaningless because they have nothing to do the actual full scale production costs”

           These are the full scale production aircraft we are talking about, so they are directly comparable.

           In fact, this whole program was to showcase “concurrency”, building an aircraft in full scale production while testing is still incomplete (I believe that the plan is to finish testing by 2018, although I suspect that there will be more delays).

           Finally, I will repeat what I said earlier. If major problems are found during testing, EVERY plane that has been made will have to go back to the factory for refitting. That is will be very expensive if it occurs.

           “Something that is indirectly helping the F-35 is China and North Korea. They are single handily promoting an arms race where there used to be none and the F-35 has become the indispensable aircraft to confront China’s very real threats as well as North Korea’s. More countries in the Pacific Rim are expressing interest. I guess that as an attack aircraft it appears to be getting decent reviews.”

           An interesting point. But is the China and North Korea that are provoking the race, or is it the United States, or are both sides?

           LikeLike

       22. Chris,
           Your problem is that you are all over the place with your arguments. You confuse current costs for test aircraft and low production aircraft with initial full up production costs and again with future development costs. Stick to one topic. First of all continuing to cite in year costs for test and low production aircraft as proof of costs for full scale production aircraft is just ludicrous and not based in reality. And no, the F 35 is NOT in full production, you are simply wrong on this point. Full production rates are 200 aircraft a year and this is not due to happen before 2106.

           And now you are citing partners “walking away” or in other words production numbers going down as an indicator that that prices will rise (which BTW was not at all what you said before) but somehow you refuse to acknowledge that the opposite is true and that increased production numbers by way of both full scale production and new orders will drive prices down. In fact the main reason for the Typhoons ballooning costs was in fact reductions in orders. So you are arguing against yourself on this point and not making much sense.

           But just to set the record straight, “lots” of partners are not “walking away” from the F 35. In fact not one partner to date has “walked away” from the F 35, not one, if you know of one then name them please? Some, such as Italy have actually reduced their numbers and that was due to their catastrophic economic outlook as they teeter on bankruptcy (they slashed their entire military budget by over a third) and the NL who are also cash strapped. And then there is Denmark which is simply doing exactly what Canada is doing and holding a competition.

           I also see that both you and your source fail to include any of the new F 35 customers in your estimates such as Japan, S Korea and Israel and others likely to come such as Singapore, India and the Saudis to name a few (there are at least 8 more I can name that are serious about the aircraft). Omitting facts to make a point does not make for a very credible argument. As well your source is dated because Turkey is back in:

           http://www.defenceiq.com/air-forces-and-military-aircraft/articles/turkey-reissues-order-for-f-35-joint-strike-fighte/

           So to date there have been reductions in orders totaling 71 planes and new orders for a 158 planes and Singapore is expected to sign on any day now for 100 more. Others will surely follow as the plane matures.

           Finally, no one is saying that when a technologically improved F 35 rolls of the production line in 2040 that it will not be more expensive than the initial production model made in 2017 but, as you point out, this is true of any aircraft so what exactly is your point here? Of course, the reasons for this are more to do with inflation than complexity but that also has a role in driving costs up. Again so what? How is the e 35 any different than any other plane in this regard? And so what is your answer, not to buy any plane or just to buy a technologically inferior one?

           As for my experience, I have spent the past three decades in the area of military procurement and project management and in fact am still doing it today.

           Note: I can’t comment on your arms race quote because I did not make that comment it but I agree that it is an interesting point.

           LikeLike

       23. “An interesting point. But is the China and North Korea that are provoking the race, or is it the United States, or are both sides?” – It is China and North Korea.

           You need to understand the magnitude of China’s threat; it is the equivalent of Italy wanting to rebuild the Roman Empire. They have claims of land and sea all around them including in India and a strategy of chipping away small bites of land that do not justify major warfare but that on the aggregate increase their territorial expanse and influence. North Korea’s instability and track record of provocations is a worry for both Japan and South Korea; they view the F-35 as a vital aircraft in the early stage of the conflict because of its ability to evade detection on its way to neutralize North Korea’s nuclear capacity.

           Chris, while the F-35’s cost is an issue. There is no hiding that. But there are more countries looking at the aircraft very seriously. The cost is an issue because many of them also have other mundane but vital needs such as maritime security and anti-piracy that also consume resources and are vital to their everyday commerce BUT their minds are increasingly being made up about their need for this aircraft by the hostility of their nearby neighbors.

           The Osprey was mercilessly criticized too. Cost was one of many criticisms. Well, now that it is operational its 300 plus MPH speed, range and ceiling is viewed as a precious capacity for many missions and we are seeing interest from Israel (already in the books with an order), Japan, etc. The more we know about the aircraft the more interest there seems to be.

           I do want to thank you for that link to the defense budget and if you notice there is this item for the forward afloat base. There is an Amphibious already doing this in the Persian Gulf; the USN Ponce. These ships provide the equivalent of a “floating island” from which to operate all kinds of different missions. Their design is based on an Alaska oil tanker. They are huge, very sturdy and affordable capacity.

           LikeLike

       24. Reason all these countries are considering F-35 is because they need United States backing to face China, and F-35 seems like a small price to pay. Until open war breaks out, that is.

           LikeLike

       25. Picard, if they want to buy American they can also buy the F-18 or the F-15. Both are being marketed aggressively and are good aircrafts. South Korea was leaning towards the F-15 until Kim Jong-un started killing uncles and the Japanese where more or less happy with what they had until the Chinese started giving them head aches by flying military jets close to their islands.

           By the way, the Chinese are responsible for the Japanese interest on the Osprey as well as on the Japanese development on funny looking 20,000 ton destroyers that can operate V-22 and possibly F-35B… see link,

           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer

           China is responsible for the militarization of the area just like Persia/Iran is responsible for their surrounding areas too.

           LikeLike

       26. United States want to sell F-35 specifically.

           LikeLike

    2. @BMACK
       “Your problem is that you are all over the place with your arguments. You confuse current costs for test aircraft and low production aircraft with initial full up production costs and again with future development costs. Stick to one topic.”

       Let’s see what I’ve argued:
       1. That the real cost of the aircraft could be on the order of $300 million USD per plane based on the procurement and that the cost per flight hour is much higher than being disclosed. As a result of this cost, I’ve noted in my first paragraph that there has been an increased dependence on flight simulators.

       That this aircraft has experienced some serious technical difficulties, atypical of the difficulties experienced during normal testing.
       That testing is incomplete, and will not be complete for at least a few years.
       That if testing finds other problems, that it existing aircraft will have to be refitted, which will be very expensive.
       That given these problems, it’s unlikely that the cost of the aircraft will go down to the $75 million that LM claims it will. For that to happen, it would seem that the cost would have to go down 75%.
       That America’s foreign partners are beginning to have doubts about this aircraft, that they may look elsewhere or reduce their orders. This will inevitably drive up the unit costs.
       That the US Congress has considered the possibility of reducing the orders of this aircraft.
       Also, that given these factors, the learning curve if it exists will be much more modest. Also, I’ve argued that for the duration of the fighter, that the last model (let’s call it F-35Z) will be more expensive than the first model.

       I fail to see how I have contradicted myself.

       “First of all continuing to cite in year costs for test and low production aircraft as proof of costs for full scale production aircraft is just ludicrous and not based in reality. And no, the F 35 is NOT in full production, you are simply wrong on this point. Full production rates are 200 aircraft a year and this is not due to happen before 2106.”

       2106? Umm what? I’m totally confused about this one. I suspect that even with the delays it will not take 93 years for full scale production. I would hope that this airplane is in a museum, and not in service by 2106.

       That said, hmm … it’s possible that an aircraft could have a very long service life. The B-52 for example has been in service since the 1950s.

       “And now you are citing partners “walking away” or in other words production numbers going down as an indicator that that prices will rise (which BTW was not at all what you said before) but somehow you refuse to acknowledge that the opposite is true and that increased production numbers by way of both full scale production and new orders will drive prices down. In fact the main reason for the Typhoons ballooning costs was in fact reductions in orders. So you are arguing against yourself on this point and not making much sense.”

       In my nation, Canada, there has been fierce debate about the F-35. Other nations too are beginning to express doubts, or have considered reducing their orders (such as the Dutch).

       The Typhoons also had several other issues. There have been problems, particularly due to the collaboration and complexity.

       See this report for example from the UK audit office:

       Click to access 1011755.pdf

       I’ll look for the German one when I have the time (not sure if it’s in English though).

       Anyways, I think that what is happening is a moderate version of Chuck Spinney’s “Defense Death Spiral”. R&D and unit costs are higher than expected due to complexity, so the number of orders are reduced. The number of orders are reduced so the cost per unit goes up even higher.

       “I also see that both you and your source fail to include any of the new F 35 customers in your estimates such as Japan, S Korea and Israel and others likely to come such as Singapore, India and the Saudis to name a few (there are at least 8 more I can name that are serious about the aircraft). Omitting facts to make a point does not make for a very credible argument. As well your source is dated because Turkey is back in:”

       That is partially correct. There are several nations that have expressed interest. That does not mean that there is a 100% that they will purchase. It’s likely that each nation will hold a competition. How the F-35 does will be heavily contingent on the criteria set out by each nation’s competition. So that means that it will be put against other fighters, like the Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter, and maybe Su-27 variants. it will come down to each nation. I should also mention that often it’s not the most capable fighter than wins – politics and corruption often play a role in the procurement process.

       But for the sake of argument, let’s say that a couple of nations do choose the JSF. That will see some modest decreases in the unit cost. I emphasize the modest. Specifically how much will depend on how many planes each nation buys.

       I will emphasize however that it will not put the massive decreases in cost that you are describing.

       “Finally, no one is saying that when a technologically improved F 35 rolls of the production line in 2040 that it will not be more expensive than the initial production model made in 2017 but, as you point out, this is true of any aircraft so what exactly is your point here? Of course, the reasons for this are more to do with inflation than complexity but that also has a role in driving costs up. Again so what? How is the e 35 any different than any other plane in this regard? And so what is your answer, not to buy any plane or just to buy a technologically inferior one?”

       The point is that you are emphasizing the “learning curve”.

       You are saying that over time, the costs will decrease by a massive quantity. I am pointing out that since WWII and the era of jet fighters, there really hasn’t been a learning curve. Why? Because with each additional revision, the fighter has gotten heavier, more complex, and therefore more expensive, even after taking into account inflation.

       Mass production does work in the civilian world. It did happen during WWII. However, for there to be a learning curve that results in a fighter going from $300 million to $75 million – that would require much more than a few hundred foreign orders.

       Now earlier, you noted that the fighter had not entered “full production”. I disagreed, noting that the 30 or so being produced are the models that the USAF and USN intend to take into service. Are you saying that going from 30 to 200 per year (and whatever foreign sales are added in) is going to result in a 75% reduction in costs?

       “As for my experience, I have spent the past three decades in the area of military procurement and project management and in fact am still doing it today.”

       Thank you for telling me.

       I do want to say this much, although I strongly disagree with you, I do respect your right to have an opinion.

       LikeLike

       Reply

    3. “You need to understand the magnitude of China’s threat; it is the equivalent of Italy wanting to rebuild the Roman Empire. They have claims of land and sea all around them including in India and a strategy of chipping away small bites of land that do not justify major warfare but that on the aggregate increase their territorial expanse and influence. North Korea’s instability and track record of provocations is a worry for both Japan and South Korea; they view the F-35 as a vital aircraft in the early stage of the conflict because of its ability to evade detection on its way to neutralize North Korea’s nuclear capacity.”

       Being of Chinese descent, I can comment on that. It is true that China has become significantly more nationalistic, and that they do view their return to power (China was a world power until around the Industrial Revolution) as their destiny. That is partly due to the propaganda of the quite corrupt government, but also a matter of national prestige.

       But I do have to ask, is the F-35 the right aircraft for Japan and South Korea (both of whom interestingly enough are rivals)? And is China really the threat that you say it is? I look back at history, at the “Bomber Gap” of the Cold War (which spy satellites later revealed to be false), and I ask myself, was this truly a weapon that was needed at the time? Or was it something to enrich the defense industry.

       “Chris, while the F-35′s cost is an issue. There is no hiding that. But there are more countries looking at the aircraft very seriously. The cost is an issue because many of them also have other mundane but vital needs such as maritime security and anti-piracy that also consume resources and are vital to their everyday commerce BUT their minds are increasingly being made up about their need for this aircraft by the hostility of their nearby neighbors.”

       No doubt the world has become more hostile.

       But the question remains, is this the best aircraft possible or is this an aircraft to make Lockheed rich?

       “The Osprey was mercilessly criticized too. Cost was one of many criticisms. Well, now that it is operational its 300 plus MPH speed, range and ceiling is viewed as a precious capacity for many missions and we are seeing interest from Israel (already in the books with an order), Japan, etc. The more we know about the aircraft the more interest there seems to be.”

       I would be one of those that criticized the V-22. I remain skeptical. It’s a very costly aircraft and there have been well, a lot of incidents that I do not feel have been adequately addressed. Also, I suspect that it will prove to be a very vulnerable aircraft in combat. Finally, most troubling of all, the specifications have been lowered as a result of the problems that this aircraft experienced.

       @Picard

       What do you think of the V-22? Do you, like me think it’s a very problematic airplane or do you share HGR’s opinion on this one?

       “I do want to thank you for that link to the defense budget and if you notice there is this item for the forward afloat base. There is an Amphibious already doing this in the Persian Gulf; the USN Ponce. These ships provide the equivalent of a “floating island” from which to operate all kinds of different missions. Their design is based on an Alaska oil tanker. They are huge, very sturdy and affordable capacity.”

       I actually agree that a floating base would be a good idea for flexibility. I have to admit I have not looked at all of the details though, but it seems at least on paper to be a good idea.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. The Chinese represent a constant and persistent threat to maritime commerce of all countries in its vicinity and beyond in the direction of the Indian Ocean. They currently occupy Vietnamese and Philippine islands while threatening to do the same to Japan with whom the USA has an iron-clad defense treaty.

          China’s neighbors are looking at the past border conflicts that China has had with Russia, India, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines as well as to its rhetoric and capabilities and they are reacting to that. And let us not even start with Taiwan.

          Current USA strategy is to “pivot” to the Pacific and “calm” things there. The Chinese really do not want to be “calmed”. Keep in mind that numbers are misleading. While China has a fewer ships than the USA Navy that does not mean that they might not posses parity in the waters around their coasts and an advantage with their land based aircrafts.

          To the USA Navy the F-35 naval version is an improvement over the F-18 in range and that is an increasingly important feature given shore based aircrafts and missiles available to the Chinese. Stealth is also important. To the Japanese and the South Korean the F-35’s stealth makes it the best “first strike” weapon available at the present against North Korea. The South Koreans evaluated the F-15 strike eagle for this very mission and disqualified it in favor of the F-35.

          Singapore is also looking at F-35 very seriously. Same reason; stealth.

          So yea… China is a threat. They probably are doing it for a number of reasons including distracting the population from other problems, economic hegemony, fisheries as well as energy resources in the sea bed. List goes on-and-on. Weak link there is the Philippines who will require help to defend their sovereignty.

          LikeLike

       2. @HGR

          Is China really that aggressive?

          Certainly the Chinese government wishes to become the world’s largest economy (and in a few years, assuming the current rates of GDP growth are sustained, they likely will).

          There are certainly border disputes, and I agree that China’s ocean sovereignty claim is not fair, but the question remains, while a rising power, are does China really plan to wage aggressive war? I think that China does plan to play a dominant role in the world’s economy yes, but militarily? I do not believe that China is seeking aggressive war.

          LikeLike

       3. “does China really plan to wage aggressive war?” – They are already waging aggressive war. If you are one of their neighbors like India, Vietnam of the Philippines it would seem very aggressive. They are laying the foundation to making the South and East China Seas a Chinese lake with all the strategic ramifications that carries.

          They have had wars and skirmishes with Russia, Vietnam, India and the Philippines. They are bullies.

          I do not think that China can take economic growth for granted. It is based now on a very low cost of labor and no innovation. Everything significant is second rate copied from the West or Russia.

          LikeLike

       4. I generally agree with your assessment on China. The only thing I can add is that China is an economic house of cards. Since embracing capitalism economically China has developed a small upper class (about 60M people) and a middle class of about the same size who are living an opulent life style in comparison to the hundreds of millions still living in abject poverty. For a population that has for generations been taught to hate the decadent Western life style this has caused a real problem for the govt. If they cannot deliver prosperity to the lower income masses, the govt could collapse internally under the pressure. The govt is well aware of this threat and like all communist regimes, when threatened they will do two things to quell the unrest. Close their doors to the rest of world and institute a purge and then look to manufacture an external threat so that they can expand and take the populations focus off of internal problems. This, coupled with their recent and rapid military expansion and modernization makes them a serious and imminent threat both economically and militarily.

          The Chinese respect strength and the will to use it. A strong and united West that sends the right message to them will quell the military threat. Not direct threats but just a peace through strength and resolve approach is best with them. As an example, this approach is what has kept them out of Taiwan and India since the end of WW2.

          The economic threat is two fold. First is that they have enough cash reserves to buy up the West’s collective debt and then call it in causing financial chaos in the world. This is unlikely though because it will also cause turmoil in their own country, further worsening their internal social and by extension, political problems. The more likely threat is internal economic collapse caused by the collapse of social order. The only real solution to this is the rapid expansion of the Chinese economy which of course, will bring other problems with it such as environmentalproblems, population expansion and greater demands from the population for more political and social freedoms.

          LikeLike

       5. Chinese also have severe ethnic tensions brought about by even more inequality between the Han majority and all the minorities that they pushed to the perimeter of the empire and the lack of responsive local government in the sense that we understand it.

          And it is an economic house of cards driven by exports with dwindling opportunities for profitable investments internally as well as increased opportunities for graft and cronyism as witnessed by the many ghost towns that exist.

          And a demographic time bomb, and an economy vulnerable to interruptions of natural resources, etc.

          I also hold the personal belief that centuries of economic and cultural dominance with in their sphere of action have left the Chinese national psychic unprepared for compromise and accommodations with neighbors that they see as inferiors. They will rather bully than reach a good enough solution through negotiation.

          LikeLike

       6. Yes, agreed. Excellent assessment. I just hope that the US and EU can get their economic houses in order so that they can properly prepare for what is surely to come?

          LikeLike

       7. The USA will exit their economic bubble next year or 2015 at the latest. Will be lead by a spike in housing prices due to the fact that hardly any NEW middle-class class housing has been built since 2007 and there is huge pent-up demand. No one knows when the European Union will exit theirs since there competing and conflicting needs among its members but I will say that you can’t “save” enough money to dig themselves out of these economic debacles… you have to “grow” out of them. If you try to save your way out you just will make the recession last longer.

          No one knows how China will look like after it goes through their future crisis which will be heralded by higher costs of manufacture and lost markets to competitors. This could be already happening if India had its act together.

          The first problem with China is lack of innovation. This is typical of economies like Mexico and Brazil who’s business class typically buys mature technology from developed countries and transplant it to their homeland. The problem with mature technologies is that their growth and hey days of high prices are over. They can be cash cows at best but are always price/cost sensitive.

          The second problem is also one that they have in common with developing countries and that is a corrupt government system that fosters success through favoritism and cronyism. So you see huge fortunes based on monopolies, oligopolies, favoritism in access to capital and with regulatory processes as well as high hurdles for foreign products to enter their economy. No different than what you also see in Mexico, Brazil and I might add to this list India.

          So China is a very inefficient economy. It pollutes more than it should, consumes more energy than it should, wastes more capital than it needs to and it is wide open to economic competition because it does not make anything “new” or innovative that can carry a price premium.

          This system has lasted as long as it has because of repression but kinks are starting to show up such as reverse immigration to countryside, difficulty for new graduates finding work, etc. Foreign reserves they have are no asset since once they start using them their currency will strengthen damaging their trade balance.

          So China is a tight wire.

          LikeLike

25. Let’s see what you’ve argued:
    1. “That the real cost of the aircraft could be on the order of $300 million USD per plane based on the procurement and that the cost per flight hour is much higher than being disclosed.”
    OK, you say that and you disagree with both US govt and LM estimates to the opposite but offer no data to support that assertion. And no, in yr, low production and R&D costs do not support that conclusion even though you continue to throw around the $300M a copy figure, it is meaningless and exagerated.

    As a result of this cost, I’ve noted in my first paragraph that there has been an increased dependence on flight simulators.
    No, not any more than any other fighter aircraft does. Again an opinion that is not supported by fact.

    That this aircraft has experienced some serious technical difficulties, atypical of the difficulties experienced during normal testing.
    No, not really given that it a revolutionary concept in both design and project management. It has just received more than the usual amount of media attention. No other aircraft has been regularly attacked by the media every time a minor problem occurs in the development phase. This is due largely to the lobbying efforts and political connections of its competitors, most notably Boeing. For instance when the F18 SH was being developed and there were serious problems with the engines there was not even a word in the media about it but when the F 35 has minor problems with the helmet it is a major news item.
    That testing is incomplete, and will not be complete for at least a few years.
    Yeah OK, what’s the point here again?
    That if testing finds other problems, that it existing aircraft will have to be refitted, which will be very expensive.
    Maybe, again this can be true of any new fighter (like for instance the Typhoon and Russian T 50 at the moment) so what is the specific point regarding the F 35 that you are trying to make?
    That given these problems, it’s unlikely that the cost of the aircraft will go down to the $75 million that LM claims it will. For that to happen, it would seem that the cost would have to go down 75%.
    So unlikely to go down if these problems you have identified, which are entirely speculation, come to pass. Well maybe but the development of any new product is a gamble. The option is not to develop one at all which of course is not an option at all.
    That America’s foreign partners are beginning to have doubts about this aircraft, that they may look elsewhere or reduce their orders. This will inevitably drive up the unit costs.
    No, you said that they are “walking away” in large numbers. This statement is not only untrue but new orders are being made in on a regular basis which far exceed any reductions.
    That the US Congress has considered the possibility of reducing the orders of this aircraft.
    Yes and rejected the option, preferring instead to cut other programs. Not to say that they will not do so in the future but again this is true of every defense procurement program in times of tight budgets. Here is an excellent article that appeared recently in “The Hill” by a very knowledgeable and unbiased defense expert.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/319711-when-it-comes-to-the-f-35-numbers-count
    Also, that given these factors, the learning curve if it exists will be much more modest. Also, I’ve argued that for the duration of the fighter, that the last model (let’s call it F-35Z) will be more expensive than the first model.
    OK, you say that but again, no data to back it up, just your opinion and of course how do you quantify “more expensive”?

    I fail to see how I have contradicted myself.
    I have already answered this question, please reread my previous post and go down a few paras on this post.

    “First of all continuing to cite in year costs for test and low production aircraft as proof of costs for full scale production aircraft is just ludicrous and not based in reality. And no, the F 35 is NOT in full production, you are simply wrong on this point. Full production rates are 200 aircraft a year and this is not due to happen before 2106.”
    2106? Umm what? I’m totally confused about this one. I suspect that even with the delays it will not take 93 years for full scale production. I would hope that this airplane is in a museum, and not in service by 2106.
    That said, hmm … it’s possible that an aircraft could have a very long service life. The B-52 for example has been in service since the 1950s.
    Sorry, just a typo (should read 2016) but I figured that you would have been able to determine that on your own without me having to state the obvious but I got that wrong too I guess. I’ll try not to make any more errors in future, or give you that much credit again. BTW, I would have pointed some of your spelling mistakes and poor grammar out but just thought that to do so would be petty, in bad taste and meaningless to the discussion.
    “And now you are citing partners “walking away” or in other words production numbers going down as an indicator that that prices will rise (which BTW was not at all what you said before) but somehow you refuse to acknowledge that the opposite is true and that increased production numbers by way of both full scale production and new orders will drive prices down. In fact the main reason for the Typhoons ballooning costs was in fact reductions in orders. So you are arguing against yourself on this point and not making much sense.”

    In my nation, Canada, there has been fierce debate about the F-35. Other nations too are beginning to express doubts, or have considered reducing their orders (such as the Dutch).
    Well, in my nation, Canada we, like other nations, including the US have not walked away from the project to date and there are a large number of new orders, far outweighing any reductions, that you and your source article neglected to mention. But this has nothing to do with your contradictory position that reduced production numbers will cause prices to rise but increased numbers will also make prices rise?

    The Typhoons also had several other issues. There have been problems, particularly due to the collaboration and complexity.
    So collaboration and complexity are not problems with the F 35? I would argue that they are more of an issue with the F 35 than the Typhoon because there are more partners and the aircraft is far more complex.

    Anyways, I think that what is happening is a moderate version of Chuck Spinney’s “Defense Death Spiral”. R&D and unit costs are higher than expected due to complexity, so the number of orders are reduced. The number of orders are reduced so the cost per unit goes up even higher.

    “I also see that both you and your source fail to include any of the new F 35 customers in your estimates such as Japan, S Korea and Israel and others likely to come such as Singapore, India and the Saudis to name a few (there are at least 8 more I can name that are serious about the aircraft). Omitting facts to make a point does not make for a very credible argument. As well your source is dated because Turkey is back in:”

    That is partially correct. There are several nations that have expressed interest. That does not mean that there is a 100% that they will purchase. It’s likely that each nation will hold a competition. How the F-35 does will be heavily contingent on the criteria set out by each nation’s competition. So that means that it will be put against other fighters, like the Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter, and maybe Su-27 variants. it will come down to each nation. I should also mention that often it’s not the most capable fighter than wins – politics and corruption often play a role in the procurement process.
    Nope, the nations I pointed out and you left out have actually signed on to purchase the F 35. In some cases after beating the Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale in competition. Namely Japan, S Korea and Israel.

    But for the sake of argument, let’s say that a couple of nations do choose the JSF. That will see some modest decreases in the unit cost. I emphasize the modest. Specifically how much will depend on how many planes each nation buys.
    So some minor reductions will result in huge price increases while new orders that more than outweigh the reductions will only result in “modest” decreases. Again, the logic of your argument is flawed but at least you now agree that they will actually result in decreases at all!!

    “Finally, no one is saying that when a technologically improved F 35 rolls of the production line in 2040 that it will not be more expensive than the initial production model made in 2017 but, as you point out, this is true of any aircraft so what exactly is your point here? Of course, the reasons for this are more to do with inflation than complexity but that also has a role in driving costs up. Again so what? How is the e 35 any different than any other plane in this regard? And so what is your answer, not to buy any plane or just to buy a technologically inferior one?”

    The point is that you are emphasizing the “learning curve”.
    The point I am emphasizing is that there is growth potential built into every modern fighter and yes there is a cost to it. Again, why is this such a big negative for the F 35 and not its competitors? Again, what is your point?

    You are saying that over time, the costs will decrease by a massive quantity. I am pointing out that since WWII and the era of jet fighters, there really hasn’t been a learning curve. Why? Because with each additional revision, the fighter has gotten heavier, more complex, and therefore more expensive, even after taking into account inflation.
    You are confusing the initial program where the plane reaches full production and prices per unit go down and that of follow on development of the plane. Apples and oranges.

    Now earlier, you noted that the fighter had not entered “full production”. I disagreed, noting that the 30 or so being produced are the models that the USAF and USN intend to take into service. Are you saying that going from 30 to 200 per year (and whatever foreign sales are added in) is going to result in a 75% reduction in costs?
    Just because the USN and USAF intend to take low production aircraft into service at some point does not mean that the plane is in full production now and BTW these planes will never see active service without an extensive upgrade at the end of the initial development phase to incorporate the improvements made in the development phase.

    I also respect your right to have an opinion and enjoy the discussion.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. There is nothing revolutionary about the F-35 except the fact that it is 3 different aircraft under one name.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. I cannot believe that you even said that. Your statement shows a level of ignorance about this plane that makes me wonder why you are commenting on it at all since you know nothing about it? When I hear people say silly things like the E 35 is only designed to for FGA I know that they don’t know what they are talking about and your statement invokes the same thought.
          The F 35 is the most advanced airborne platform any military has ever designed. Nothing else in the air or under development outside the US even comes close to it, even the F 22. Here, educate yourself and then we can talk more. I can provide more reading material if you wish?

          http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/02/kill-the-awacs-j-stars-fleets/

          http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/05/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE9B401Y20131205

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9780450/Inside-the-F-35-the-futuristic-fighter-jet.html

          Note that the plane will render both AWACs and JSTARS aircraft obsolete by 2030 and that the USN major surface fleet requires a major upgrade just to be capable of handling all the data that one F 35 will send it.

          Nothing revolutionary indeed.

          LikeLike

       2. “Your statement shows a level of ignorance about this plane that makes me wonder why you are commenting on it at all since you know nothing about it?”

          I know enough about it to make an educated statement. You on the other hand are just parroting Lockheed Martin propaganda.

          “Note that the plane will render both AWACs and JSTARS aircraft obsolete by 2030 and that the USN major surface fleet requires a major upgrade just to be capable of handling all the data that one F 35 will send it.”

          There were mini-AWACS’ before, and any modern fighter can send data to other platforms if it has uplinks. So yes, nothing revolutionary, except maybe “bright” idea of trying to combine dozen or so different platforms into just one platform.

          LikeLike

       3. You are ignorant on this subject beyond belief. The sad thing is that you don’t even know how silly you sound. Oh well, sorry can’t waste anymore time talking to fools.

          LikeLike

       4. Now onto articles:
          http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/02/kill-the-awacs-j-stars-fleets/

          “Fifth-generation fighters are not only more survivable against a sophisticated opponent, they also have better sensors than the US Air Force’s best dedicated air- and ground-warning systems.”

          So does Rafale. Big deal?

          http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/05/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE9B401Y20131205

          “but was now making good progress.”

          “By some measure, including the F-35’s ability to maneuver tight turns, the F-35 is on par or even slightly below that of current fighter planes, Bogdan said.”

          Bullshit by the bucket. Regarding maneuvering, F-35 might at best match Super Hornet or F-16C Block 52 and up, but nothing more.

          “But the plane’s ability to combine data from a host of different sensors and share it with other aircraft”

          Ability that Rafale has, and existed before on other platforms.

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9780450/Inside-the-F-35-the-futuristic-fighter-jet.html

          “Through it, I can see 360 degrees all around the airplane.”

          Pity it doesn’t work yet. And similar helmet is planned for Typhoon, so, again, hardly revolutionary.

          “They talk so fervently about the Star Wars aspects of the F-35 partly because it is the easiest aircraft any of them has ever flown: pilots are free to manage the weaponry while the F-35, more or less, flies itself. ”

          Easy to fly, yes, but it simply doesn’t have maneuvering performance.

          ” its hidden engine and low heat emission ”

          F-35s engine may be hidden but low heat emissions? You don’t need much to realize it is BS.

          “The F-35 emerged from the US Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter Project,”

          Which has become Uncommon Unaffordable Mediumweight Pseudo-Fighter Project in the meantime.

          “‘The F-35 is by far and away the easiest. I’ve flown the aircraft up to Mach 1.6 and pulled up to 7g. ”

          Clearly shows that “easiest to fly” = “best performing”. Mach 1,6 maximum speed and 7 g load is not a high performance.

          LikeLike

       5. More nonsense from the ignorant. Only a simpleton could arrive at these conclusions.

          LikeLike

       6. Keep up with such non-replies and I will start deleting your posts.

          LikeLike

       7. “Fifth-generation fighters are not only more survivable against a sophisticated opponent, they also have better sensors than the US Air Force’s best dedicated air- and ground-warning systems.” “So does Rafale. Big deal?”

          Please do. As soon as I read this idiotic nonsense I deleted yours without reading any further because it shows that do not have even the most rudimentary understanding of this subject.

          LikeLike

       8. I have better understanding than you, obviosuly. How much do you know about Rafale’s sensors? Obviously not much. F-22 has longer-ranged radar, but that is it. Rafale has IRST, which F-22 doesn’t have. Both can use opponent’s radar emissions to attack him. Both have completely passive missile warners. So in what way are F-22s sensors superior?

          LikeLike

       9. First of all I can now clearly see your main problem. You “obviosuly”, in addition to a spelling and grammar problems, also have a severe reading comprehension problem. Where have I ever said that the F 22s sensor suite was better than the Rafale? Answer: Nowhere, I said the F 35s sensor suite was far superior, and it is.

          But since you bring it up the point, the F22 is far superior in every way, including sensors. It will kill a Rafale before it even knows the F 22 is there 10 out 10 times, precisely because it has better weapons, a longer range radar, a superior sensor suite and far superior stealth. These facts alone make everything else in your argument meaningless but since you bring up IRST as such a great leap in technology I will address the point. IRST was not intially included in the F 22 electronic suite because it is relatively old technology dating back to the F 101 Voodoo in the mid 50s. The most modern versions in use today date from the 1980s and are easily defeated by the F 22. That said, the F 22 will benefit from F-35 development in many ways and this area is one of them. Specifically the II AN/AAQ-37 electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) with a 3 D, 360 degree IRST, missile detection/warning, and day/night vision capabilities (Rafale’s IRST is 2D, 180 degree with an extreme range of 50 kms derived from slightly improved 1980s technology). This is the next generation IRST with both longer range (1o0 km +) and greater sensitivity making it much more difficult to defeat. It will be installed in the F 22 in the 3.3 upgrade package planned for the 2014/15 period.

          In closing, every aviation expert in the world of any note, ranks the F 22 as the best in service fighter in the world while the Rafale is ranked about 4th or 5th. Expect the Rafale to drop to about # 9 as the F 35, Cheng Du J 20, SU T 50 and Mig 35 come into service after 2015 while the F 22 stays at #1. But hey, I guess you are smarter than all of those other experts?

          LikeLike

       10. “But since you bring it up the point, the F22 is far superior in every way, including sensors. It will kill a Rafale before it even knows the F 22 is there 10 out 10 times, precisely because it has better weapons, a longer range radar, a superior sensor suite and far superior stealth.”

           Will it though?

           But this is pointless in my opinion to compare 1 on 1. Why? Assuming 2 equal cost forces, it means that:
           1. The Rafale will badly outnumber the Raptor because it costs much less. It means that it will be outnumbered, by perhaps as much as 3.5 – 4 to 1.

           The Rafale has a much better flight to maintenance ratio (8 to 1) versus Raptor, which is currently 30 to 1 (so 3.75 to 1).

           These 2 alone are a huge problem because that means that for a given x billion in cost, the Rafale will fly perhaps 12-15 as many sorties. Lancaster square is against the F-22 in this case, which works out to a 144 to 225 times better advantage on the plane alone.

           Compounding the problem, based on the flight to maintenance ratios, which means that the Rafale pilots are likely to be better trained. The F-22 pilots will have to rely more on simulators. That Lancaster square just got a lot bigger because pilots are the deciding factor.

           Given that the plane has a 30 to 1 flight to maintenance ratio, there’s a greater risk that it will be destroyed on the ground.

           “IRST was not intially included in the F 22 electronic suite because it is relatively old technology dating back to the F 101 Voodoo in the mid 50s. The most modern versions in use today date from the 1980s and are easily defeated by the F 22.”

           Uhh … what? Today’s QWIP IRSTs are a pretty far cry from the older IRSTs that existed in the 1950s.

           “Specifically the II AN/AAQ-37 electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) with a 3 D, 360 degree IRST, missile detection/warning, and day/night vision capabilities (Rafale’s IRST is 2D, 180 degree with an extreme range of 50 kms derived from slightly improved 1980s technology). This is the next generation IRST with both longer range (1o0 km +) and greater sensitivity making it much more difficult to defeat.”

           But on paper, the frontal F-35 IRST is for air to ground, and the 360 degree DAS isn’t as good as what the competition has. Pirate on the Eurofighter for example outclasses it.

           LikeLike

       11. Chris,

           Will it though? YES, but since they are highly unlikely to ever face each other it is a moot point.

           But this is pointless in my opinion to compare 1 on 1. Why? Assuming 2 equal cost forces, it means that:
           1. The Rafale will badly outnumber the Raptor because it costs much less. It means that it will be outnumbered, by perhaps as much as 3.5 – 4 to 1.
           This is too simplistic a conclusion to make and not based in reality. Are you saying that there will be more Rafales produced than F 35s? At the moment the confirmed orders for the F 35 outnumber the Rafale by about 15:1
           2. The Rafale has a much better flight to maintenance ratio (8 to 1) versus Raptor, which is currently 30 to 1 (so 3.75 to 1).

           You don’t know this yet as the F 35 is still in development. Using maintenance data from test aircraft is just not realistic.

           These 2 alone are a huge problem because that means that for a given x billion in cost, the Rafale will fly perhaps 12-15 as many sorties. Lancaster square is against the F-22 in this case, which works out to a 144 to 225 times better advantage on the plane alone.

           I guess you forget that the US is buying this plane and will fly this plane regardless of cost. The French on the other hand….

           Compounding the problem, based on the flight to maintenance ratios, which means that the Rafale pilots are likely to be better trained. The F-22 pilots will have to rely more on simulators. That Lancaster square just got a lot bigger because pilots are the deciding factor.
           Yeah OK, another flawed assumption. US pilots will continue to be the best trained in the world. Theres my assumption based on past and current history.

           Given that the plane has a 30 to 1 flight to maintenance ratio, there’s a greater risk that it will be destroyed on the ground.

           Really? I’m not even going to respond this point. The statement is silly and the basis for it based on flawed assumptions.

           “IRST was not intially included in the F 22 electronic suite because it is relatively old technology dating back to the F 101 Voodoo in the mid 50s. The most modern versions in use today date from the 1980s and are easily defeated by the F 22.”

           Uhh … what? Today’s QWIP IRSTs are a pretty far cry from the older IRSTs that existed in the 1950s.
           Please re-read my comments. Like this statement which is true “The most modern versions in use today date from the 1980s and are easily defeated by the F 22.”

           “Specifically the II AN/AAQ-37 electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) with a 3 D, 360 degree IRST, missile detection/warning, and day/night vision capabilities (Rafale’s IRST is 2D, 180 degree with an extreme range of 50 kms derived from slightly improved 1980s technology). This is the next generation IRST with both longer range (1o0 km +) and greater sensitivity making it much more difficult to defeat.”

           But on paper, the frontal F-35 IRST is for air to ground, and the 360 degree DAS isn’t as good as what the competition has. Pirate on the Eurofighter for example outclasses it.

           Proof please?

           LikeLike

       12. @BMACK F-35 is not even a fifth generation fighter, it is a ground attack aircraft, so if you specify a fifth generation fighter without specifying which one exactly I assume F-22, especially since nobody in their right mind would argue that F-35 (a bomber) is superior to Rafale in air superiority. As for your “reply”…

           “It will kill a Rafale before it even knows the F 22 is there 10 out 10 times, precisely because it has better weapons, a longer range radar, a superior sensor suite and far superior stealth.”

           F-22 has no IRST, can carry a limited amount of missiles if it wants to preserve what limited amount of stealth it has, and if it doesn’t want to get detected and targeted by SPECTRA, it will keep its radar shut down, thus completely reversing theoretical detection advantage of longer-ranged radar.

           “IRST was not intially included in the F 22 electronic suite because it is relatively old technology dating back to the F 101 Voodoo in the mid 50s.”

           Radar is also old technology dating back to the 1930s, and was first deployed on fighters in 1940s. So by that “logic” it is an obsolete technology.

           “The most modern versions in use today date from the 1980s and are easily defeated by the F 22.”

           PIRATE and OSF are both developed in 1990s, and F-22s IR signature is larger than that of Rafale or Gripen E (or Gripen C, if only subsonic flight is counted).

           “Specifically the II AN/AAQ-37 electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) with a 3 D, 360 degree IRST, missile detection/warning, and day/night vision capabilities”

           DAS is a missile warner just like DDM – F-35s IRST is EOTS.

           “This is the next generation IRST with both longer range (1o0 km +) and greater sensitivity making it much more difficult to defeat.”

           OSF has range of up to 130 km.

           “In closing, every aviation expert in the world of any note, ranks the F 22 as the best in service fighter in the world while the Rafale is ranked about 4th or 5th.”

           Actually, it is more like 1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. F-22, 4. Gripen C, 5. Su-27, 6. F-16; with upcoming fighters, it becomes 1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. Gripen E, 4. PAK FA, 5. F-22, 6. MiG-35, 7. Gripen C, 8. F-16C, 9. J-20. F-35 is behind all these, and some I didn’t bother to list – it would have made for an impractically long list.

           And it would be even more impractically wrong to list all times experts have been wrong. In fact, you can find an expert to support any opinion at all, and people who have actually designed or helped design fighter aircraft (Harry Hillaker, Pierre Sprey, Petr Ufimtsev) do/did not have nearly as high opinion of stealth aircraft and their design philosophy.

           LikeLike

       13. Yes it is a 5th generation fighter and yes it is superior in air combat to the Rafale or at least will be once fully developed. Every aviation expert of any note in the world says so. Only you and your goofy friends say otherwise. Did you ever wonder why the F 35 has so many foreign customers and the Rafale so few even though it has been on the market for almost two decades? I guess the combined knowledge of every Air Force in the Free world and every reputable aviation expert in the world just don’t have the smarts that you do. You should call them all right away and tell them what a huge mistake they are making!

           “F-22 has no IRST, can carry a limited amount of missiles if it wants to preserve what limited amount of stealth it has, and if it doesn’t want to get detected and targeted by SPECTRA, it will keep its radar shut down, thus completely reversing theoretical detection advantage of longer-ranged radar.”

           “preserve what limited amount of stealth it has” What an idiotic statement. Thanks for the laugh. BTW your cherished Rafale will never have a chance to detect an F 22 on SPECTRA unless it is after it gets a missile up its ass and in a death spiral. Perhaps the pilot will get a blip as he is punching out?

           “IRST was not initially included in the F 22 electronic suite because it is relatively old technology dating back to the F 101 Voodoo in the mid 50s.”

           Note the next sentence where I said that the current systems in use are just updated versions of 1980 IRST technology and both Pirate and OST are no exception and even then they are still two decades old technology.

           “ F-22s IR signature is larger than that of Rafale or Gripen E (or Gripen C, if only subsonic flight is counted).”

           Yeah sure, you just made that up. Proof please?

           DAS is not much better than OSF in coverage, and it is missile warner just like DDM – F-35s IRST is EOTS.

           Yeah OK just one problem there genius. EOTS is not even an IRST system. It is a targeting system and the “EO” stands for ELECTRO OPTICAL, not Infrared red dufus. DAS is the only IRST system on the F 35.

           Actually, it is more like 1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. F-22, 4. Gripen C, 5. Su-27, 6. F-16; with upcoming fighters, it becomes 1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. Gripen E, 4. PAK FA, 5. F-22, 6. MiG-35, 7. Gripen C, 8. F-16C, 9. J-20. F-35 is behind all these, and some I didn’t bother to list – it would have made for an impractically long list.

           This is your goofy list but you are alone in world. Remember I said REPUTABLE sources, which you clearly do not qualify as. Most of the aircraft on your list are not even in service yet and you have already declared the Rafale better that they are.

           OK I am done with you now. I am no longer going to waste anymore time trying to talk the stupid out of you because you are just a lost cause.

           Go eat some turkey (oh yeah they are buying the F 35 and rejected the Rafale) and dream of Rafales shooting down F 22s because that is as close to reality as you will ever get to seeing that.

           LikeLike

       14. “Every aviation expert of any note in the world says so.”

           Can you name a few?

           “Did you ever wonder why the F 35 has so many foreign customers and the Rafale so few even though it has been on the market for almost two decades?”

           Because United States have more diplomatic pull than France (and Sweden), because F-35 is falsely marketed as an F-16 replacement, and because Rafale is still expensive, even though not as expensive as F-35.

           “I guess the combined knowledge of every Air Force in the Free world”

           Sweden opted for developing Gripen NG instead of buying F-35, France still produces Rafale, Germany uses Typhoon instead of buying F-35, United Kingdom bought F-35 because navalizing Typhoon would be too expensive (redesigning the aircraft, plus redesigning the carriers), Norway and Netherlands only opted for F-35 after very heavy diplomatic pressure (threats and bribes), Israel bought F-35 because it needs US help against Arabs, Japan and Korea for same reason only problem in their case is China… your argument falls apart on a closer look.

           “and every reputable aviation expert in the world”

           So far I didn’t see any actual expert saying that F-35 is best, excellent or even good.

           “What an idiotic statement.”

           Only because you just mindlessly absorb Lockheed Martin rpopaganda according to which being stealthy to X-band active radar automatically makes you stealthy to everything.

           “BTW your cherished Rafale will never have a chance to detect an F 22 on SPECTRA unless it is after it gets a missile up its ass and in a death spiral.”

           Only if Rafale turns on its radar, thus allowing F-22 to target it passively. If it doesn’t, F-22 will have to use its own radar or uplink, both of which can be detected. And if F-22 shoots, missile will get detected by DDM, so position can be calculated from it.

           “Note the next sentence where I said that the current systems in use are just updated versions of 1980 IRST technology and both Pirate and OST are no exception and even then they are still two decades old technology.”

           Except both were developed in 1990s, and replacement OSF has been developed.
           http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/radar-and-optronics-will-define-future-rafale-214754/
           http://wayback.archive.org/web/20121007075747/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-france-accepts-first-aesa-equipped-rafale-377216/

           >The new F3-04T-standard fighter also has improved front sector optronics equipment from Thales and the DDM-NG passive missile approach warning system, produced by MBDA.<

           Regarding EOTS:

           Click to access mfc-f-35-eots-pc.pdf

           >The Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) is the world’s first and only sensor that combines forward-looking infrared (FLIR) and infrared search and track (IRST) functionality<<

           There is only one problem, LockMart is lying through its teeth (as usual), since PIRATE also combines FLIR and IRST:

           Click to access body_mm07797_IRST_LQ.pdf

           as does Rafale.

           "Remember I said REPUTABLE sources, which you clearly do not qualify as."

           And what does? Lockheed Martin certainly doesn't, USAF is rather questionable…

           "Most of the aircraft on your list are not even in service yet and you have already declared the Rafale better that they are."

           Read the list again. I am aware that these fighters are not in service (why I called them "upcoming") but much of data is already known…

           "I am no longer going to waste anymore time trying to talk the stupid out of you because you are just a lost cause."

           A person with your level of ignorance cannot "talk the stupid" out of anyone… before trying to remove thorn from my eye you have to remove rain forest from your own.

           "Go eat some turkey"

           I don't eat meat.

           LikeLike

       15. “Every aviation expert of any note in the world says so.”

           Can you name a few? I can name plenty but let’s start with the leadership of every Air Force in the world. You can find them easily by just Googling them. As far as I know only you claim that the F 35 is not a fifth generation fighter. Can you name one REPUTABLE expert that agrees with you?

           Did you ever wonder why the F 35 has so many foreign customers and the Rafale so few even though it has been on the market for almost two decades?

           “Because United States have more diplomatic pull than France (and Sweden), because F-35 is falsely marketed as an F-16 replacement, and because Rafale is still expensive, even though not as expensive as F-35.”

           Thanks for the conspiracy theory nonsense. Do you have any proof? Otherwise I am not really interested in any more of your goofy theories. And again, I guess the combined knowledge of every Air Force in the Free world is just not as smart as you are. BTW did you call them and tell them what a huge mistake they are making. I am sure they will listen to such a world renowned aviation expert like you.

           “Sweden opted for developing Gripen NG instead of buying F-35, France still produces Rafale, Germany uses Typhoon instead of buying F-35, United Kingdom bought F-35 because navalizing Typhoon would be too expensive (redesigning the aircraft, plus redesigning the carriers), Norway and Netherlands only opted for F-35 after very heavy diplomatic pressure (threats and bribes), Israel bought F-35 because it needs US help against Arabs, Japan and Korea for same reason only problem in their case is China… what?”
           More kooky conspiracy theory junk. And yes – what an idiotic statement.

           “Only because you just mindlessly absorb Lockheed Martin rpopaganda according to which being stealthy to X-band active radar automatically makes you stealthy to everything.”

           No, I am able to objectively look at facts. Unlike you who are so in love with the Rafale that you eat up all the Dassault propaganda they can dish out. Well they say love is blind. But good thing that foreign customers are not blinded by love which is why they have rejected it except for the Indians who are about to dump it any day now.

           “Only if Rafale turns on its radar, thus allowing F-22 to target it passively. If it doesn’t, F-22 will have to use its own radar or uplink, both of which can be detected. And if F-22 shoots, missile will get detected by DDM, so position can be calculated from it.”

           Spoken like someone who truly doesn’t understand the technology he is blathering on about.

           Note the next sentence where I said that the current systems in use are just updated versions of 1980 IRST technology and both Pirate and OST are no exception and even then they are still two decades old technology.

           “Except both were developed in 1990s, and replacement OSF has been developed.”

           Duh yup, that’s what I said dufus. Two decade old (or 1990s) technology and are just updated versions of 1980 IRST technology. I guess I had to do the math for you. I should have known how bad you are at simple math by now.

           “In another brochure says this:”

           Brochures! You get your info from company brochures! That sure explains a lot.

           “There is only one problem, LockMart is lying through its teeth (as usual), since PIRATE also combines FLIR and IRST:”

           Combines FLIR and IRST? IRST is a form of FLIR genius.

           “before trying to remove thorn from my eye you have to remove rain forest from your own.”

           A good attempt at being deep and prophetic, bad grammar and all, but I think you are mixing up your metaphors.

           “Go eat some Tofu turkey”

           LikeLike

       16. “Will it though? YES, but since they are highly unlikely to ever face each other it is a moot point.”

           Indeed. But the point remains – it’s worth looking at the different decisions made, why they were made and so on.

           “You don’t know this yet as the F 35 is still in development. Using maintenance data from test aircraft is just not realistic.”

           We were comparing the F-22 to the Rafale, but if you want to compare the F-35, we can. The F-22 is in service, so we can compare.

           “I guess you forget that the US is buying this plane and will fly this plane regardless of cost. The French on the other hand….”

           That’s a serious problem. You are buying regardless of cost. Regardless of cost. So that means, you’re buying no matter what the opportunity costs are.

           That’s why I say equal cost fleets. If I have $x billion dollars for fighters, that x billion dollars buys me say:

           Fighter 1 costs $100 million
           Fighter 2 costs $300 million

           In order for Fighter 2 to justify it’s cost, it must be able to defeat 3 of fighter 1.

           “Yeah OK, another flawed assumption. US pilots will continue to be the best trained in the world. Theres my assumption based on past and current history.”

           The US will win in a conflict due to numbers. Quality is another matter, as recent exercises have shown, it’s more like parity, not total domination.

           “Given that the plane has a 30 to 1 flight to maintenance ratio, there’s a greater risk that it will be destroyed on the ground.

           Really? I’m not even going to respond this point. The statement is silly and the basis for it based on flawed assumptions.”

           Then what is the maintenance to flight ratio? That’s critical in a war.

           You do realize that even if the F-22 is superior, there’s still the issue in our hypothetical scenario that it is totally dependent on runways (Gripen is not for example). For every hour of flight, it needs x hours of maintenance. That “x” goes up the more complexity is added to a fighter.

           “Please re-read my comments. Like this statement which is true “The most modern versions in use today date from the 1980s and are easily defeated by the F 22.”

           That would be Pirate and OLS-35, along with the Rafale’s system. Most were made in the 1990s and there are newer sensors on their way (like the OLS-50).

           The Europeans have some pretty good IR sensors (and I’d argue are the leaders in this field). The Russians too have been developing this technology aggressively.

           “Proof please?”

           Picard has already addressed this one.

           LikeLike

       17. Chris, some of the orders for F-35 that we are seeing including those potentially from Taiwan that I forgot to mention earlier are predicated in the F-35’s deterrence capacity. The Taiwanese are conversing about the Marine variant that they would deploy in roads and short strips that can survive a Chinese surprise attack and the South Koreans and Japanese clearly feel that it could be used to knock out North Korea’s ballistic missile as well as a counter against mischief from China.

           But in addition to those roles planned for the aircraft if the plane’s cost drops and becomes predictable them additional orders would come for other roles. I feel that if cost drop as it is advertised then there will be more orders.

           LikeLike

       18. Chris,

           If you are to come to your buddy’s defence it may be useful to read into the conversation first so you know what you are responding to.

           “Indeed. But the point remains – it’s worth looking at the different decisions made, why they were made and so on.”

           OK but this was not in response to that question. It was in response to the assertion that the Rafale was better in the air to air role than the F 35.

           “We were comparing the F-22 to the Rafale, but if you want to compare the F-35, we can. The F-22 is in service, so we can compare.”

           No, Picard was comparing the F 35 to the Rafale.

           “That’s a serious problem. You are buying regardless of cost. Regardless of cost. So that means, you’re buying no matter what the opportunity costs are. That’s why I say equal cost fleets. If I have $x billion dollars for fighters, that x billion dollars buys me say:”
           “Fighter 1 costs $100 million
           Fighter 2 costs $300 million”

           Again, please read the discussion before offering a comment. This response was in regards to the cost per hour to fly, not the purchase price.

           “In order for Fighter 2 to justify its cost, it must be able to defeat 3 of fighter 1.”

           A very simplistic set of purchasing criteria, your own I presume? Well you will be glad to hear then that fighter 2 can defeat fighter 1 about 10:1 since it will shoot it down before the Rafale even knows it is being targeted. Again though, you are confusing the discussion regarding the cost per flying hour, not the cost of the plane.

           “The US will win in a conflict due to numbers. Quality is another matter, as recent exercises have shown, it’s more like parity, not total domination.

           Yeah, OK. Your opinion.

           “Given that the plane has a 30 to 1 flight to maintenance ratio, there’s a greater risk that it will be destroyed on the ground.”

           “Then what is the maintenance to flight ratio? That’s critical in a war.”

           Since the plane is still under development we just don’t know yet unless you do? But where did the number 30 come from? Just arbitrarily making a number up in an effort to make a point only serves to erode ones credibility.

           “You do realize that even if the F-22 is superior, there’s still the issue in our hypothetical scenario that it is totally dependent on runways (Gripen is not for example). For every hour of flight, it needs x hours of maintenance. That “x” goes up the more complexity is added to a fighter.“

           “Even if the F 22 is superior”, Really? Sure OK, but you do realize that it is quite likely after day three of a conflict there won’t be any more Gripens to land on non-runways. You also realize that the Gripen needs a runway, it cannot land in open fields. It can land on short runways and highways but still needs a paved surface, free of FOD.

           “Please re-read my comments. Like this statement which is true “The most modern versions in use today date from the 1980s and are easily defeated by the F 22.”

           “That would be Pirate and OLS-35, along with the Rafale’s system. Most were made in the 1990s and there are newer sensors on their way (like the OLS-50).”

           OK. Again, please actually read my comments. I know they were made in the 90s. Like I said 80’s technology with minor improvements but still 20 yr old technology. What is your point here? BTW Glad to hear some new stuff is on the way. How much does it cost?Is it as good as DAS?

           “The Europeans have some pretty good IR sensors (and I’d argue are the leaders in this field). The Russians too have been developing this technology aggressively.”

           OK, point please?

           “Proof please?”

           “Picard has already addressed this one.”

           No, he simply made the statement so I guess this is just his and your opinion? Then you both should not present it as fact if it cannot be backed up proof because that is just dishonest and frankly, just a little desperate.

           LikeLike

       19. Couple of issues,

           An aircraft availability is not entirely the result of the aircraft’s complexity but it is very often the result of the ground crew training as well as the logistic for parts, etc. I have seen availability improve dramatically simply by improving these two variables. So availability is a variable and not a fixed ration.

           I also want to add that the exercise between the Rafale and the F-22 that apparently was a draw was mostly with in the visual range dog-fighting and as I have mentioned earlier seldom are these exercise truly representative of reality. Most of the time they have limits that are intended to stress and test certain things and in this instance it seems to have been with-in visual range fighting that was the focus. If you want to get technical and F-16 could probably have won against both in that scenario.

           As far as Picard he stresses three things,

           (1) That beyond visual range weapons do not perform as well as advertised.
           (2) That because of (1) all fighters should be prepared to eventually fight with in visual range and use guns.
           (3) That with in visual range a more numerous, agile and basic fighter might predominated over fewer high technology fighters.

           I do not believe the points that Picard make can be dismissed by simply citing small bits of information from here and there. There are a lot of “IF” in his postulate because both enemies are presumed to fight strictly with aircrafts when reality one might use cruise missiles and land forces to neutralize airports, etc.

           Operating from roads is not the panacea that their boosters make you believe. Eventually the aircraft will need to be overhauled and require a facility to do it. An airport has to be close by to do that.

           I just wanted to make those comments.

           LikeLike

       20. Couple of issues,

           “An aircraft availability is not entirely the result of the aircraft’s complexity but it is very often the result of the ground crew training as well as the logistic for parts, etc. I have seen availability improve dramatically simply by improving these two variables. So availability is a variable and not a fixed ration.”

           Two areas where the US is the best in the world in so not an issue for them.

           “I also want to add that the exercise between the Rafale and the F-22 that apparently was a draw was mostly with in the visual range dog-fighting and as I have mentioned earlier seldom are these exercise truly representative of reality. Most of the time they have limits that are intended to stress and test certain things and in this instance it seems to have been with-in visual range fighting that was the focus. If you want to get technical and F-16 could probably have won against both in that scenario.”

           Agreed to a point but getting there is the hard part and remember the F 22 and /or F 35 will not be alone.

           “As far as Picard he stresses three things,”

           First of all I do not recall anywhere in our discussions where picard was making any of these points. If he was then he did very good job hiding them. Instead he made ridiculous statements like the Rafale is the best fighter aircraft in the world, complete with his ridiculous top 10 list, and said his beloved Rafale was just as stealthy as an F 35 and that “the F 35 is not even a fifth generation fighter” or my personal favorite:

           “There is nothing revolutionary about the F-35 except the fact that it is 3 different aircraft under one name.”

           Because of these sorts of statements I take nothing he says seriously.

           (1) “That beyond visual range weapons do not perform as well as advertised.”

           picard NEVER said this and there is absolutely no data to back that statement up. If you have some please produce it? What weapons in particular are you referring to?

           (2) That because of (1) all fighters should be prepared to eventually fight with in visual range and use guns.
           picard NEVER said this and since (1) is not a factual statement this is less of a factor but we have already established that the F 22 can hold its own in a dog fight. Again though, it will not be alone.

           (3) “That with in visual range a more numerous, agile and basic fighter might predominated over fewer high technology fighters.”

           picard NEVER said this. What he said was:

           “The Rafale will badly outnumber the Raptor because it costs much less. It means that it will be outnumbered, by perhaps as much as 3.5 – 4 to 1.”

           Since the current orders alone for both planes give about a 20:1 advantage to the F 35 this is just another idiotic statement. Then there is also the fact that while the Rafale just lost three major competitions (Singapore, Saudi and Brazil) and it only international order to date, (India) is in danger of cancellation while the F35 has won three (Japan, Singapore, Israel) with at least two more on the immediate horizon (S Korea, Taiwan) I doubt the Rafale will ever outnumber the F 35.

           “I do not believe the points that Picard make can be dismissed by simply citing small bits of information from here and there. There are a lot of “IF” in his postulate because both enemies are presumed to fight strictly with aircrafts when reality one might use cruise missiles and land forces to neutralize airports, etc.”

           OK, this statement really pisses me off. Small bits of info my ass. First of all most of what your little buddy writes in nonsense and the rest is unintelligible gibberish. Secondly If I give an opinion I tell you it is an opinion and unlike your friend, I don’t try and pass it off as fact and if it is fact I can back it up. So far all I get from both of you are bits of nonsense, none of which you can provide any data or proof of so please spare me the condescending BS.

           “Operating from roads is not the panacea that their boosters make you believe. Eventually the aircraft will need to be overhauled and require a facility to do it. An airport has to be close by to do that.”

           Yup, not my point. Yours remember. In your last post this was major plus for the Gripen and a major downside for the F 22. Now it is not such a big deal. Amazing how much can change in just one post!

           I just wanted to make this comment:

           I know picard is your friend but please do not attribute statements to him that he did not make in an attempt to defend him. It demeans you and makes me think that you believe me to be stupid enough not to notice what you are trying to do. I really can’t even understand why you would tie yourself to this ignorant buffoon?

           LikeLike

       21. We were having a discussion about how Rafale and F-35 compare as platforms not as weapon systems, because in that case comparision would be even worse for the F-35.

           LikeLike

       22. I did not write this dufus. Your buddy Chris did.

           LikeLike

       23. Regarding numbers issue, it is about how many aircraft can be produced for equal cost. US would be better served by lincense-producing Rafales than by lincense-producing F-35s. Even if 160 million USD official flyaway cost for F-35 is used, Rafale gives almost 2:1 numerical advantage, plus being superior platform-for-platform.

           And you should seriously look at other articles on blog.

           LikeLike

       24. “I did not write this dufus. Your buddy Chris did.”

           My reply was to him…

           LikeLike

       25. “I can name plenty but let’s start with the leadership of every Air Force in the world.”

           Generals and politicians are far from being experts on aircraft usefulness… even those that have actually flown aircraft in combat have typically being out of touch with reality (due to being part of bureocracy) for too long.

           “As far as I know only you claim that the F 35 is not a fifth generation fighter.”

           So do Pierre Sprey and Peter Goon.
           http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-081109-1.html
           http://www.ausairpower.net/CV-PAG-2007.html
           http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/135080/f_35-reality-check-10-years-on-(part-1).html

           Fact is, entire “fifth generation” label caught traction simply by mindless repetition ad nauseum. It has no actual support. This is what Italian Air Force colonel Vito Cracas says about F-35s air to air performance:
           “The JSF does not have a high-end air-to-air capability…We need to have both aircraft (i.e. F-35 & Eurofighter).”

           “Did you ever wonder why the F 35 has so many foreign customers and the Rafale so few even though it has been on the market for almost two decades?”

           I have already explained that. Neither French Government or Dassault have political pull of their US equivalents (US Government and Lockheed Martin). Many potential Rafale customers have also gone for cheaper Gripen.

           “Thanks for the conspiracy theory nonsense. Do you have any proof?”

           Read this:
           http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f35-lightning-ii-faces-continued-dogfights-in-norway-03034/
           http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2013/10/15/In-Israel-lingering-bitterness-over-a-failed-fighter-project/UPI-78961381856103/
           http://www.therecord.com/news-story/2571713-washington-used-aggressive-sales-pitch-to-sell-f-35-fighter-memos-rev/
           http://www.thelocal.se/20101203/30584
           http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_24_2013_p0-620093.xml&p=2

           You really should learn about how world really works.

           “More kooky conspiracy theory junk.”

           Typical fanboy, anything you don’t like is “conspiracy theory”.

           “Well they say love is blind.”

           And you’re best example of it I’ve seen to date.

           “Duh yup, that’s what I said dufus.”

           You said it’s 1980s technology. I guess that 10 years of difference means nothing to you.

           “Combines FLIR and IRST? IRST is a form of FLIR genius.”

           Difference between FLIR and IRST is in functionality, maybe you should call Lockheed Martin since they also believe that FLIR and IRST are different things. But uninformed fanboy like you…

           LikeLike

    2. ” OK, you say that and you disagree with both US govt and LM estimates to the opposite but offer no data to support that assertion. And no, in yr, low production and R&D costs do not support that conclusion even though you continue to throw around the $300M a copy figure, it is meaningless and exagerated. ”

       How is it meaningless? It is the current procurement price, at least according to the SAR’s own figures.

       “As a result of this cost, I’ve noted in my first paragraph that there has been an increased dependence on flight simulators.
       No, not any more than any other fighter aircraft does. Again an opinion that is not supported by fact.”

       52% of the training will be based on simulators.

       ”
       No, not really given that it a revolutionary concept in both design and project management. It has just received more than the usual amount of media attention. No other aircraft has been regularly attacked by the media every time a minor problem occurs in the development phase. This is due largely to the lobbying efforts and political connections of its competitors, most notably Boeing. For instance when the F18 SH was being developed and there were serious problems with the engines there was not even a word in the media about it but when the F 35 has minor problems with the helmet it is a major news item.”

       The problem is that these are not minor problems.

       Let me give an example. The F-35C tailhook was found deficient in 2012. It cannot land on an aircraft carrier. That is not a minor problem. That is a fatal design flaw for the carrier variant. The F-35C variant cannot enter service with the US Navy unless that is fixed.

       Another source of issues are the software.

       Yet another (and somewhat related to the above) is that the helmet mounted sight has been giving serious problems.

       “3. That testing is incomplete, and will not be complete for at least a few years.
       Yeah OK, what’s the point here again?”

       The point is that the aircraft is undergoing production before testing is complete. Testing has not been as extensive as on prior aircraft. If there are problems found during testing, that could have very serious and expensive implications.

       ” So some minor reductions will result in huge price increases while new orders that more than outweigh the reductions will only result in “modest” decreases. Again, the logic of your argument is flawed but at least you now agree that they will actually result in decreases at all!!”

       I did not say that. I said huge problems in the aircraft if found during testing will result in huge cost increases. Also, if the US Congress decides as a result of budgetary constraints to cut back the purchase we could see huge cost increases.

       The foreign nations will only buy a few dozen aircraft each, tops (especially for the smaller nations). Their cancelling or choosing to buy a plane will only affect the cost per unit by a few single digits. But if large numbers of foreign customers drop, then there’s the possibility of a large increase in cost. Why do you think there’s been a huge pressure through diplomatic channels from the US to get foreign nations to buy?

       There’s a high risk of that the foreign sales may not meet expectations. That’s because several nations are facing defense cutbacks and because well, as indicated, testing is not complete, so if there are problems, there could be nations that walk away from this.

       “Sorry, just a typo (should read 2016) but I figured that you would have been able to determine that on your own without me having to state the obvious but I got that wrong too I guess. I’ll try not to make any more errors in future, or give you that much credit again. BTW, I would have pointed some of your spelling mistakes and poor grammar out but just thought that to do so would be petty, in bad taste and meaningless to the discussion.”

       I don’t have perfect grammar, and I’ve made my share of typos, but at the same time, I expect that people will respond based on what I write. If I write $1 billion when I mean $1 million, I expect people to respond as if I wrote $1 billion rather than $1 million.

       ” Well, in my nation, Canada we, like other nations, including the US have not walked away from the project to date and there are a large number of new orders, far outweighing any reductions, that you and your source article neglected to mention. But this has nothing to do with your contradictory position that reduced production numbers will cause prices to rise but increased numbers will also make prices rise?”

       Have you been following the news here in Canada then? I presume that you live in Canada based on your response?
       http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-officially-scraps-f-35-purchase-as-audit-pegs-costs-at-45-billion/article6260601/

       While it’s not certain that the plane will not be bought for 100% (especially considering the level of corruption in the current government), there’s a pretty big chance of a reduction in purchase or that a competition could be opened.

       The Harper government has fallen under some pretty big criticism for the way it’s handed the procurement plan.
       http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-feel-the-heat-over-f-35-fiasco/article6292008/

       Considering the plane was originally promised at $16 billion for the entire lifecycle of 65 jets (will find link later, but check these out):
       http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/12/long-awaited-f-35-report-officially-puts-cost-of-jets-at-44-8-billion/
       http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/08/30/321301/canada-f35-purchase-to-cost-71-bn/

       Lockheed for it’s part has been “warning” (or should we say threatening) that Canada may “lose” $10.5 billion in contracts for walking away:
       http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-company-says-backing-out-of-f-35-deal-will-cost-canada/article14324026/

       ” Just because the USN and USAF intend to take low production aircraft into service at some point does not mean that the plane is in full production now and BTW these planes will never see active service without an extensive upgrade at the end of the initial development phase to incorporate the improvements made in the development phase.”

       That was not the original schedule.

       This plane is way behind schedule and should have (according to schedule) entered or been at the point of entering service by now. Indeed, it’s one of the reasons why it’s over-budget. Any modifications at this point are modifications were not originally budgeted for. They are unanticipated problems.

       The questions I have for you are
       – If my $300 million is “garbage” then what does an F-35 cost today?
       – What will they do to get the plane down to the $75 million (or whatever it costs) other than your “scaling up of production”?
       – What contingencies are there in case this plane goes wrong?

       Finally, what “revolutionary” capabilities (your words not mine) does this airplane bring? So far, it’s unremarkable, and for Canada, hardly the best choice (short range, currently has issues in cold weather, and the other issues listed earlier).

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. “Let me give an example. The F-35C tailhook was found deficient in 2012. It cannot land on an aircraft carrier. That is not a minor problem. That is a fatal design flaw for the carrier variant. The F-35C variant cannot enter service with the US Navy unless that is fixed.”

          The NAVY version’s tail-hook works all right when it comes to actually landing the plane. That it is not the problem. It is that the tail hook has a very large radar signature. They need to redesign it so that it conforms to the plane better.

          Marine version has another problem. The heat from the downward exhaust is too high for either the carrier’s or the amphibious ship’s deck. This is being worked on by either making the deck more resistant to heat or adding heat pads where re-coating the entire deck is not justified. This is something that affect export orders.

          Chris, the reality is that more countries are looking at fielding F-35. Not fewer countries but more and this is despite the fact that cost can’t be considered stable at the moment. Once the aircraft has a predictable cost history you might see more people signing on.

          The real problem are dwindling defense budgets and other needs. Countries like South Korea and Singapore have many security needs to satisfy and if this plane’s costs gets out of hand they will have to curtail mundane but essential tasks like anti-piracy or maritime surveillance and coastal patrols. They have neighbors that no other country want and they need to watch them. So everyone is a little hesitant for now but as soon as costs become more predictable more orders might follow.

          LikeLike

       2. @HGR

          “The NAVY version’s tail-hook works all right when it comes to actually landing the plane. That it is not the problem. It is that the tail hook has a very large radar signature. They need to redesign it so that it conforms to the plane better. ”

          No it doesn’t.

          It was unable to land on a carrier:

          http://aviationintel.com/f-35c-cannot-land-on-a-carrier/
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9016442/Navys-5bn-Harrier-jet-replacement-unable-to-land-on-aircraft-carriers.html

          They are “working on it” so to speak.
          http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/10/lockheed-promises-tailhook-fix-to-navys-f-35c/

          More recently:
          http://news.usni.org/2013/12/23/navys-f-35-starts-new-tailhook-tests

          Either way it’s a long way to go from landing on the test strips to landing on an actual carrier. That could take perhaps a couple of years, and that assumes that there are no other problems.

          LikeLike

       3. The plane will be conducting carrier landings at sea in 2014.

          http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/navys-f-35-is-top-priority-for-new-lockheed-aeronautics-chief-carrier-landings-key-to-confidence/

          LikeLike

       4. That looks promising… the carrier landings. The aircraft is an up-grade from the F/A-18 in range and from what you hear from our friends with tough neighbors like the S.Koreans, Japanese and Taiwan even in small numbers the F-35 represents a strategic deterrence. I do not pay a lot of attention to Israel but I suspect a similar logic there.

          I do not agree with all of Picards’ arguments but I do appreciate the web-site. It is a good vehicle to learn.

          I know it caught you by surprise when I mentioned Picard’s arguments towards with in visual range fighting but if you look at all of his post on the aggregate you will notice they are critical of long range air-to-air missiles and promote the inevitability of close in fighting with guns or short range missiles. He also promotes a less technological advance but more numerous airforce. The posts are there for you to read if you care including one about how to defeat missiles fired at aircrafts.

          A couple of explanations…

          If one is sensitive to them you will notice that on news and other publicly available media they report that every so many flying hours the jets need more maintenance than can be provided by the side of the road PLUS in the past I have mentioned to Picard about battle damage repairs as well as medical facilities to treat wounded pilots, base security since the aircraft can be lost to ground forces too and not just in a dog fight, ability to land damage aircrafts, etc. All these things would be hard to do if you operate in strips of roads. So that is just to make the argument that operating from a road like the Gripen can do is a good thing to have but not as big an advantage as it seems to be.

          The comment about availability is that in the USA a certain aircraft type that might have had an availability of say 60% have been improved to say 80% with out changing the aircraft at all but dealing exclusively with the ground crews effectiveness and parts. I have seen this happen and reported on a year-to-year basis. The jest here is that comments about the F-35 availability are academic at this point in time because we can’t judge that until the ground crews and logistic tail have been worked on for a while and optimized.

          LikeLike

       5. Let us say that as of now the challenge is to tuck this hook into the aircraft so it will not show on radar.

          I read the articles and one other thing you need to consider is that often the journalists are not in the Navy “beat”. They are generalist that just regurgitate what ever they told. There is a note there about the F-35 not being able to fire a certain British missile. Well, the LCS can’t fire a Griffin either which is a Scandinavian Missile but they will eventually.

          When you navalize a weapon not only do you deal with the obvious like corrosion, mist, fog and waves that can screw up the missile either on deck or on transit but you forget that the computers that control the missile have to be programmed to handle that too. That programing is sometimes the biggest head ache about navalizing a weapon. So the same thing with that British missile they want to put in the F-35… they will have to program the aircraft to handle it… it has been done before and I do not want to say it is easy but it is not a huge hurdle. Same for the heap pads.

          The noise… that was funny that the aircraft is so noisy. They might not need radar to see it coming… they will hear it. This is a joke but you know what is the big deal about that?

          LikeLike

26. Also worth noting, the newer Ford class carriers have been experiencing issues:

    Click to access 657412.pdf

    If you have the time to, I encourage you to read the report over. Some highlights:

    Page 28:
    “Since CVN 78 construction was authorized with the contract award in
    fiscal year 2008, the Navy has consistently increased its procurement
    budget for the ship to account for cost growth as construction has
    progressed. Budgeted costs have grown to $12.8 billion, compared to the
    Navy’s initial $10.5 billion procurement budget request.”

    Page 32:
    ”
    Further, the Navy’s current budget estimate of $12.8 billion for completing
    CVN 78 is optimistic because it assumes the shipbuilder will maintain its
    current level of performance throughout the remainder of construction.
    This assumption is inconsistent with historical Navy shipbuilding
    experiences for recent lead ships, which have suffered from performance
    degradation late in construction. Our previous work has shown that the
    full extent of cost growth does not usually manifest itself until after the
    ship is more than 60 percent complete, when key systems are being
    installed and integrated.
    Our analysis shows that, as of December 2012, the contractor was forecasting
    an overrun at contract completion of over $913 million. This cost growth is
    attributable to the shipbuilder not accomplishing work as planned. The
    Navy has largely, but not fully, funded this cost growth within CVN 78’s
    $12.8 billion procurement budget.
    …
    complete. The Director of DOD’s Cost Assessment and Program
    Evaluation office and the Congressional Budget Office—as well as Navy
    cost analysts and a Navy-commissioned expert panel—have also
    projected higher than budgeted procurement costs for CVN 78, with cost
    estimates ranging from $13.0 to $14.2 billion.”

    And what I wanted to discuss – integration with the F-35C:
    Page 37:
    “Previously, F-35C initial capability was scheduled to occur prior to the
    shipbuilder’s delivery of CVN 78 to the Navy in 2016. However, as a
    result of F-35C developmental delays, the Navy will not field the aircraft
    until at least 2017—one year after CVN 78 delivery. As a result, the Navy
    has deferred critical F-35C integration activities, which introduces risk of
    system incompatibilities and costly retrofits to the ship after it is delivered
    to the Navy.”

    All of this means:
    Page 43:
    “Because of the development and testing delays and reliability deficiencies
    affecting key systems, CVN 78 will likely face operational limitations that
    extend past commissioning and into initial deployments. Thus, the ship
    will likely deploy without meeting its key sortie generation rate and
    reduced manning requirements.”

    Page 50:
    “The Navy awarded a multibillion dollar contract for detail design and
    construction of CVN 78 in 2008, even in light of substantial technology
    development risks and an overly optimistic budget. Now, nearly 5 years
    later, the cost of the lead ship has increased by more than $2.3 billion and
    many risks still remain which are likely to lead to further cost increases
    before the ship is completed.”

    Apparently the DOD is at odds:
    Page 54
    “DOD did not agree with our recommendation to defer the CVN 79 detail
    design and construction contract award until land-based testing for
    critical, developmental ship systems is completed.”

    Also:
    http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130905/DEFREG02/309050013/US-Navy-GAO-Odds-Over-Carrier-Issues

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. Eh… looks like all US military programmes are experiencing… issues.

       LikeLike

       Reply

27. Ok new thread.

    @BMACK:

    Regardless of the reasons, the F-35C is behind schedule. It has “begun tests”. As indicated earlier, it’s still a while before it can land on a carrier regularly.
    By regularly, I mean by regular navy pilots. At the moment for example, the F-35B does have a working VTOL ability, but only test pilots are supposed to be using that feature regularly.
    I don’t know what any of this will mean for the software, but that is already seriously behind schedule.

    Time being money, all of this will have to be amortized in the unit costs.

    @Picard:
    “We were having a discussion about how Rafale and F-35 compare as platforms not as weapon systems, because in that case comparision would be even worse for the F-35.”

    He/she looks at things the way the DoD does – in pure 1v1 terms. This is why we get planes like the F-22 that cost so much. At last count, it cost $64,000 USD/hour to fly (2010 dollars). (That said, it recently soared up due to the groundings).

    “Regarding numbers issue, it is about how many aircraft can be produced for equal cost. US would be better served by lincense-producing Rafales than by lincense-producing F-35s. Even if 160 million USD official flyaway cost for F-35 is used, Rafale gives almost 2:1 numerical advantage, plus being superior platform-for-platform.”

    The Americans are too proud to license produce their main fighter. This isn’t like the Harrier or the M1’s gun (Rheinmetall) Plus how would the MICC make money? This is a corporate welfare project.

    A few issues:
    The munitions on the Rafale are for French munitions, it would take a bit of cash to get them compatible (probably no more than a couple of billion mind you).

    The USMC insists on having VTOL capability, which probably caused many of the problems on the F-35 to begin with. Rafale obviously cannot VTOL. Granted, this is a horribly misguided attempt that’s led to things like the V-22, but it was a requirement.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. The Marines are not a big enough service to develop their own aircraft. That is why they chose the Harrier instead of caving in to special interest and try it on their own with a domestic manufacturer.

       The Marines recognize that in the small carriers/assault ships might be their only source of fire-power when operating in certain theaters and plan to equip them with a successor to the Harrier for that very purpose. They can’t develop their own special aircraft to succeed the Harrier because they will not buy enough of them to make it worthwhile. So they need the F-35 project badly.

       The gun on our main battle tank has to be able to use the same rounds as the guns of the other NATO tanks so they bought a German barrel rather than developing their own. Well… there is a long list of things that we buy from our European friends. If you want a better example the 5″ deck gun in use in all USA large ships except the Zumwalt is an Oto Melara 76 mm and the LCS uses a Bofor 57 mm. So what is the big deal here? Do you think we should stop buying foreign guns now?

       The point I am making is that the USA will buy foreign weapons. We do not believe in autarky because we recognize that it carries a very high cost.

       LikeLike

       Reply

    2. “At last count, it cost $64,000 USD/hour to fly (2010 dollars).”

       AFAIK, it was 61.000 in 2012.

       “The Americans are too proud to license produce their main fighter.”

       And too proud to admit mistakes. “The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, and pride and arrogance.”

       “This is a corporate welfare project.”

       I know… and Europe is falling down the same craphole. Industry and politics must get divorced.

       “The USMC insists on having VTOL capability, which probably caused many of the problems on the F-35 to begin with.”

       Not “probably”, it did cause many problems. Namely, it led to the aircraft having a single hugely powerful (and hot) engine, very fat, draggy fuselage (well, that and all-aspect LO requirement), no rearward visibility, very small wings, and three versions being hugely incompatible. Just putting F-35C’s wings on A version would solve quite few of F-35s problems.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. “AFAIK, it was 61.000 in 2012.”

          I presume that is not counting the additional work done during the 2012 groundings? With the groundings, apparently it went up to over $100k.

          “And too proud to admit mistakes. “The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, and pride and arrogance.” ”

          If you think about it, the issue is fundamentally that they learned the wrong lessons from WWII.

          The JSF is itself a refutation of everything learned in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam
          The use of strategic bombers (and newer ones like the B1, B2, and now the “next generation bomber”)
          Large “fleet” carriers versus smaller “escort” carriers
          The concept that of “wonder waffen” versus mass produced simpler weapons (KISS)
          The importance of protecting convoys (imagine if the US were to go to war with an enemy with a competent Navy and Air Force – we would see that enemy get a modern equal to the U-Boats “Happy Time”)
          Mine warfare and ASW (neglected since the end of the Cold War)
          The idea of “main battle tank” – heavy tanks that are good for everything
          Early M16s were prone to jamming; under certain situations, it’s still an inferior weapon today to the AK-47

          I could go on but, you get the idea. Their strategy is to “keep the money flowing”. It could be argued that this is the modern equal of the F-111 TFX program. An overweight, multirole aircraft, that is intended for several services.

          “I know… and Europe is falling down the same craphole. Industry and politics must get divorced.”

          With economic realities in both sides of the Atlantic being what they are, this must happen. That and there needs to be an emphasis on avoiding unneeded wars (like Iraq).

          “Not “probably”, it did cause many problems. Namely, it led to the aircraft having a single hugely powerful (and hot) engine, very fat, draggy fuselage (well, that and all-aspect LO requirement), no rearward visibility, very small wings, and three versions being hugely incompatible.”

          Fair enough.

          The Harrier proved to be quite unreliable (known as the “Widowmaker” apparently) and very vulnerable to ground fire. The issue I have with VTOL has always been that in order to get VTOL, there have to be some unacceptable compromises made.

          “Just putting F-35C’s wings on A version would solve quite few of F-35s problems.””

          Hmm.

          On one hand, the fuel capacity could be increased, especially without the need to fold like the carrier. That would somewhat address the problems, but it’s still a fairly short legged fighter.

          Wing loading would go down somewhat, but it’s still a pretty heavy wing loading for a good fighter.

          On the downside, cruising speed might go down.

          I think it might address things somewhat, but on the whole, I’d advocate for scrapping the program altogether and starting from a fresh plane.

          LikeLike

       2. “- Early M16s were prone to jamming; under certain situations, it’s still an inferior weapon today to the AK-47” – this is not true.

          With professional soldiers the M16 is superior to the AK-47 in most respects including range and accuracy. It is not always possible to fight in close range as witnessed in Afghanistan where the Taliban would need two rifles (an AK-47 and a bolt action rifle) to do the job that USA soldiers did with one M16. But if you have a rag-tag military the AK-47’s looser fitting fabrication is more forgiving to careless handling.

          LikeLike

       3. “With professional soldiers the M16 is superior to the AK-47 in most respects including range and accuracy.”

          That is true, but M16 is still inferior to original AR-15. It is heavier and more complex, thus more unreliable.

          LikeLike

       4. “If you think about it, the issue is fundamentally that they learned the wrong lessons from WWII.”

          More like they forgot lessons as soon as war was over. Remember that during WWII US had extensive CAS service, and I don’t mean just aircraft, but entire system worked out to make close coordination between ground troops and tactical air possible.

          “- The concept that of “wonder waffen” versus mass produced simpler weapons (KISS)”

          As a note, during WWII US did not use Pershing until 1945 because it would create logistical problems, not because it wasn’t avaliable earlier.

          “- The idea of “main battle tank” – heavy tanks that are good for everything”

          Indeed, that is why I proposed a mix of heavy and light tanks – heavy tanks to hold the enemy for the nose, then light tanks to kick him in the ass, metaphorically speaking.

          “The issue I have with VTOL has always been that in order to get VTOL, there have to be some unacceptable compromises made.”

          And its main alleged benefit – ability to operate even if air bases are bombed to rubble – goes out of window once you realize how hard VTOL / STOVL aircraft are to maintain.

          “I think it might address things somewhat, but on the whole, I’d advocate for scrapping the program altogether and starting from a fresh plane.”

          That is the most logical course of action. And one, of course, USAF will never take unless forced to by Government.

          LikeLike

28. Reader’s comments on the articles are better than the articles. I want to add a comment of my own. LM is involved in the T-50 project and probably in its marketing too. That project is very important to the future of South Korea’s aerospace business and it means that LM has ties to the local aerospace industry that Boeing did not have. So there is a factor there.

    The T-50 is quite a capable aircraft for the buck and would make Picard proud.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. If you mean this:
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle

       It sems to be good, but rearward visbility, supercruise capability, and has too low g limit.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Kind of sad that trainers can outperform the frontline aircraft. Then again, it happened with the F-5 vs the F-14 and F-15.

          LikeLike

       2. I think what you are referring to are certain exercises where National Guard pilots flying hand-me-down aircrafts from the Air Force beat the latter. That success was related to pilot quality and not the aircraft.

          But having said that this Korean plane is quite a little aircraft and it can and does perform front line duty in smaller sized military forces like the Philippines and the Afghan.

          LikeLike

       3. “That success was related to pilot quality and not the aircraft.”

          That is the point. Keep in mind that F-5 is far cheaper and easier to maintain than either F-15 or F-16… or indeed any modern fighter, except maybe Gripen.

          LikeLike

       4. Good trainer beats bad combat aircraft, eh?

          LikeLike

29. ““The USMC insists on having VTOL capability, which probably caused many of the problems on the F-35 to begin with.”” – Major delays and anxiety. Marines purchased ALL of the UK Harrier’s aircraft inventory when they where decommissioned and their entire stock of spare parts so they could assure themselves that resource through out the delays, etc.

    “Just putting F-35C’s wings on A version would solve quite few of F-35s problems.” – It also has a larger tail and pulls 7.5g instead of 9g and has no internal gun. But it would have longer range. For the Navy this is a very decent attack aircraft.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. “It also has a larger tail and pulls 7.5g instead of 9g”

       I know, but point is that F-35As wings are too small for acceptable maneuvering performance.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. I understand.

          There was a comment made that the F-35 is three different planes and that is somewhat true. There are two airframes (one for the Marines and another for the others), there are two wings, two tails, It is like a Lego.

          LikeLike

30. Picard, is this you in this video?

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. No.

       LikeLike

       Reply

31. @HGR
    “With professional soldiers the M16 is superior to the AK-47 in most respects including range and accuracy. It is not always possible to fight in close range as witnessed in Afghanistan where the Taliban would need two rifles (an AK-47 and a bolt action rifle) to do the job that USA soldiers did with one M16.”

    In most cases, yes.

    In certain situations though, the difficulty of maintaining an M16 can be an issue. Truth be told, I am not sure either is the right compromise. AK47 is on the side of too little complexity and M16 on side of too much. Some middle ground is probably the ideal.

    @Picard
    “More like they forgot lessons as soon as war was over. Remember that during WWII US had extensive CAS service, and I don’t mean just aircraft, but entire system worked out to make close coordination between ground troops and tactical air possible.”

    I think it’s a matter of not wanting to learn. If they did, weapons unit costs would be a fraction of what they are today. That’s simply not profitable for the MICC.

    In the case of CAS, the efforts to retire the A-10 by the USAF no matter how well (or because of how well) it performs is a telling story. It’s one of the most cost-effective warplanes in the post WWII era, and yet, it’s first on the chopping block.

    “As a note, during WWII US did not use Pershing until 1945 because it would create logistical problems, not because it wasn’t avaliable earlier.”

    I would argue that the Sherman was a solid idea, but the Sherman itself was a bad tank for the job. It was high profile (easy to see), and had a low velocity cannon. Had all Shermans been Sherman Fireflies, perhaps the myth of it being outmatched by Tigers would not have existed.

    Of course the US was to proud to admit at the time that the Firefly modification was a better choice than the default weapon.

    “Indeed, that is why I proposed a mix of heavy and light tanks – heavy tanks to hold the enemy for the nose, then light tanks to kick him in the ass, metaphorically speaking.”

    Instead it seems that the armies of the world prefer to by LAVs. That despite their limited mobility and vulnerability.

    I’ve noticed that ever since Afghanistan and Chechnya, the Russians seem to be moving away from the wheeled BTR vehicles. There’s probably a good reason for that.

    “And its main alleged benefit – ability to operate even if air bases are bombed to rubble – goes out of window once you realize how hard VTOL / STOVL aircraft are to maintain.”

    Yet despite the troubled past, the Marine Corps insists on using them.

    “That is the point. Keep in mind that F-5 is far cheaper and easier to maintain than either F-15 or F-16… or indeed any modern fighter, except maybe Gripen.”

    Yeah it seems that most fighters don’t have the wide tires that fighters used to have (that and the weight creep) for roads/dirt strips/grass. Another option is double tires per landing gear. Essentially 2 tires or even 4 (2×2 configuration per leg) for a total of 12 tires to minimize ground pressure.

    They also don’t seem to emphasize rugged reliability (okay the Gripen and the Russians do a better job of this, probably because of the Arctic climate).

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. “I think it’s a matter of not wanting to learn. If they did, weapons unit costs would be a fraction of what they are today. That’s simply not profitable for the MICC.”

       Most likely.

       “It’s one of the most cost-effective warplanes in the post WWII era, and yet, it’s first on the chopping block.”

       USAF is on holy crusade to get rid of all effective weapons it has in the inventory.

       “I would argue that the Sherman was a solid idea, but the Sherman itself was a bad tank for the job. ”

       It was, but that is because it was designed to support infantry. Purpose-built self-propelled tank destroyers (MGC-36, for example) performed far better, and some types in fact (M18 and M36) had positive exchange ratio against German heavy tanks.

       “I’ve noticed that ever since Afghanistan and Chechnya, the Russians seem to be moving away from the wheeled BTR vehicles. There’s probably a good reason for that.”

       Not probably, but definetly. Wheeled APCs lack mobility, and can be immobilized by Molotov Cocktail.

       “Yeah it seems that most fighters don’t have the wide tires that fighters used to have”

       I even thought about using tracks on my design.

       “They also don’t seem to emphasize rugged reliability”

       Indeed.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. “USAF is on holy crusade to get rid of all effective weapons it has in the inventory.”

          It’s more about keeping the money flowing. That and there isn’t really the end of the world as the military keeps saying. The cuts proposed in the US are relatively modest.

          I mean, there seems to be money to keep the F-35 going no matter what. There also seems to be a lot of money to build a new generation of stealth bombers (apparently the B2 frames are considered aging).

          “It was, but that is because it was designed to support infantry. Purpose-built self-propelled tank destroyers (MGC-36, for example) performed far better, and some types in fact (M18 and M36) had positive exchange ratio against German heavy tanks.”

          I wonder if it would be possible for the 88 mm L/71 gun to have been mounted on the Panzer IV chassis? That would have been very impressive had it been produced. That said, the Stug III and Stug IV both did very well for their intended roles.

          There was the Jagdpanther, but it never got made in large enough numbers and the profile was higher than I would have liked (~2.7m tall).

          “Not probably, but definetly. Wheeled APCs lack mobility, and can be immobilized by Molotov Cocktail.”

          From the NATO experiences in Afghanistan:

          They are top heavy and tend to flip over at times
          Can be very vulnerable to RPGs and special RPG nets have to be put, worsening the top heavy part
          Tires are very vulnerable to being hit (much more so than tracks)
          Road pressure is high so they’re restricted to roads and hard soil (they get stuck in soft soil a lot)
          Armor means that it cannot be used like a tank
          Very high profile, which means easy to see
          Surprisingly vulnerable too to IEDs for a vehicle of its mass

          Oh and they tend to be quite expensive. I don’t see how this is an upgrade over the M113 except in one way – road speed is somewhat faster but that is about it and with band tracks, M113 can keep up.

          “I even thought about using tracks on my design.”

          That could complicate things, but it might work. Hmm, you would need a relatively low approach velocity, it may work out.

          LikeLike

       2. “It’s more about keeping the money flowing.”

          Problem is that after a certain point, wepon’s effectiveness typically becomes inversely proportional to its cost.

          “I wonder if it would be possible for the 88 mm L/71 gun to have been mounted on the Panzer IV chassis?”

          They mounted them on Panther’s chassis… and BTW, my favorite German tank destroyers of World War II are Marder series. They weren’t large, heavy, expensive, and they had open top, allowing excellent visibility, which is a key for finding and destroying tanks.

          “From the NATO experiences in Afghanistan:”

          You forgot to add “can be immobilized by a sudden encounter with open canalization shaft”.

          LikeLike

    2. The Marine Corps do not have any other choice as far as flying those Harriers and F-35B because they operate from amphibious ships that are a little over 800 feet long with no steam catapults. They as well as most Europeans that have gone with these type of ships have no choice but to use these types of aircraft.

       WW2 tank choices on the USA sides where driven by merciless logic. It was assumed that they would be fast moving on the offensive and that the tank had to be very mobile in the sense of being able to use roads and bridges available then. So the choice was made to use a medium tank that would have a negative exchange ration with the German tanks but because of its fuel economy, mobility and most important large numbers they would be able to eventually swarm around and hit the German tanks from up-close, the side and behind. This implied large looses but the society we had in WW2 was OK with that. Our society would never put up with that carnage. I might add that WW2 was a logistic war designed to be won by outproducing the Germans; an industrial war.

       A similar story with the USA Army trucks. There was one one and that simplified logistics and maintenance.

       We made a science of battling the Soviet Union in Europe and that drove many decisions such as the Apache Helicopter, the A-10 and the M1. The fighting vehicles where invented by the Russians as a way of bring infantry along side the tanks on a fast break so we had to come up with the Bradley (a concept that is poorly understood is how important infantry is in tank warfare). So a lot of what we used in Iraq and Afghanistan where weapons designed for an European theater fighting an overwhelming adversary.

       Right now we are looking at a different world.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. “The Marine Corps do not have any other choice as far as flying those Harriers and F-35B because they operate from amphibious ships that are a little over 800 feet long with no steam catapults. They as well as most Europeans that have gone with these type of ships have no choice but to use these types of aircraft.”

          Take a look at my FLX design… 200 meters (615 feet) takeoff.

          “WW2 tank choices on the USA sides where driven by merciless logic.”

          As far as I’m concerned, Sherman was a better tank than German heavy tanks. But tanks are not for killing other tanks, that job is best left to specialized vehicles.

          “We made a science of battling the Soviet Union in Europe and that drove many decisions such as the Apache Helicopter, the A-10 and the M1.”

          And only A-10 turned out to be a good vehicle. In fact, M1 isn’t good for fighting in Europe, for that you don’t need hight top speed but you do need excelelnt acceleration, a.k.a. Challenger II or Leopard II, to run from cover to cover. M1 is for open plains (like Ukraine or Russia) when it has all day to accelerate to top speed. IF it really is design for fighting in Europe, then it is a rather incompetent design.

          LikeLike

       2. The M1. It uses a turbine as a power plant and that makes it a very hot tank so new defensive weapons can target it easier than a “cooler” vehicle it you will and it is interesting that production of the M1 continues over the objections of the Army who do not any more of them.

          I know you made a proposal for an aircraft but it is not built. What is built is the Harrier and it is out of production and soon the F-35.

          So many countries with 800′ long aircraft carriers that have no catapults need the F-35 including ourselves.

          LikeLike

       3. I know it isn’t built, I’m just pointing out that STOVL isn’t the only option.

          LikeLike

    3. Both the USA and the Russians do not design weapons for the frequent wars they fight every few years but for the wars of national survival. A lot of people in the military do not agree with this and many readers of this material neither including myself because I understand that capabilities are lost when you loose some of those low tech weapons that are so effective.

       With the above in mind I want to comment further: There have been a number of posts here about wheeled fighting vehicles and you need to remember that they are mostly designed for the European theater and MUST handle poison gas and radiation contamination as well as be able to operate in the Northern European Plain which is where most tank battles will take place. If you design a wheeled vehicle for third world conditions they would be different. They can be smaller and be open to the environment. Or for other European countries where the landscape is not as wide open such as Switzerland the wheeled vehicle will a better choice than a lumbering tank and help by bringing direct fire where nothing else will.

       The Marines are a very good discussion platform for something like this. If they land from a helicopter and they have nothing with them but their rifles and the other side has a few wheeled vehicles with cannon who wins? I know it is not this simple since the Marines would have aviation but you start the argument with this postulate and built it from there. If the Marines land artillery how are they going to move it? They can’t bring a tank with a helicopter but they might be able to land a wheeled vehicle.

       What the Soviet did or did not do falls into a similar pattern. They are a large land power fighting Central Asia insurrections or bush wars with the weapons they designed to fight the west in the Northern European Plain.

       Just to throw a little more gasoline to the fire… the new Amphibious ships from the Navy are designed with no well. They will only do aircrafts. The reason was that they needed to more space below deck for maintenance of the what you think? The F-35. So the ships that house F-35 will not deploy landing crafts now.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Tracked vehicles are smaller, more mobile and more armored than wheeled vehicles for the same mass.

          As for that change to landing ships… might just rename them to “useless aircraft carriers”.

          LikeLike

       2. “Tracked vehicles are smaller, more mobile and more armored than wheeled vehicles for the same mass.” – I do not know about that…

          There are a huge amount of wheeled vehicles made. They vary in configurations and use. Maybe because they are simpler to make and useful for mundane military tasks is the reason there so many.

          Picard, right now the predominance of power in an amphibious operation is tilted toward defense. A well defended beach or shore can’t be breached through just amphibious operations. In the future we might only see amphibious operation carried out in a third world environment and then in mostly constabulary duties. A wheeled vehicle with decent protection and a gun that will out-range what the locals have will be good enough. Same for aircrafts.

          LikeLike

       3. @HGR
          “The Marine Corps do not have any other choice as far as flying those Harriers and F-35B because they operate from amphibious ships that are a little over 800 feet long with no steam catapults. They as well as most Europeans that have gone with these type of ships have no choice but to use these types of aircraft.”

          There is a solution.

          Abandon the unsafe obsession the USMC has with VTOL aircraft. Get aircraft that have low approach velocities. Also, I have suggested this in the past but use sea planes.

          “WW2 tank choices on the USA sides where driven by merciless logic. It was assumed that they would be fast moving on the offensive and that the tank had to be very mobile in the sense of being able to use roads and bridges available then. So the choice was made to use a medium tank that would have a negative exchange ration with the German tanks but because of its fuel economy, mobility and most important large numbers they would be able to eventually swarm around and hit the German tanks from up-close, the side and behind. This implied large looses but the society we had in WW2 was OK with that. Our society would never put up with that carnage. I might add that WW2 was a logistic war designed to be won by outproducing the Germans; an industrial war.”

          All Shermans should have been Fireflies. That would not have increased the weight by much.

          It’s possible to produce acceptable tanks that can fight other tanks in large quantities. The T-34 is a good example.

          “There have been a number of posts here about wheeled fighting vehicles and you need to remember that they are mostly designed for the European theater and MUST handle poison gas and radiation contamination as well as be able to operate in the Northern European Plain which is where most tank battles will take place.”

          You do realize that pound for pound, wheeled vehicles will be higher and less well armored pretty much no matter what. It doesn’t matter what terrain you design it for.

          For a good all terrain accessibility, what you want is a tracked vehicle with very wide tracks (for low ground pressure).

          Picard has already addressed the other points and I largely agree. M1 is not a great weapon for Europe (and it uses way too much fuel). Worse, the heat signature is a dead giveaway compared to a more fuel efficient diesel. Apache is quite vulnerable to heavy machine gun fire and MANPADs, much more so than any fixed wing aircraft would be.

          “Just to throw a little more gasoline to the fire… the new Amphibious ships from the Navy are designed with no well. They will only do aircrafts. The reason was that they needed to more space below deck for maintenance of the what you think? The F-35. So the ships that house F-35 will not deploy landing crafts now.”

          Yeah that’s a huge issue. An “amphibious ship” that cannot land.

          You do realize what this means don’t you? It doesn’t have much redeeming qualities – only thing it can carry for air superiority and support are Harriers, F-35Bs, helicopters, and maybe in the future, drones.

          LikeLike

32. “Problem is that after a certain point, wepon’s effectiveness typically becomes inversely proportional to its cost.”

    Yes but that keeps the money flowing.

    Imagine if I fire a Tomahawk missile. The first one misses. The second one hits. Double profits for defense contractor. Triple if it takes 3 missiles to hit. Quadruple it if takes four. And so on. You cannot make consistent duds but making weapons effective is counter to the goals of the contractor.

    I mean look at many defense contractors – they front load a ton of stuff. Costs are underestimated, often by as much as a factor of 5, while capabilities are vastly overstated.

    “They mounted them on Panther’s chassis… and BTW, my favorite German tank destroyers of World War II are Marder series. They weren’t large, heavy, expensive, and they had open top, allowing excellent visibility, which is a key for finding and destroying tanks.”

    As indicated above, the Jagdpanther was procured, but never in adequate numbers.

    Out of curiosity though, is an open top a good idea versus the Stug/Jagdpanther type designs? My big concern is that the profile is somewhat more vulnerable compared to a completely enclosed tank, and it also exposes crew to the elements (could be an issue in cold climates or very hot ones).

    I’ve always been an advocate of a modern stug. Try to keep it no more than 2.2m tall (ie: not much more than a man), with a high velocity gun (doesn’t have to be super high calibre), a “stoner”. By eliminating the complexity of the turret, you could make a vehicle shorter, easier to conceal, and as a shorter vehicle, protection could be better.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. “Yes but that keeps the money flowing.”

       I know, that’s the whole point.

       “My big concern is that the profile is somewhat more vulnerable compared to a completely enclosed tank, and it also exposes crew to the elements (could be an issue in cold climates or very hot ones).”

       It does leave crew vulnerable to mortar fire and grenades, but good visibility is a must for tank destroyer. Otherwise you’ve simply got a light tank or a self-propelled artillery, not a tank destroyer.

       “I’ve always been an advocate of a modern stug. Try to keep it no more than 2.2m tall (ie: not much more than a man), with a high velocity gun (doesn’t have to be super high calibre), a “stoner”. By eliminating the complexity of the turret, you could make a vehicle shorter, easier to conceal, and as a shorter vehicle, protection could be better.”

       I believe vehicle like this exists, Swedish or Finnish I think.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. “It does leave crew vulnerable to mortar fire and grenades, but good visibility is a must for tank destroyer. Otherwise you’ve simply got a light tank or a self-propelled artillery, not a tank destroyer.”

          Perhaps. I had been thinking that normally a tank destroyer would have the commander looking out and then buttoning down if they came under fire. It is essentially a lower calibre, higher velocity assault gun with better armor and a much lower profile.

          The benefits are:
          – Lower weight
          – Less complexity without turret
          – Shorter than a turreted tank would be (easier to hide)
          – Shorter so the front could be better protected (thicker armor)
          – These tradeoffs could be traded off for a higher calibre gun than a turreted tank, like Panther vs Jagdpanther for comparison.
          – Should be cheaper and easier to maintain with this

          “I believe vehicle like this exists, Swedish or Finnish I think.”

          Yes it once did. The Swedish Strv 103 or S-Tank. Retired in favor of the Leopard 2 though.

          It was inexpensive, performed well in military exercises, and small.

          Take a look:

          Put a shovel in front so that it can dig itself it’s own bulldozer shovel and it should be able to dig itself in and set up for a perfect ambush.

          LikeLike

       2. Pity they retired it. Leopard II is a good tank but bigger and meaner is not necessarily better.

          LikeLike

       3. Gas and radiation… the Syrians just used gas on their Civil War. You can’t have these open personnel carriers and fighting vehicles running around in certain environments.

          It is missiles and not guns what is the future in anti-tank weapons. Things like the Brimstone and the Javelin. The Brimstone can be used from ground, air and soon from the sea (named Sea Spear). And there are others… many others. The missiles are more accurate and produce less collateral damage than anti-tank-guns. We are seeing new generations of them coming to age that are very good.

          These missiles are very important for hitting ANY moving target and the newer ones are being tested for use at sea which will bring more good thing because in general that development will result in longer range than they have now.

          LikeLike

       4. Put a shovel in front so that it can dig itself it’s own bulldozer shovel and it should be able to dig itself in and set up for a perfect ambush.

          Oops typo:

          Should be:
          Put a bulldozer shovel in front and it should be able to dig itself in and set up for a perfect ambush. The shovel could also be used for anti-mine although mine flails have been historically better for this job.

          LikeLike

33. “Pity they retired it. Leopard II is a good tank but bigger and meaner is not necessarily better.”

    There was originally a follow on tank (this time a tank not an assault gun) planned. It was the Strv 2000. It was a complex design with an elevating turret “elevating” and a 140mm gun. But they opted to buy the Leopard instead. Probably wise, although I think it would have been worth it to have built a new stug-like vehicle with the 120mm gun.

    Also regarding the US, even their tankers are having issues:
    http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-366?source=ra

    Background about this – both the USAF and Boeing apparently wanted a lot of new “features” for their new tanker. It is overweight and has some other issues.

    Anyways, the US is not the only one. Apparently the Airbus A330s have been losing booms a lot.

    It happened once in 2011:
    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-a330-tanker-damaged-in-refuelling-mishap-352119/

    Then again in 2012:
    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-military-explains-cause-of-a330-boom-detachment-377845/

    I’m at a loss as to why a refueling tanker needs so many new sophisticated features. Apparently they wanted to add a “3D refueling terminal” to the tanker.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. “I’m at a loss as to why a refueling tanker needs so many new sophisticated features.”

       Apparently because US military wants high-tech toys, consequences be damned. This does explain their hatred of the A-10.

       LikeLike

       Reply

34. Hey! I know this is kinda off topic nevertheless I’d figured I’d ask.

    Would you be interested in trading links or maybe guest authoring a blog post or vice-versa?
    My site covers a lot of the same topics as yours and I believe we could greatly
    benefit from each other. If you might be interested
    feel free to send me an e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you!

    Fantastic blog by the way!

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. Sorry I didn’t answer earlier, anyway if you find any interesting post here, feel free to reblog.

       LikeLike

       Reply

35. Aw, this was an incredibly good post. Finding the time and actual effort to create a
    good article… but what can I say… I hesitate a whole lot and never seem to get anything done.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. If you don’t start, you’ll never finish.

       LikeLike

       Reply

36. HI Picard,
    “..Israel, which unlike other countries can not use US help to buy aircraft (which has effect bringing the cost way below actual production cost) was offered 75 F-35As for a price of 202,6 million USD per aircraft.” Link has been Lost

    Have you got news in F-35 cost? I’ve found this:
    http://nation.time.com/2013/06/05/the-deadly-empirical-data/print/

    simple and empyrical without R&D about 2014 cost. I was looking for sthing about 2015 cost.

    “Conclusion: F-35 unit flyaway cost is between 180 and 300 million USD depending on variant.” Did you really mean 300?

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. Yep, back when I wrote it, F-35B or C (forgot which) cost around 290 million USD. Granted, that was mostly due to playing with the books – F-35A price was brought down by transferring some expenses to B and C variants.

       LikeLike

       Reply

37. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35a-cost-and-readiness-data-improves-in-2015-as-fl-421499/

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. They’re cooking the books, simple as that, as far as the flyaway cost is concerned.

       What is interesting is that F-35s “improved” cost per hour is almost identical to my estimate.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Hi Picard,
          – I have found the source to F-16 C/D block 60 last cost we were searching: UAE contract, 80 planes, 5Gigausd. Weapons, training, logistics 7Gusd. 1Gusd for R&D paid by UAE, I think it is inside the 5, but the article doesn’t explain.
          Then there is VAT tax issue; I’ve red something in your “library” but I dont’have a remember the location. Could you help me about vat?
          – I’m writing few articles for a blogger about F-35. It should have a point of view focused on the big picture with details on Italian point of view. You are going to be cited if I can.
          – Cost: new us budget is out I think. I’ll watch last F-35 price reduction. Have you already red?
          Thanks

          LikeLike

       2. “Then there is VAT tax issue; I’ve red something in your “library” but I dont’have a remember the location. Could you help me about vat?”

          I’m not sure wether US have VAT (since White House and Capitol are owned by corporations, I doubt it) but VAT is a tax paid to the government for any combat aircraft sold. In France and Sweden (?) it is 19,6%, meaning that Rafale’s flyaway price of 90 million USD comes out to actual price of 72 million USD.

          “– I’m writing few articles for a blogger about F-35. It should have a point of view focused on the big picture with details on Italian point of view. You are going to be cited if I can.”

          No problem.

          “– Cost: new us budget is out I think. I’ll watch last F-35 price reduction. Have you already red?”

          Unfortunately, I didn’t really have time to follow news for some time.

          LikeLike

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ