F35 cant beat the plane is supposed to replace...

[UCFEE]

I had a nice long response but nevermind. You're not worth the time spent, especially since you don't have the intellectual capability to the understand obvious benefits of having a universal platform that can perform 75%+ of all tactical aircraft objectives.

We've discussed the benefits and came to the conclusion that if you wanted to prove those benefits, you need to provide the numbers in an ROI analysis that includes the up front investments being made. No one could provide that, so you reverted to "you're too dumb to unerstand". Lame.

 

[jetsaholic]

In some cases the answers to those questions are improvements upon current capabilities and that justifies the expenditure, but that doesn't apply here....in many cases the answer is that military contractors have friends in congress. When the answer is the latter, then you have government waste.

Dude, do you realize how fukcing stupid you're sounding throughout this thread?

 

[UCFRogerz]

We've discussed the benefits and came to the conclusion that if you wanted to prove those benefits, you need to provide the numbers in an ROI analysis that includes the up front investments being made. No one could provide that, so you reverted to "you're too dumb to unerstand". Lame.

How can I justify the price tag when I don't know the specifics of the deal or plans for the F35? Unlike you, I don't claim to know because I don't know.

What I do know is my intuition and my intuition tells me that it is cheaper to maintain a 75% option vs 4 aging 100% options. If that isn't intuitive to you, I don't know what a detailed bullshit CBA would provide.

If you can't understand that simple thought, there is no need to further this conversation.

 

[UCFRogerz]

Actually no. Let's look at this, without dollar figures.

Intuitively, is it cheaper to:

1. Have the aircraft break down at a base where there is currently a squadron stationed OR
2. have an aircraft break down at a base where there is NOT currently a squadron stationed?

Answer is #1!

Option 2 would require specialized equipment, specialized maintenance personnel, parts, etc all to be flown/trucked in. This results in a more costly break down for both money AND time.

Now let's expand that to assume that most, if not all, bases will have F35s often enough to warrant MRO facilities...

Can you perform this incredible mental gymnastics?

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Can you imagine how pissed off EE would have been if he were around when the government started grading and widening horse trails so cars could use them?

 

[UCFEE]

Lol, so if I don't understand your gut feeling, there's no reason to even try to make a point.

I can help you if you want.

Estimate a reasonable and justified percentage of current O&M expense savings you would expect from commonality one JSF is in service. Apply that percentage to the current projected O&M spend over the JSF lifetimeand there's your cost savings over time.

Apply any project valuation formula you'd like using the known cost data and the estimated savings you calulated.

Is it a positive or negative value?

If it's positive, you win!

 

[brahmanknight]

The differences between an attack helicopter and a fighter jet are too obvious to need an answer, and since my point has not been related to differences between individual aircraft but overall capability the answer hasn't been relevant. But if you want to compare differences in capability, here are the highlights of some current aircraft we have in service. I want you to tell me what NEW capability that F-35 is adding to this. The one and only thing I could identify is the air-to-ground capacity being higher for a stealth aircraft, but once you strap anything to the external hardpoints the stealth capability becomes moot.

So for the $1+ trillion dollar (and growing) price tag, what new capability are we providing the U.S. military? That question becomes more relavent when you consider sk8's point that actual NEW unmanned technologies are going to be qual'd before this pit even EOLs.

Aircraft Capability Armaments Performance
AH-64 Close Combat Attack, VTOL, Hover Anti-Armor, Covering Force, Escort 197 kts, Range 257 miles, Combat Radius: 260 miles
B-2 Stealth Bomber Internal up to 40,000 lbs Mach 1, Range: 6,000 miles
F-15 Multirole fighter Air-to-Air, Air-to-Surface, Bomber (up to 23,000 lbs) Mach 2.5, Range 1,600 miles, Combat Radius: 790 miles
F/A-18E/F Carrier-borne multirole fighter Air-to-Air, Air-to-Surface, Anti-Ship Mach 1.5, Range 1,100 miles, Combat Radius: 400 miles
F-22 Stealth, carrier-borne Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground Internal 2x 1000 lbs or 4x 250 lbs, External 4x 5,000 lbs external Mach 2.2, Range 1,600 miles, Combat Radius: 450 miles
F-35 Stealth, carrier-borne, VTOL, Hover Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground Internal 2x 3,000 lbs Extenal 2x 15,000 Mach 1.6, Range 1,200 miles, Combat Radius: 613 miles

Now, this is a response we can work with.

The new capability is a modern aircraft that flies faster than an attack helo, but can also defend itself in air-to-air attacks. Can the F-22 do that job? Yes. But it's focus is air superiority. Don't forget about more advanced avionics for the pilots, and stronger integration into the current digital warspace. Plus supercruise ability ( supersonic speed without using afterburners ).

There is also the international nature of the k project, with different partners paying to help bring the unit cost down ( in theory ) and allowing our allies to have a stealthy fighter bomber. We aren't likely to export the F-22, and with aerospace lately ( last 30 years or so ) being the biggest export ( in dollars ) for the US, it also helps in trade balance ( not that politicians really care about that ).

Just because we are still flying B-52's 50+ years after IOC, it doesn't mean it should be done that way with other aerospace projects.

So you have a package that can VTOL, STOL, fight air and ground, supercruise, with better avionics, with some of our allies tossing in cash, all in one package with only one pilot.

As for the waste argument, you are correct. But we only have two companies that build fighters, so that is no choice but to go with them. The F-117 is the latest major aerospace project I can think of that came in at or below budget. Hell, the 747 and A-380 both reportedly streesed the firms that built them well into the red. We don't know if this will become the F-111 fiasco or turn in some success by dialling down some capabilities such as the Future Imaging Architechure ( I can't spell, deal with it ). This is a complex system engineering case. What other choice do we have if we want our armed forces to be able to counter global threats? Continue using equipment that is older than most of the pilots who will fly the machine?

Drones will eventually replace humans, no doubt about it. But not right now. They cannot do any of the F-35's ( or other aircraft you noted ) roles at the moment. Or in the medium term future.

Another factor to consider is this lets us retire older planes. A lot of man hours have to be used to perform maintenance and major rebuilds of those older planes, and at some point, it's cheaper to build a replacement. Even in the early 2000's, the space shuttle had parts that needed to be replaced, but the vendors didn't even make those parts anymore. That's only 20 years after introduction. The AV-8B Harrier, no matter how much we tried to fix it, still had a higher crash rate than other planes in its role.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

The car didn't do anything a horse and buggy couldn't.

The light bulb didn't do anything a candle couldn't.

The smart phone didn't do anything a computer, telephone, mp3 player, gps and radio couldn't.

The motorcycle didn't do anything a bicycle couldn't.

The atomic bomb didn't do anything 100,000 dead American soldiers couldn't.

 

[UCFRogerz]

Lol, so if I don't understand your gut feeling, there's no reason to even try to make a point.

I can help you if you want.

Estimate a reasonable and justified percentage of current O&M expense savings you would expect from commonality one JSF is in service. Apply that percentage to the current projected O&M spend over the JSF lifetimeand there's your cost savings over time.

Apply any project valuation formula you'd like using the known cost data and the estimated savings you calulated.

Is it a positive or negative value?

If it's positive, you win!

And if it is negative you win! We both don't know dick about the following:

1. Current O&M costs of the F35 (hell, the AF doesn't even have a clue yet)
2. Current O&M costs of every other aircraft
3. Current O&M costs of each aircraft the F35 is expected to replace
4. Number of aircraft the F35 is replacing
5. Amount of time/effort saved
6. Probability of failure for the aircraft (and all others!)
7. ...I could go on as to why this is stupid.

So you want me to use bullshit numbers to prove or disprove a bullshit statement you made? No. I don't need to make a business case for the F35 because someone already did.

Bullshit numbers do nothing but create more bullshit.

You cannot agree that it is most likely (i won't use "intuitive") cheaper in the long run to use 1 aircraft vs 4.

I. Am. Done.

 

[jetsaholic]

So, by EE's reasoning, don't spend money on upgrading. Upgrading is bad.

 

[UCFEE]

So there's a post with fair points that's actually not boring!

I still can't justify F-35s expense based on upgraded avionics from the F-22 alone. A retrofit of the F-22 with modern avionics would be a much less expensive and easier to predict operation. Also, is there a difference in the F-35 supercruise capability? This isn't a new technology, and I believe we have planes with this capability already as well.

The international trade point was valid at the beginning of the project, but how many more failing tests can our allies hang through? If the project were executed correctly, this would be fair to consider but failed execution (often seen with gov't contractors working on a CP contract) has made it moot. If I thought for a second that LMCO really tried it's damnedest to execute at cost and schedule I might lay off a bit, but from my experience with LMCO I don't think that's the case. I think PMs knew from the beginning that the thing would not be developed at the initial cost projections, and went through their normal mode of operation of being vauge on the requirements, and later saying "Oh, that's not what this requirement said, but if you give us more money we can make it say that!". Again, I have reasons to be extremely skeptical of programs I see massive amounts of money over and beyond budget being dumped in to.

We'll see over time. If this thing gets in operation (and actually flies a mission, we haven't even flown a combat mission with the F-22 yet), and it can actually be fixed to perform in air-to-air situations without dumping multiple billions more dollars in to the project you can claim some success in saying that we've modernized... But I'd still question the cost and benefit when other options could have been on the table, and with better unmanned technologies on the heels of this development.

 

[UCFEE]

And if it is negative you win! We both don't know dick about the following:

1. Current O&M costs of the F35 (hell, the AF doesn't even have a clue yet)
2. Current O&M costs of every other aircraft
3. Current O&M costs of each aircraft the F35 is expected to replace
4. Number of aircraft the F35 is replacing
5. Amount of time/effort saved
6. Probability of failure for the aircraft (and all others!)
7. ...I could go on as to why this is stupid.

So you want me to use bullshit numbers to prove or disprove a bullshit statement you made? No. I don't need to make a business case for the F35 because someone already did.

Bullshit numbers do nothing but create more bullshit.

You cannot agree that it is most likely (i won't use "intuitive") cheaper in the long run to use 1 aircraft vs 4.

I. Am. Done.

So you just outlined some of the major problems we have with defense spending. Nobody has a clue! If you can't provide some kind of valuation of a project, then you shouldn't invest in that project! That goes back to my initial point: if you're going to rail on non-defense spending, you better rail just as hard on defense spending.

Think I'm done too. Been fun.

 

[jetsaholic]

So there's a post with fair points that's actually not boring!

I still can't justify F-35s expense based on upgraded avionics from the F-22 alone. A retrofit of the F-22 with modern avionics would be a much less expensive and easier to predict operation. Also, is there a difference in the F-35 supercruise capability? This isn't a new technology, and I believe we have planes with this capability already as well.

The international trade point was valid at the beginning of the project, but how many more failing tests can our allies hang through? If the project were executed correctly, this would be fair to consider but failed execution (often seen with gov't contractors working on a CP contract) has made it moot. If I thought for a second that LMCO really tried it's damnedest to execute at cost and schedule I might lay off a bit, but from my experience with LMCO I don't think that's the case. I think PMs knew from the beginning that the thing would not be developed at the initial cost projections, and went through their normal mode of operation of being vauge on the requirements, and later saying "Oh, that's not what this requirement said, but if you give us more money we can make it say that!". Again, I have reasons to be extremely skeptical of programs I see massive amounts of money over and beyond budget being dumped in to.

We'll see over time. If this thing gets in operation (and actually flies a mission, we haven't even flown a combat mission with the F-22 yet), and it can actually be fixed to perform in air-to-air situations without dumping multiple billions more dollars in to the project you can claim some success in saying that we've modernized... But I'd still question the cost and benefit when other options could have been on the table, and with better unmanned technologies on the heels of this development.

A) Your points are boring
B) That's like saying you can't justify buying a new car with ABS, bluetooth, GPS, etc, over a Datsun 210, since they're both cars.
C) You ever heard of "running over budget to get the job done"?
D) Thank science we haven't had to.

... and ^^^that^^^ is the moral of the story.

 

[UCFRogerz]

So there's a post with fair points that's actually not boring!

I still can't justify F-35s expense based on upgraded avionics from the F-22 alone. A retrofit of the F-22 with modern avionics would be a much less expensive and easier to predict operation. Also, is there a difference in the F-35 supercruise capability? This isn't a new technology, and I believe we have planes with this capability already as well.

The international trade point was valid at the beginning of the project, but how many more failing tests can our allies hang through? If the project were executed correctly, this would be fair to consider but failed execution (often seen with gov't contractors working on a CP contract) has made it moot. If I thought for a second that LMCO really tried it's damnedest to execute at cost and schedule I might lay off a bit, but from my experience with LMCO I don't think that's the case. I think PMs knew from the beginning that the thing would not be developed at the initial cost projections, and went through their normal mode of operation of being vauge on the requirements, and later saying "Oh, that's not what this requirement said, but if you give us more money we can make it say that!". Again, I have reasons to be extremely skeptical of programs I see massive amounts of money over and beyond budget being dumped in to.

We'll see over time. If this thing gets in operation (and actually flies a mission, we haven't even flown a combat mission with the F-22 yet), and it can actually be fixed to perform in air-to-air situations without dumping multiple billions more dollars in to the project you can claim some success in saying that we've modernized... But I'd still question the cost and benefit when other options could have been on the table, and with better unmanned technologies on the heels of this development.

I've highlighted some of the bullshit statements you just made. Either it is pure speculation or just pure bullshit.

 

[sk8knight]

The international trade point was valid at the beginning of the project, but how many more failing tests can our allies hang through? If the project were executed correctly, this would be fair to consider but failed execution (often seen with gov't contractors working on a CP contract) has made it moot. If I thought for a second that LMCO really tried it's damnedest to execute at cost and schedule I might lay off a bit, but from my experience with LMCO I don't think that's the case. I think PMs knew from the beginning that the thing would not be developed at the initial cost projections, and went through their normal mode of operation of being vauge on the requirements, and later saying "Oh, that's not what this requirement said, but if you give us more money we can make it say that!". Again, I have reasons to be extremely skeptical of programs I see massive amounts of money over and beyond budget being dumped in to.

Now we're getting to the root of your dissent. Which is: Government good, Industry evil. This paragraph also more that clearly illustrates that your understanding of defense acquisition barely scratches the surface. Given that, I'm out. Have a great thread.

 

[brahmanknight]

So there's a post with fair points that's actually not boring!

I still can't justify F-35s expense based on upgraded avionics from the F-22 alone. A retrofit of the F-22 with modern avionics would be a much less expensive and easier to predict operation. Also, is there a difference in the F-35 supercruise capability? This isn't a new technology, and I believe we have planes with this capability already as well.

The international trade point was valid at the beginning of the project, but how many more failing tests can our allies hang through? If the project were executed correctly, this would be fair to consider but failed execution (often seen with gov't contractors working on a CP contract) has made it moot. If I thought for a second that LMCO really tried it's damnedest to execute at cost and schedule I might lay off a bit, but from my experience with LMCO I don't think that's the case. I think PMs knew from the beginning that the thing would not be developed at the initial cost projections, and went through their normal mode of operation of being vauge on the requirements, and later saying "Oh, that's not what this requirement said, but if you give us more money we can make it say that!". Again, I have reasons to be extremely skeptical of programs I see massive amounts of money over and beyond budget being dumped in to.

We'll see over time. If this thing gets in operation (and actually flies a mission, we haven't even flown a combat mission with the F-22 yet), and it can actually be fixed to perform in air-to-air situations without dumping multiple billions more dollars in to the project you can claim some success in saying that we've modernized... But I'd still question the cost and benefit when other options could have been on the table, and with better unmanned technologies on the heels of this development.

The F 22 is the only jef in service for the US with supercruise ability. Supercruise isn't a new capabily for the US, but only two other operational jets have ever done it. SR 71 in the early 60's F-22, and JSF.

 

[UCFKnight85]

It's literally impossible to argue with someone when EVERYTHING they say is wrong.

Holy shit.

 

[jetsaholic]

It's literally impossible to argue with someone when EVERYTHING they say is wrong.

Holy shit.

Seriously, dude, EE is like BS with aspergers.

 

[UCFEE]

I don't think I write as much as BS tho.

 

[jetsaholic]

I don't think I write as much as BS tho.

Not yet...

 

[UCFRogerz]

Seriously, dude, EE is like BS with aspergers.

I'm pretty sure BS is a sperg.

 

[jetsaholic]

I'm pretty sure BS is a sperg.

#racist

 

[UCF w00t]

Lockheed is quite aware of the pressures being placed on the F-35. They've already had deliveries cut. That's money lost to the company. Yes, development costs get split up among the aircraft produced so they don't take a hit there but if they sell a ton of the things to the US and foreign governments, Lockheed makes more money.

 

[ucflee]

To say that the F-35 doesn't bring anything new is wrong, wrong, wrong. The F-22, F-15, and F-16 can not land on a CVN, LHD, etc.

I believe that once the Navy/Marine Corps team has fully integrated the Bravo they will (and should already be) rethink how Expeditionary Strike Groups can be used in support of the National Security Strategy.

Consider sending an ESG loaded w/ F-35's vs. an entire CVN Battle Group to those "smaller" conflicts. That could result in some considerable savings vs. how things are done today. (weren't you guys complaining that we have to many CVNs?)

We no longer enjoy a large technology gap vs. our near-peers and even the not so near ones. Imagine our inventory of small flat tops, all allied carriers AND our CVNs out there with a common platform that allows sharing of targeting information (and logistics). Then go ahead and add in all of the Alphas .... while the technical capabilities of our advisories platforms may be as good, they would not be able to match our C4I and logistical advantages ... adding UAV and swarming UAV capabilities when they are ready to play a contested environment AND able to share information across the common network .. Raptors, Super Hornets, Harriers, Eagles, Vipers, Typhoons, etc. can not offer what the JSF program will.

 

[ucflee]

and then there is this: http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/

This aircraft is still in its infancy. Tactics, techniques, and procedures that key on strengths and minimize weaknesses are just starting to be developed. Taking one report and proclaiming that the F-35 is a piece of FOD (Foreign Object Debris) in the air-to-air arena is irresponsible and sensationalist at best. There are far too many other factors to look at.

For example, the test pilot was a former F-15E pilot. Two-bag Vipers do the same thing to Strike Eagles all day long. Maybe he was just used to it?1 I keed. I keed. But seriously, a guy with maybe 100 hours in the F-35 versus a guy with 1,500+ Viper hours? I’ve seen thousand-hour F-16 guys in two-bag D-models beat up on brand new wingmen in clean, single-seat jets. It happens. It’s the reality of the amount of experience in your given cockpit.

I’m sure internet debates will rage on. It’s fun to trash the new kid, especially the new kid that’s overweight, wears too much bling, and talks about how awesome it is all the time. It’s way too early to declare the F-35 the “worst fighter aircraft design ever imagined.” Please. Let’s see how it does when guys who are proficient in developed tactics do against guys with similar amounts of experience–the realm of the bros in the operational test or Weapons School environment.

There’s plenty of room to criticize this program, but accuracy is important. The sky isn’t really falling, Chicken Little. And for the rest of you? Blow out your torches and hang up your pitchforks, for we have miles to go.

 

[UCFhonors]

Maybe I'm wrong but aren't these planes built to completely avoid dog-fighting. They should never have to see an enemy plane.

I heard that before.

 

[UCF w00t]

The Marines officially declared the F-35B operational today.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/politics/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-operational/index.html

 

[ucflee]

crap ... how is that possible? It can't even STOVL ???