Trump suggests he would ditch F-35 in favor of cheaper plane

[Kellhound]

I couldn't be more pleased with this decision. I just recently completed a 5 month long academic financial analysis of Lockheed Martin, a large portion of which is relegated to F-35 expenses. The entire F-35 project has been botched from the get-go, and they only keep digging deeper (because the government allows them to. They're a business, after all.) Current plans have had LM expecting to effectively double down on purchases, and hoping the government buys in.

They aren't, and cannot divest the F-35 entirely, but dialing back production is almost absolutely a must. We have no fighters available except for the A-10 (everything else has been phased out for the currently grounded F-35), and the F-35 won't be viable for a good number of years. Reinstating manufacturing the F-18 was among one of the most highest rated strategies for LM (the others were outside the aerospace division).

Regardless of Trump opinions, this is a fantastic deal for the government to save money, have a functional air force, and save literally billions of dollars.

You want a wall? You want free (insert hot topic)? You want economic repair? Killing the F-35 is a multi-billion dollar step in that direction.

The US is still flying F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, and F-22s. They have hardly been phased out (they are actually being upgraded). The F-18 is still in production, and it is made by Boeing, not LM. It would be a total loss for LM if the DoD went with any legacy fighters except the F-22.

- - - Updated - - -

This is true. Training would be expensive but it may open job opportunities or transfers from elsewhere.

While technically true... one way produces a flyable plane, the other does not. None of those systems are useful if you can't get the plane in the air.

I dunno. The F-18 is still in manufacture. The F-35 is still in development. I think there's a much larger price ticket to get the F-35 up and going, on top of its already huge budget.

Honestly, I'm just happy they're backing out of the F-35. Whoever thought having a single brand, single product system for the entire fighter fleet was an idiot.

i'd be entirely happy if they split it between F-35 currently in production, and maybe the F-15E. Get the monopoly out of Lockheed's grasp.

The F-18 is the wrong choice for the USAF. F-15SEs would make some sense, but they would need developed further.

The F-35 is in the air, in about the same numbers as the F-22.

Lockheed doesnt have a monopoly, Boeing is still making F-18s.

[Moadar]

I wonder what would be more cost effective building expensive super jets or swarms of cheap expendable drones? I realize a pilot could blow up a drone easy but what about ten of them at a time? Also I assume the drones could pull off maneuvers a human couldn't because of g-force. Damn things could have an air frame made of plastic and costs a lot less if the idea was for them to be expendable. Could even perform kamikaze style attacks.

[Ulmita]

First, you are comparing the unit cost of the F-18 from several years ago against the preproduction costs of the F-35.
Second, the F-35 is more advanced and has overall superior performance to the F-18E (especially the F-35A). Bringing the F-18 to the same level of avionics will remove most if not all cost savings.
Third, the F-18 cannot replace the AV-8B.

Most of that trillion dollars either has already been spent in R&D or (and this is by far the biggest chunk) represents operating cost over 50+ years of planned service.

I was wrong in all fronts. I was wrong with the cost of the F-18 and i was wrong with the cost of the F-35.

The article here explain how the cost of a single F-35 is almost 200Mln a piece

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...-control-18826

With the production data, we can calculate a F-35A has a price tag of $157 million, not $102 million. It’s $265 million for a F-35B and $355 million for a F-35C, not $132 million for either variant.
On average, these F-35s cost $188 million apiece, not $122 million.

- - - Updated - - -

The book covers only to FY-13 for F-18E/F procurement.

The F-18 is inferior in BVR to the F-15, and stands no chance against a F-22.

And still the Growler is said to be the only airplane able to score a kill on an F-22 BVR (because in close range there are several airplanes that can out-dog fight it)

[Deleted]

Only sensible thing I heard from him, wish my country hadn't ordered those pieces of expensive shit.

What's worse, they are completely useless for Denmark - You don't need a stealth anything, and certainly not a strike fighter.

[Kellhound]

I was wrong in all fronts. I was wrong with the cost of the F-18 and i was wrong with the cost of the F-35.

The article here explain how the cost of a single F-35 is almost 200Mln a piece

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...-control-18826


- - - Updated - - -



And still the Growler is said to be the only airplane able to score a kill on an F-22 BVR (because in close range there are several airplanes that can out-dog fight it)

"For the F-35 program, 2016 has been a year of highs and lows. A recently-announced contract for lot 9 secured the lowest unit prices yet — for the most part. The contract set a price of $102.1 million per A model and $131.6 million per B model, down from about $108 million and $134 million, respectively. However, a smaller Navy order for only two F-35Cs caused unit prices to rise by $3.2 million to $132.2 million per aircraft. " http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...ontrol-program That is the actual fly away price for 2016 LRIP


A Growler is an EA-18G. To achieve victory the EA-18 would have to rely 100% on ESM and ECM, including against the F-22's missiles (and it would have to know more about the F-22 than the F-22's pilot). However, in doing so it would be screaming at the top of its lungs to every other fighter out there "HERE I AM!!! SHOOT ME!"

IVR is not the same as dog fighting. We have been over how dog fighting means the US pilot totally fucked up, and we have also been over the fact that most fighters are now armed with IVR missiles that negate aircraft maneuverability except in gross mismatches (and even then it isnt a given anymore).

[Ulmita]

"For the F-35 program, 2016 has been a year of highs and lows. A recently-announced contract for lot 9 secured the lowest unit prices yet — for the most part. The contract set a price of $102.1 million per A model and $131.6 million per B model, down from about $108 million and $134 million, respectively. However, a smaller Navy order for only two F-35Cs caused unit prices to rise by $3.2 million to $132.2 million per aircraft. " http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...ontrol-program That is the actual fly away price for 2016 LRIP

Does it matter that this is the price for a fly away price for 2016? It wont be that price. The article clearly states what is going on. And again, i am not here to argue for the capabilities of the airplane. I am arguing for the total program costs as well as the opportunity costs

A Growler is an EA-18G. To achieve victory the EA-18 would have to rely 100% on ESM and ECM, including against the F-22's missiles (and it would have to know more about the F-22 than the F-22's pilot). However, in doing so it would be screaming at the top of its lungs to every other fighter out there "HERE I AM!!! SHOOT ME!"

Sure thing. But you wont send in the F-18 w/t escorts, w/t F-22s. Kell, USA's interest would be the F-22 program restart, the modernization of the existing F-22s as well as lots of growlers to escort. This makes sense. F-35 doesn't. Why are you defending against the obvious?

IVR is not the same as dog fighting. We have been over how dog fighting means the US pilot totally fucked up, and we have also been over the fact that most fighters are now armed with IVR missiles that negate aircraft maneuverability except in gross mismatches (and even then it isnt a given anymore).

No Kell. You have scenarios in your head that don't add up. BVR in a heavy electromagnetic environment might not (and will not) wield the results you believe it will. I am guessing (as well as anyone else) that there will be tons of bvr (> 30km) in case of a full out ware with a major military power like Russia and in a lesser extend China. Stealth looses its potency when used from attacking forces and its most potent when defending.

[Charge me Doctor]

Deserves a re-post of this, which I started a thread about a week or so ago



Somebody dumps 869 shares, worth roughly roughly $25 Million, in Lockheed Martin mere minutes before Trump takes to twitter? Somehow, I don't think that is a coincidence.

that's economics for you. I find it quite scary that a single tweet can make people just go nuts with money

[Thunderball]

It is far from useless, it is perfectly good for its intended purpose, a strike fighter and a Harrier replacement. It was never intended to be an air superiority fighter.

Stealth (as in sacrificing attack capabilities for reduced RCS) is completely useless for a strike fighter in a present military tech situation. Anyone who has even a slightest threat to be the target of US military has an option to buy an S-300P or a comparable Chinese air defense system. A completely different story for an air superiority fighter like an F-22. Thing is - other than being a stealth attack fighter F-35 doesnt offer anything new... Well probably data link networking is new for USAF, but those technologies have been used for a long time, and are being successfully integrated to existing designs via mid-life upgrades.

[Kuntantee]

Trump trying to stick his nose in where it isn't needed just does more harm than good.

Let me remind you that he's the president of United States.

[Xanjori]

Let me remind you that he's the president of United States.

And?

[Skroe]

The F35 is not cheaper as pointed out by several people the 98 million quote for the F35A is wrong.

The F35A costs 157 million
The F22 costs 150 million

Even if it wasn't and the F22 is more expensive individually so what? Its a better plane, its finished, and has no operation or software bugs.

It would be cheaper in the long run to just produce and operate a few hundred F22's than to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars finishing the F35.

Holy crap this is so wrong from top to bottom.


First, the F-35A is $98 million and falling. That's the unit cost. The total cost of a F-35A including R&D is ~$150 million. The unit cost of the F-22 in the last lot (in 2010) was $120 million. But including R&D it was over $400 million. Furthermore every F-22 requires two F119 engines + spares, while every F-35A requires one F135 engine (a F119 deritive), adn those are independent costs.

Secondly, The F-22A is already 15 years old and the Air Force is beginning plans on replacing it. Some aspects of it are far older. It lacks the sensor fusion and advanced cockput of the F-35. It's electronics, avionics, and internal configuration are more advanced than everything not named F-35, but significantly less advanced than the F-35. It's airframe and engines and total package make it the best Air superiority fighter in the world, but on the sheer evaluation of the technical capabilities of the F-22, it is at least half a generation behind the F-35.

In other words the F-35 is what came next, after the F-22. Many of it's systems are evolved versions that incorporate lessons from the F-22. It is a more advanced plane... just one in an airframe worse at the air superiority job.

Thirdly, last year Congress ordered the Air Force to research an F-22 restart. The report will be delievered in 2017 sometime. But a restart would take one of two possible forms.

(1) Restarting the F-22A production line. This would be difficult because many of the computer systems (like the Cray's) and engine components of the F119 havent been manufactured in years and would have to be reconstituted from scratch. Furthermore the entire material supply base moved on to other programs (especially the F-35). When the Navy decided to cancel the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class at 3 ships and restart Arleigh Burke Destroyer production, restarting that program took five years and cost billions more than expected... and they're just NOW getting it right. Funny thing: the shipyards simply didn't have enough trained electricians and wielders to do everything they were contracted to do, plus the Burke and they had to train them. And that takes time.

(2) Take as much F-35 tech as possible and put it in the F-22 Air frame and create the F-22C. It would be much more advanced than the F-22A, likely lose (the rather useless) thrust vectoring, and incorporate sensor fusion + IRST, a helment mounted display, less maintence intensive stealth, modern computers, artificial intellgience and so forth. It would also take about 5+ years and $30 billion to accomplish for 100 more planes. Furthermore it would make the existing F-22A largely obsolete and the Air Force would likely want to procure far more F-22Cs and move the F-22A to the ANG in order to simplify maintance logistics. There is also no room in the budget for it without more money (which it could very well get).

The F-22 is also an air superiority aircraft, not a strike aircraft. The logical replacement for the F-35 in a strike role is a stealthy advanced capability drone. The Navy is likely going to do that anyway one day. It is not the F-22.


Furthremore the F-22 has its own set of problems. One reason it wasn't exported to Japan is because, contrary to your assertion, the F-22 software is a gigantic bug itself. It is obscure computers, programmed in ADA, over 20 years. It is so poorly documented that the Air Force basically gave up trying to isolate all the security holes in it. One of the reasons the F-35's software has been so complicated and protracted is because of lessons learned from the F-22 experience in this regard. But a security concern with the F-22 is export would allow an adversary to gain access to an F-22 and devise an cyberattack to disable them.

An F-22 restart would almost certainly require an all new computer solution and all new software, even if the full "F-22C" route was not selected.


Lastly the US fighter requirement is for 1200 fighters, and that will likely go up in coming years to 1500 or 1700. Right now that is filled by 183 F-22s (125 combat coded), ~192 F-15Cs, about 950 F-16s. The Air Force is currently retiring about 100-200 F-16s a year and has slashed the F-15C fleet in half in the last half decade. By 2024, the expectation is that there will be ~400 F-16s in service, that will last until 2030 before final retirement.

http://index.heritage.org/military/2.../us-air-force/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...itary_aircraft

The F-16 and F-15 are getting old. The F-22 is too big a plane to replace the hugely numerous F-16 with. It would be logical to replace the F-15's with the F-22 eventually (and get a fleet of ~400 F-22s), but that said, the F-15 with the latest "Golden Eagle" upgrade will be a great companion to the F-22, and in any event, F-35 / Drones + the Arsenal plane missiler may be better than any single-airframe air superiority solution.

http://www.scout.com/military/warrio...with-f-35-f-22


Besides, the US is in a sense, about to build something that could be just the ticket if you want a cheap lightweight fighter to replace the F-16 and COMPLIMENT the F-22 in numbers... and you don't want to buy 1700 F-35s. The T-X program. The venerable T-38 Talon trainer is aging out and needs to be replaced. To that end the USAF is looking to buy a replacement, the "T-X".

These are the two leading contenders. They will look very familiar.

The Lockheed Martin/KAI T-50A Golden Eagle



This is a US-South Korean collaboration.

The Boeing / Saab T-X (name forthcoming, unveiled this week)


And as a bonus, here's leaked pictures of the Northrop entry in T-X.



Boy... those have a certain look to them... don't they? You bet they do. The T-50, as the FA-50 is used as a light-multirole aircraft by the South Korean Air Force. Both have a big nose, fit for a AESA radar. Both have a bubble canopy. Both have a highly aerodynamic design, the T-50's very similar to the F-16 and the Boeing T-X very similar to the F-22 and F/A-18, and is a collaboration with Saab and has Gripen elements as well. In terms of proven performance, the T-50 can go to over 8 gs and up to Mach 1.5. Engine wise, both use a single the General Electric F404, the engine of the F/A-18, Dassault Rafale.

Let me put it simply: you're looking at something way, way above a mere trainer. You're looking at "F-16 II". The USAF is buying a Lightweight Fighter under the guise of the T-X Trainer program. That the T-50 is used in such a role already, elsewhere, is evidence of this. Because there are far cheaper, less capable "Trainers" ready for production such as the T-45, the M-346 or BAE Hawk. Instead, the T-50 is being modified upwards for the US competition and the Boeing T-X (my favored design) is all new. And that's because it's a backdoor program. The Air Force plans to buy at least 1000 of these things. That number is not an accident. There are currently around 500 T-38s in service. The Air Force plans to keep about 500 F-16s once F-35 enters full production. Put that together, you get your 1000.

But the thing is, these things would be useless in an A2/AD environment. An F-35 wouldn't be. So you'd want both.

Expect the Thunderbirds of the future to be flying these, rather than F-35s.

- - - Updated - - -

This is true. Training would be expensive but it may open job opportunities or transfers from elsewhere.

While technically true... one way produces a flyable plane, the other does not. None of those systems are useful if you can't get the plane in the air.

You dismiss something utterly critical to the US's power projection capability.

In 2016 non-stealthy fighters are more vulnerable than ever operating in contested air space. Stealth Air Craft - the F-35, the F-22, the B-2 and one day the B-21, along with any stealthy drones - will be the ONLY way the US is able to strike deep in land on Eurasia in years to come thanks to the big wall of air defenses Russia, China and Iran are throwing up.

Without stealth penetrating aircraft, the US ability to strike at will anywhere in the globe, which is a cornerstone of our defense strategy, will become an object of history rather than a reality.

The Navy needs F-35s or something like it, to keep carriers viable. In fact the best option for the navy might been long range stealthy drones that allow carriers to be further off shore than ever. But such a drone will cost more than the F-35 and be rather larger.

The Air Force is building the B-21 Raider stealth bomber, but it will buy a maximum of 200 of those. In order to have an effective strike arm larger than 200, it needs a stealthy light or medium aircraft to replace the 900 F-16s in service. That is the F-35. You would replace the F-35 with something very much like it. Replacing the F-35 with the F/A-18 would mean that the only way the Air Force could strike into Eurasia is with our 20 B-2s, the 200 B-21s we'll have by 2040 (likely not more than 40 before 2030) and the 125 combat coded F-22s.

In summary replacing the F-35 with anything that isn't stealthy is a non-starter. It simply wont happen anyway. It's incredibly protected.

[Mormolyce]

I dunno. The F-18 is still in manufacture. The F-35 is still in development. I think there's a much larger price ticket to get the F-35 up and going, on top of its already huge budget.

Honestly, I'm just happy they're backing out of the F-35. Whoever thought having a single brand, single product system for the entire fighter fleet was an idiot.

i'd be entirely happy if they split it between F-35 currently in production, and maybe the F-15E. Get the monopoly out of Lockheed's grasp.

Weren't they declared ready for deployment a year ago and combat ready since August?

This monopoly line is pretty funny though, considering low competition for government construction contracts is exactly how Trump's father built the entire fortune he inherited.

[Skroe]

Let me remind you that he's the president of United States.

The President of the United States doesn't have the authority to unilaterally cancel programs. He can request congress defund it in the next budget, but Congress hasn't followed the President's budget for years.

And this is why Congress won't allow that to happen:




Top three states are Texas, California and Florida. That's a lot of Congressmen.

- - - Updated - - -

This is true. Training would be expensive but it may open job opportunities or transfers from elsewhere.

While technically true... one way produces a flyable plane, the other does not. None of those systems are useful if you can't get the plane in the air.

I dunno. The F-18 is still in manufacture. The F-35 is still in development. I think there's a much larger price ticket to get the F-35 up and going, on top of its already huge budget.

Honestly, I'm just happy they're backing out of the F-35. Whoever thought having a single brand, single product system for the entire fighter fleet was an idiot.

i'd be entirely happy if they split it between F-35 currently in production, and maybe the F-15E. Get the monopoly out of Lockheed's grasp.

The best solution is to continue the F-35 order, and restart the F-22 with F-35 tech inside as the F-35C. But have Boeing build the F-22C instead of lockheed to diversify the industrial base.

Boeing built a large portion of the F-22 to begin with.

[Mormolyce]

Let me remind you that he's the president of United States.

Exactly why he needs to shut the fuck up.

[Deleted]

Besides, the US is in a sense, about to build something that could be just the ticket if you want a cheap lightweight fighter to replace the F-16 and COMPLIMENT the F-22 in numbers... and you don't want to buy 1700 F-35s. The T-X program. The venerable T-38 Talon trainer is aging out and needs to be replaced. To that end the USAF is looking to buy a replacement, the "T-X".

The Boeing / Saab T-X (name forthcoming, unveiled this week)

For our previous exchange, its just me that thinks designing 100% of aircraft to accommodate 10 is stupid.
But this brought out the curiosity in me, i have been aware of the Saab/Boeing aircraft, but what i always wondered over was why Boeing partners with Saab?

[Kuntantee]

And?

He's not sticking his nose to the matters he's not supposed to.

[Xanjori]

He's not sticking his nose to the matters he's not supposed to.

Uh, yes he is.

[Kuntantee]

Uh, yes he is.

Whatever you say man.

[Kellhound]

Does it matter that this is the price for a fly away price for 2016? It wont be that price. The article clearly states what is going on. And again, i am not here to argue for the capabilities of the airplane. I am arguing for the total program costs as well as the opportunity costs



Sure thing. But you wont send in the F-18 w/t escorts, w/t F-22s. Kell, USA's interest would be the F-22 program restart, the modernization of the existing F-22s as well as lots of growlers to escort. This makes sense. F-35 doesn't. Why are you defending against the obvious?



No Kell. You have scenarios in your head that don't add up. BVR in a heavy electromagnetic environment might not (and will not) wield the results you believe it will. I am guessing (as well as anyone else) that there will be tons of bvr (> 30km) in case of a full out ware with a major military power like Russia and in a lesser extend China. Stealth looses its potency when used from attacking forces and its most potent when defending.

It WAS that price. That article was fast and loose with numbers to make it agree with the opinion of the writer. You are comparing total lifetime program costs of one plane against the fly away costs of another.

The obvious is you are comparing aircraft with two different missions, and assuming I am against restart of the F-22 to replace the F-15Cs. For the n-th time, THE F-35 IS NOT AND NEVER WAS INTENDED TO BE AN AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER! The F-22 is 50% more expensive to fly than the F-35, so if you bought the same number of F-22s as F-35s the program costs would make the F-35 look like a bargain.

ECM is a double edged sword, but one that favours the US. Your understanding of ECM and military aviation in general is so limited you cant even do the equivalent of 1+1=2 in the field, let alone advanced concepts. Stealth does not loose its potency in the attack by the way.

- - - Updated - - -

Stealth (as in sacrificing attack capabilities for reduced RCS) is completely useless for a strike fighter in a present military tech situation. Anyone who has even a slightest threat to be the target of US military has an option to buy an S-300P or a comparable Chinese air defense system. A completely different story for an air superiority fighter like an F-22. Thing is - other than being a stealth attack fighter F-35 doesnt offer anything new... Well probably data link networking is new for USAF, but those technologies have been used for a long time, and are being successfully integrated to existing designs via mid-life upgrades.

The RCS of a stealth fighter is an advantage against any foe with air defenses. The F-35 has a large number of new (non stealth based) technology, which is one of the major cost factors. Once legacy airframes are fitted with the same systems, their costs no longer are so low as to be a clear advantage. Also, the F-35, in a low threat environment, can carry 18,000lbs of ordnance.

[I Push Buttons]

Stealth (as in sacrificing attack capabilities for reduced RCS) is completely useless for a strike fighter in a present military tech situation. Anyone who has even a slightest threat to be the target of US military has an option to buy an S-300P or a comparable Chinese air defense system. A completely different story for an air superiority fighter like an F-22. Thing is - other than being a stealth attack fighter F-35 doesnt offer anything new... Well probably data link networking is new for USAF, but those technologies have been used for a long time, and are being successfully integrated to existing designs via mid-life upgrades.

It offers economy of scale.