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

[Gorgodeus]

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.

Say what?

Only 16 hours after landing in Nevatim AFB, the first two “Adir” (F-35I) stealth fighters took off for their first sortie in Israeli skies. The hour-long sortie was escorted by “Sufa” (F-16I) fighters. “This morning, our men woke up to a new day and a new era”
Zohar Boneh

Only 16 hours after landing in Israel, the “Adir” (F-35I) stealth fighters took off for their first sortie, escorted by “Sufa” (F-16I) fighters. This time, the jets were flown by Lt. Col. Yotam, the Commander of the “Golden Eagle” Squadron and Maj. D’, his Deputy and not by American pilots, as they were yesterday.

http://www.iaf.org.il/4454-48800-en/IAF.aspx

[CostinR]

The Israeli F-35 fighters are modified Israeli versions with a good portion of their own locally made parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhe...standard_F-35A

Read this.

Say what?

Read your own article:

In addition to the squadron’s tight schedule from the moment the jet landed to the first takeoff, the IAF has declared yet another goal: operational capability in December 2017. In order to meet this goal, the squadron members have began working around the clock and operating in accordance with the busy training program. “We will first make sure that we can provide the appropriate environment - safety wise - for the jet’s activity, train ourselves and develop combat doctrines”,

[Gorgodeus]

The Israeli F-35 fighters are modified Israeli versions with a good portion of their own locally made parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhe...standard_F-35A

Read this.



Read your own article:

Israel has always modified the aircraft bought from us. This does not mean that the F35 is not ready to fly, as the poster I was replying to was trying to imply.

[Deleted]

It offers economy of scale.

No it really doesn't.

[I Push Buttons]

No it really doesn't.

So you have already lived the next fifty years of this plane's life?

[Gorgodeus]

No it really doesn't.

The nine major partner nations, including the U.S., plan to acquire over 3,100 F-35s through 2035, which will make the F-35 one of the most numerous jet fighters.

That was also before some countries agreed to order additional F35s.

[Skroe]

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?

Saab Group is an an independent company from the car company, although historically they share the same logo. Boeing partnered with them because of their expertise with the Gripen.

The Gripen is a pretty fantastic aircraft in some regards. A key requirement was that it be able to be serviced by as few as two conscripts in an improvised airstrip. This means that the internal design of the Gripen is re-known for being extremely maintenance friendly. The bolts and access areas require simple, lightweight tools. It's very modular. It's components can be swapped out very quickly. By comparison, contemporary USAF fighters like the F-16, while more maintenance friendly than their predecessors, still require the infrastructure of air bases and highly trained professionals that you'd expect at an Air Force base. Sweden needed to build an aircraft that took into account its more modest ability to sustain the Gripen fleet in war time.

But regardless, the Gripen kind of set a new standard. The F-35, though Saab had nothing to do with it, has become extremely popular with US maintainers because of it's maintainability is informed by the Gripen experience. With the Boeing T-X, Boeing brought Saab in explicitly to incorporate Gripen-style internal engineering into an aircraft that, if even the USAF doesn't option it (it's rather likely the Lockheed T-50 will win in my opinion), Boeing/Lockheed will have a trainer that can compete internationally and not require a huge logistical footprint to support it among less-budgeted armed forces.

What's spurring all of this by the way is that the T-38 Talon (very similar to an F-5E) is getting absurdly old and there is increasing demand for trainer aircraft in the US and Europe, especially since the cost of Generation 4.5 and Generation 5 fighters has become so great that inventories have depreciated. Much training with the F-35, for example, will be done via simulator, which is one reason the Lockheed T-50 is the likely choice for the USAF T-X program: it'll be able to handle much like the F-35 (even though it is in so many ways "F-16 Version 2").

The T-X program is a huge buy (1000 air frames, far more than the T-38) and the aircraft being proposed are hysterically overkill in terms of capability for what they're doing. It's a program to watch, because as it stands, a decade from now the USAF will be buying 100 F-35As, 50 T-Xs, 20 B-21s and prototyping F-X every year. It stinks like a backdoor to a second lightweight fighter program to add air frame numbers to get around the F-35's cost.

But getting back to my previous comment, Lockheed building it would just be more of the same old airframe monopoly it enjoys, which makes you think "Boeing should get it instead", although there are excellent reasons to choose the Lockheed T-50 over the newer, less proven Boeing T-X. Which is why I think no matter this, is the USAF does decide this year to restart F-22 production (a tough call in itself), it really needs to make Boeing the lead contractor on it.

But anyone interested in the F-35 going forward needs to keep on eye on the T-X program and T-50 in particular.

[chazus]

Israel has always modified the aircraft bought from us. This does not mean that the F35 is not ready to fly, as the poster I was replying to was trying to imply.

It is not ready to fly, per our air force.

If I give you a car, and say it doesn't run quite right, and you go drive it anyway, that doesn't mean it's 'fine'. They made modifications and it still doesn't fit our safety specs. That doesn't mean someone can't go take it in the air. Chances are, they probably replaced a bunch of stuff, including things that aren't working right, with their own hardware. They may also have looser safety restrictions. Granted, the most recent grounding was due to a wiring issue, but that's just one of like eight major groundings. All we need to do is wait til they're back in the air again in a few months to discover the next problem.

[Skroe]

The nine major partner nations, including the U.S., plan to acquire over 3,100 F-35s through 2035, which will make the F-35 one of the most numerous jet fighters.

That was also before some countries agreed to order additional F35s.

It's also worth noting that the F-35s procured now and a decade from now are quite different.

Nominally the USAF will procure 1700 F-35As. In reality, it will likely be around 600 F-35As, before taking advantage to the ADVENT / AETP engine program in the mid 2020s, modernizing the F-35 as a whole, and continuing the buy with another 600+ "F-35 D/E/F". This is exactly what happened with the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. Every criticism about F-35 engine and tech shortcomings forgets how troubled the A/B models of all three aircraft were before later blocks and the C/D models refined so much about them.




GE's entry into ADVENT / AETP is based on the canceled F136 engine that was proposed as an alternative to the F135 engine in the F-35, before Congress foolishly de-funded it.



Oh and it's not just CG.

[Deleted]

So you have already lived the next fifty years of this plane's life?

I know it wont have great economies of scale, because it isn't and wont, be the mainstay of the US air-force.
This isn't me saying its a garbage aircraft, its me saying this aircraft wont be built in the kind of numbers to justify it being called 'economies of scale'.

[I Push Buttons]

I know it wont have great economies of scale, because it isn't and wont, be the mainstay of the US air-force.
This isn't me saying its a garbage aircraft, its me saying this aircraft wont be built in the kind of numbers to justify it being called 'economies of scale'.

The entire point of this aircraft was economy of scale. To have one air frame fulfilling a multitude of roles rather than a multitude of air frames fulfilling each individual role.

To argue that it won't be cheaper per aircraft to build and maintain thousands of very similar planes compared to one hundred of this plane, one hundred of that plane, six hundred of another plane, etc., etc., for a dozen different planes is absurd.

[Deleted]

Saab Group is an an independent company from the car company, although historically they share the same logo. Boeing partnered with them because of their expertise with the Gripen.

I did know that bit
- Well the rest made sense, and explains why Saab was brought in, they do bring a rather unique perspective to Aircraft construction.

- - - Updated - - -

The entire point of this aircraft was economy of scale. To have one air frame fulfilling a multitude of roles rather than a multitude of air frames fulfilling each individual role.

but rather poorly.
Its not a great fighter, its not a good interceptor, it doesn't have the best range, and its silly expensive.

To argue that it won't be cheaper per aircraft to build and maintain thousands of very similar planes compared to one hundred of this plane, one hundred of that plane, six hundred of another plane, etc., etc., for a dozen different planes is absurd.

Given its expense and performance, i don't think they will manage to sell as many as they think - Regardless, It wont ever be a 'cheap' aircraft, so no, 'economies of scale' can go away.

[Pane34]

It is not ready to fly, per our air force.

If I give you a car, and say it doesn't run quite right, and you go drive it anyway, that doesn't mean it's 'fine'. They made modifications and it still doesn't fit our safety specs. That doesn't mean someone can't go take it in the air. Chances are, they probably replaced a bunch of stuff, including things that aren't working right, with their own hardware. They may also have looser safety restrictions. Granted, the most recent grounding was due to a wiring issue, but that's just one of like eight major groundings. All we need to do is wait til they're back in the air again in a few months to discover the next problem.

The Air Force already declared IOC for the F-35.

The latest problem was with insulation and is a quality issue, not a design issue, which was already resolved.

There has been some severe groundings like the engine fire, but for the most part, the jet is down for planned major modifications. Major modifications sound good in the newspaper but are part of the overall program strategy of concurrency to field aircraft quicker and upgrade later.

[I Push Buttons]

but rather poorly.
Its not a great fighter, its not a good interceptor, it doesn't have the best range, and its silly expensive.

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread with a reddit post from an actual pilot in the military, this is a baseless claim. They are brand new planes being flown by people who have had hardly any time flying them yet, with most of their training being done in simulators and not very long at that... Competing against planes that they have been flying for decades and have learned to push to the absolute limits. The only way the plane is going to get better is by having people learn to fucking fly it.

Given its expense and performance, i don't think they will manage to sell as many as they think - Regardless, It wont ever be a 'cheap' aircraft, so no, 'economies of scale' can go away.

So you are advocating the government just write off the F35's $400 billion investment as a sunk cost and move on?

[Zan15]

So the Us invested 500 billion in a plane, that they will now sell to every other allied country...while trumpkin will go backwards and use older planes and older tech.

how does this make us stronger when other military will have a leg up in the arms race.


lol

[TheRabidDeer]

F-18: 60M,
F-35A: 98M
F-35B: 105M
F-35C: 115M

So the F-18 is at least (bare minimum) 40% cheaper than the F-35.

If you put that % against the 1.2Trillion program that the F-35 costs you'll pocket over half a trillion to spend on one of the most mediocre (if not bad) medicare systems of this earth, send lots and lots of kids to college for free, or give each and every American 1 million and still have some insane money left to overhaul completely the army of a small country.

He is in the right path, the cost is just ridiculous.

Even if the 60m figure is accurate, the F35 should become cheaper to produce as time goes on and is more advanced than the F18. Why stop production on a plane that just finished all the most expensive R&D costs? You don't build a skyscraper then decide to tear it down while working on the interior.

[Skroe]

One more time... the cost to date of the f-35 is around $100 billion of which about $60 billion was 60% was R&D and 40% was procurement. The $400 billion number includes the total buy of 2500 aircraft, ~2000 which have yet to be built.

[GennGreymane]

One more time... the cost to date of the f-35 is around $100 billion of which about $60 billion was 60% was R&D and 40% was procurement. The $400 billion number includes the total buy of 2500 aircraft, ~2000 which have yet to be built.

But Skrrrooooeeee

#MAGA

[Kellhound]

I did know that bit
- Well the rest made sense, and explains why Saab was brought in, they do bring a rather unique perspective to Aircraft construction.

- - - Updated - - -


but rather poorly.
Its not a great fighter, its not a good interceptor, it doesn't have the best range, and its silly expensive.


Given its expense and performance, i don't think they will manage to sell as many as they think - Regardless, It wont ever be a 'cheap' aircraft, so no, 'economies of scale' can go away.

It isnt poor at what it was intended for, which is a strike fighter. This is the mission profile that the F-16 has been used for the most. It is capable of holding its own as a fighter, and it was never intended as an interceptor. As for range, the F-16's strike range is ~300nmi the F-35's is ~600nmi.


BTW: Merry Christmas all!

[Deleted]

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread with a reddit post from an actual pilot in the military, this is a baseless claim. They are brand new planes being flown by people who have had hardly any time flying them yet, with most of their training being done in simulators and not very long at that... Competing against planes that they have been flying for decades and have learned to push to the absolute limits. The only way the plane is going to get better is by having people learn to fucking fly it.

Which doesn't matter the specs are known.

So you are advocating the government just write off the F35's $400 billion investment as a sunk cost and move on?

No, i did not suggest it be scrapped.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't poor at what it was intended for, which is a strike fighter.

I thought it was a multi-role multipurpose fighter? At least that's the way its been billed by some people (in this thread).

The entire point of this aircraft was economy of scale. To have one air frame fulfilling a multitude of roles rather than a multitude of air frames fulfilling each individual role.

And merry Christmas to you too (and everyone else).