[QUOTE](Reuters) - Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) expects the cost of the F-35 fighter jet to drop to its target level by 2019 and still sees the first version of the aircraft combat ready by mid-2015, despite an engine fire which still needs a fix, the firm said on Thursday.
A decision by South Korea on Wednesday to order 40 F-35s for around $7 billion further lowers the program's cost and Lockheed sees the per-unit cost down to $80-$85 million by 2019 from the current rate of around $115 million, Jeff Babione, Lockheed's deputy general manager for the F-35 program told reporters in Oslo.
Lockheed, engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), and other suppliers are investing heavily to drive down the program's projected $400 billion cost, making it more affordable for cash-strapped governments looking to buy over 3,100 aircraft over the next decades.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/25/us-lockheed-f-idUSKCN0HK11V20140925[/url]
It's about time.
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;46073012]Yeah, no big deal, right?[/QUOTE]
Not if you have the fire extinguisher perk.
These must be the worst fighter jets ever, in terms of costs.
Worst military investment in the modern day.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46073236]Worst military investment in the modern day.[/QUOTE]
Let's wait and see. Depending on the production numbers and the service record of the plane, it might end up being totally worth it.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46073255]Let's wait and see. Depending on the production numbers and the service record of the plane, it might end up being totally worth it.[/QUOTE]
What's wrong with the current hardware we have now?
The only problem I have with F35 is cost. I expect it to be in service at least 2 decades. The problems were seeing with F35 is the same problems we see with 787 Dreamliner. In order to rduce costs companies outsource production of certain parts. These can have their own problems.
I'd love to watch one of these take off
how does the F35 compare to other modern fighter aircraft?
[QUOTE=Showgun;46073720]how does the F35 compare to other modern fighter aircraft?[/QUOTE]
It's basically a flying missile boat. Kinda fat and slow and clumsy and vulnerable, but it can see and kill anything anywhere around it.
[QUOTE=Showgun;46073720]how does the F35 compare to other modern fighter aircraft?[/QUOTE]
Launches from carriers and is actually capable of ground attack, it's a multirole aircraft.
It compares to the f-18, not the f-22 (which is still a much better pure fighter)
[editline]25th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46073766]It's basically a flying missile boat. Kinda fat and slow and clumsy and vulnerable, but it can see and kill anything anywhere around it.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't use the word "vulnerable" to describe something as stealthy as the F-35, and it's certainly not clumsy either.
In fact it's only fat or slow in comparison to the f-22, which is a totally unfair comparison. Hell what am I saying:
[img]http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/f35/f16-f35-f22.jpg[/img]
The F-35 is [I]smaller[/I]​ than the F-22
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46073766]It's basically a flying missile boat. Kinda fat and slow and clumsy and vulnerable, but it can see and kill anything anywhere around it.[/QUOTE]
And also nothing can see it
I'd prefer a block 60 F-16E, myself... At least it's a cost-effective, tried and true design. Of course it's not as stealthy for obvious reasons including a lack of angularity and external weapon hardpoints. but it's just as capable of ground attack AND air-to-air just by a switch of weapon loadout. It's funny because Lockheed owns the F-16E.
The technology behind the F-35 is top-of-the-line, but the problem with state of the art equipment is that it hasnt been perfected yet. Maintenance is an issue, costs are high. I mean, the F/A-22A is ALREADY a maintenance whore, do we really need a second one? I'm not against the JSF program on a base level, but it needs to be refined before being deployed.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46073267]What's wrong with the current hardware we have now?[/QUOTE]
If people kept this mentality we'd still be waging war with sharpened sticks.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46073267]What's wrong with the current hardware we have now?[/QUOTE]
if you don't evolve your tech others will adapt and overcome.
[QUOTE=ossumsauce;46074193]I'd prefer a block 60 F-16E, myself... At least it's a cost-effective, tried and true design. Of course it's not as stealthy for obvious reasons including a lack of angularity and external weapon hardpoints. but it's just as capable of ground attack AND air-to-air just by a switch of weapon loadout. It's funny because Lockheed owns the F-16E.
The technology behind the F-35 is top-of-the-line, but the problem with state of the art equipment is that it hasnt been perfected yet. Maintenance is an issue, costs are high. I mean, the F/A-22A is ALREADY a maintenance whore, do we really need a second one? I'm not against the JSF program on a base level, but it needs to be refined before being deployed.[/QUOTE]
The F-16 was put into service and still had problems with the fly-by-wire system, pretty much every piece of brand new military equipment has unfortunate problems when developed and first put into service.
The F-35 is great, it's going to be a Legend in a while, just like the F-18 and all it predecessors.
I can't believe that thing is for real
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46073273]It's really going to depend on the true service record of the plane, if you look at the development process for other "great" aircraft, they were full of various failures, people seem to have mistakenly believed that just because the F-35 has been expensive that it should automatically have a super smooth dev process, and that's simply not true.[/QUOTE]
Best case scenario and the F-35 accomplishes all of it's goals and is an excellent plane in all aspects, something that is already up for debate with it's stealth capabilities and maneuverability already being questioned, the project has already exceeded the cost of simply designing new planes for each branch instead of trying to standardize one model. It might not be the worst investment because it could fly and do it's job well, but it's certainly one of the least efficient ones.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46073267]What's wrong with the current hardware we have now?[/QUOTE]
It's older than the newer things
Does the VTOL variant still suck balls?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46075773]Best case scenario and the F-35 accomplishes all of it's goals and is an excellent plane in all aspects, something that is already up for debate with it's stealth capabilities and maneuverability already being questioned, the project has already exceeded the cost of simply designing new planes for each branch instead of trying to standardize one model. It might not be the worst investment because it could fly and do it's job well, but it's certainly one of the least efficient ones.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Advances in radar technology made by the Russians and Chinese mean that there are now systems that can pick up the 5th gen stealth fighters...
And the F-35's built in jamming abilities do not appear to be a match for these advances, so F-35s will need to be accompanied by dedicated electronic warfare aircraft. Which largely negates the whole point of the F-35 being stealthy.
If this turns out to be correct then the F-35 does little more than the considerably cheaper (and fully functional right now) 4.5 gen fighters.
F-35 is fine. Yeah it's expensive, but it's projected to last about 55-60 YEARS. And that $400 Billion already spent has been over the last 20 years almost. Considering we've spent that and more EVERY year on the military alone... It's not that big of a deal for something that we'll probably wish we had 20 years down the road. It might be a waste of money to some, but how wasteful do you think it'll be if we just cancel it now. Besides, a few years after it's flying about in our hands and the hands of those who are still interested, those who were interested will crawl back and order them as well. It'll be worth it
I'm excited for this for so many reasons
[QUOTE=TheTalon;46076541]F-35 is fine. Yeah it's expensive, but it's projected to last about 55-60 YEARS. [/QUOTE]
I'm sure.
Weird to realize that people are being born right now that will end up being bombed by this aircraft.
Assuming we don't fix world peace in the next decade.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46076635]I'm sure.[/QUOTE]
The Chinook has been in service for more than 50 years. The U-2 spy plane has been in service for almost 60 years. The B-52 has been in service for more than 60 years. I don't see what's so unbelievable about that.
Lol, if you say so, Lockheed. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;46073206]These must be the worst fighter jets ever, in terms of costs.[/QUOTE]
How the Pentagon decides which military proposals will proceed to the prototyping stage:
[I](Combat effectiveness on a scale from 1 to 10) + (Money required to develop and operate)[/I]
Highest score wins.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.