• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharpey
  • Start date Start date
dapaterson said:
On the other hand, if we gave Saab the millions we're giving to JSF that isn't counted as a cost against the NGFC, we'd probably get a better price and help them produce a better aircraft.  As well, economies of scale would come into play as the number of aircraft would increase.  Or does that only work for Lock Mart?

Not to say that Gripen or Gripen NG is necessarily what we need.  But our "cost" for the F-35 is being understated by our contributions to the JSF program - which is definitely a material amount.  Conveniently overlooked, but material.

Slightly, though I would be extremely wary of joining Saab at this stage. Norway discounted the program due to these challenges, and the Swiss look likely to leave now. Look at it this way: Saab proposes to  take an existing design, add a bigger engine, new radar and avionics, beef up its structure and change its aerodynamic structure: sounds exactly like another program: the cyclone. Already we've seen the cost of the fighter reach 200 to 250% of the original value on key financial measures, with only basic design work commenced.  That's far worse than the F-35's experience, and will likely continue to increase.

Moreover the money spent in the F-35's research and development was largely a basis to enter into the industrial partnership. The Gripen's  offering in this area is comparatively poor. At least Boeing, EADS/Cassadian/BAE have strong industrial with Canadian industry; thus the opportunity for indirect offsets is good.  Saab does not. With the NG's small production scale, production opportunities for the fighter are not very lucrative and would incur significantly larger front end investments for smaller opportunities compared to the F-35.

Then there are the higher costs of keeping the capability operationally relevant. Right now, the two main partners are not major allies and have dramatically different defence needs. They are not likely to upgrade the weapons, self protection and offensive ECM gear to keep current with the US military and NATO standards. Basically we're going to bear the entire cost of some upgrades, rather than have the partnership with our closest allies.
 
MarkOttawa said:
But see the F-35A cost figures here, p. 63:
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130408-079.pdf

For the 19 planes for FY 2013 and 2014:

"...
Flyaway Unit Cost (Units in Millions)...153.114  152.304...

Gross/Weapon System Unit Cost...176.448  176.535... 
(Units in Millions)"


Go figure.

Mark Collins

Mark your using the wrong figures that give an unrealistic impression of the costs. You're citing total flyaway which includes non-recurring costs and ancillary equipment. That's not a fair cost to add in because it includes stuff like the partnership office, toolings, and diminishing manufacturing source parts. Those costs either don't apply to Canada's purchase or are contained in other budget elements (like canada's partnership costs).

For an apples to apples comparison (and one that is in line with other figures), you need the Recurring flyaway. To get that you must go to page 3 (P-5 sheet) and either divide the total recurring cost by 19 or add all the work based cost elements: Airframe, engine, Gov't Furnished electronics, weapons and the Engineering Change order costs.

That total comes to $121 million, which is what is cited in the SAR.
 
HB_Pencil.

Thanks--is that p. 65 of the PDF?  For FY 2014 for the 19 planes are you using the $2203.233M ("Total Recurring Cost") or the $2803.733M number ("Total Flyaway Cost")?  Or another one? $121M time 19 equals $2.299B, a figure I can't see.

That $2803M number divided by 19 gives about $150M each, roughly the same as the $152.3M "Flyaway Unit Cost" on p. 53.

These figures certainly do confuse.

Mark
 
MarkOttawa said:
HB_Pencil.

Thanks--is that p. 65 of the PDF?  For FY 2014 for the 19 planes are you using the $2203.233M ("Total Recurring Cost") or the $2803.733M number ("Total Flyaway Cost")?  Or another one? $121M time 19 equals $2.299B, a figure I can't see.

That $2803M number divided by 19 gives about $150M each, roughly the same as the $152.3M "Flyaway Unit Cost" on p. 53.

These figures certainly do confuse.

Mark

It is page 65, and its the total recurring cost of $2293 million in the 2014 base (I did it by the other method by adding up the Work Based Elements and rounding up to 121 million... dividing it by 19 comes to $120.68 million).  2013 is $124 million per aircraft.

Recurring flyaway is probably one of the most important indicators of cost, which is why its widely cited: you can do a lot of different analysis with it such as predicting future production and operational costs. Its also a good benchmark upon which you can make comparisons between different aircraft: as this discussion makes clear; the next level up includes costs that Canada does face or calculates differently. Operational costs are even worse; they are marred by different accounting practices, wages, costs ect. 
 
SupersonicMax said:
Let's see here.... (By the way, the F-15SE is even further than the JSF in terms of development)

F-35A: 85-90M$ (2012)
F-18E/F:  146M$ (2012)
Typhoon: 125M$ (2012)
F-15SE: 115M$ (2012) *
Rafale: 90M$ (2012)  **
Gripen NG: 140M$ (2012)

So, how does the JSF compare now?  Pretty much in the low end price-wise.

*F-15SE has not been built yet.  It has no customers.
** The 90M$ figure is approximative, since I do not have the numbers for the Indian contract. 

All others have been taken from actual prices countries paid for their aircraft, plus part & spares.  Do not fool yourself, most manufacturers advertise a low price, only to tell you that it doesn't include a radar, pylons, fuel tanks, EW equipment (or anything that is required to be a warplane).  The JSF price does include all this.

Another advantage of the JSF is that so many countries will buy it and there will be many built, making it very supportable.  It'll be a little like the F-16 I think.

Also, if you look at all those other platforms, they all ran into their fair share of issues, time and cost overrun, etc, etc.

The F 35 is more in the $120-152 million range... literally, the post above you stated the price.  do you have a source for the cost you provide or are you including the F 35 without any of the electronic packages, etc.

For a threat that you can't identify it's a lot of money...

 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
The F 35 is more in the $120-152 million range... literally, the post above you stated the price.  do you have a source for the cost you provide or are you including the F 35 without any of the electronic packages, etc.

For a threat that you can't identify it's a lot of money...

No, the reality is that taking current costsis also not an accurate prediction of prices when Canada will actually buy the aircraft. That will occur after 2019, when (due to a large expansion of manufacturing scale and advanced learning), the price should come down to the $85 million level. Right now the production line is only operating at 15% of its planned level. In reality it would be difficult for the government to move its programming ahead in order to accommodate an earlier buy without altering its budget projections. That would add a $450 million dollar hole in its budget projection.

The best place to see what the F-35's costs are is the Selected Acquisition Review:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/F-35Dec11FinalSAR-3-29-2012.pdf

Go to page 40 inside the document (end item recurring flyaway aligned by quantity), then find the year you want to calculate it for. Canadian purchase start either in 2018 or 19. That is the all in cost.

The same issues goes for other fighters: The F/A-18E's cost will rise dramatically in the next two years as US navy production ends. Rafale and Eurofighter will remain roughly stable as those are projected costs for the 2014~2019 timeframe. Gripen's costs will likely increase as development continues.
 
Since we're getting into such fantastical accounting, what is the cost to ensure the NGF is not only better than the CF-188 by any potential metric, but also that it can replace helicopters in any fighting or ISR role, knock PGMs out of the air, takedown Bn UAVs, go toe-to-toe with the latest MBTs, and hold ground?
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the New York Times, is an entertaining article about opportunity costs and jet fighters:

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/what-would-a-fighter-jet-buy-60-years-after-eisenhowers-speech/?partner=rss&emc=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
What Would a Fighter Jet Buy 60 Years After Eisenhower’s Speech?

By JOHN ISMAY

April 16, 2013

Shortly after the death of Joseph Stalin, President Dwight D. Eisenhower believed a rare opportunity existed to reset United States-Soviet relations, and he announced it to the world 60 years ago Tuesday in his 1953 Chance for Peace speech.

With a new Soviet premier taking office, and newly inaugurated himself, President Dwight D. Eisenhower believed that Stalin’s demise presented an opening to end the rapidly accelerating arms race between the two countries. Eisenhower directed his speechwriters to develop an address that clearly conveyed that desire to his Russian counterpart.

Eschewing the tired condemnations of the Soviet Union that had dominated recent presidential speeches, Eisenhower challenged his staff to present a new Pax Americana focusing on the idea of a future peace that unified Germany, removed occupying forces in Austria and talked in human terms of what both sides lost when spending so much of their wealth on armaments.

For this address, the president gave clear direction to the speechwriter Emmet Hughes.

“Here is what I would like it to say:

That jet plane over your head costs three-quarters of a million dollars. That is more than a man earning $10,000 every year is going to make in a lifetime. What world can afford this sort of thing for long?”

At that time, Korean War spending had reached its height. United States defense spending accounted for 14.2 percent of gross domestic product.

Eisenhower deliberately avoided giving this address to the United Nations because he did not want other delegates to immediately chop his words apart. Instead, he decided to deliver his message to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Mr. Hughes and Paul Nitze collaborated on a new draft that included this section, perhaps the most remembered part of the address:

    “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms
    is not spending money alone.

    It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

    The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

    It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

    It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

    We pay for a single fighter plane with a half-million bushels of wheat.

    We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

    This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

    This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”


Unfortunately, there is no solid evidence as to how Mr. Hughes and Mr. Nitze came up with those figures. Historians at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library in Abilene, Kan., could not determine how the numbers were assessed. But a quick spot check of one commodity does give some confidence that the quantities were not completely pulled out of a hat.

A look at an earlier draft of the speech shows that the “fighter jet” cited would buy 170,000 bushels of wheat, versus a half-million as stated in the final version. With wheat running about $2 a bushel then, a quick search of United States Air Force aircraft of the time shows that the earlier draft might have referred to the F-86 Sabre, which cost $211,111 at the time. However, the higher figure in the final draft might have referred to the new F-84F Thunderstreak, which cost $769,330.

With some idea that the speechwriters might have been using reliable data, it is worth seeing what a modern heavy bomber, a fighter jet and a destroyer would buy 60 years later.

Modern Bomber

Introduced in 1951, the B-47 Stratojet is probably the aircraft the president referred to as “a modern bomber.” It cost $2,440,000 then. The most expensive bomber in use today is the B-2 Spirit, also known as the Stealth Bomber. Its price, adjusted for inflation, comes to $1,461,500,000.

The first item Eisenhower listed was a “modern brick school.” The National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities places the national average for a 600-student elementary school at $14,800,000. A single B-2 would buy 99 of these schools.

Next on the list was electric power plants. Figures from the United States Energy Information Agency show that one megawatt of electricity will power 749 homes. That means about 80 megawatts are needed to meet Eisenhower’s goal of delivering current to 60,000 homes. Constructing an 85-megawatt conventional combustion turbine power plant today costs $78,800,000. The B-2 would today buy 19 of these power plants after considering inflation.

Determining the cost of a hospital is difficult because of a wide array of variables, but Eisenhower left a clue in his early drafts by referring to a 400-bed facility. Given that, we can determine a national average for constructing, not equipping, a hospital of that size today would easily cost $231,000,000, according to the American Hospital Association. We could buy six of these hospitals with a B-2.

Building roadways is similarly subject to varied factors in cost. One thing that officials at the Federal Highway Administration ruled out right away was the president’s choice of material. According to them, no one builds roads out of concrete anymore. With so many variables, I chose to price out two lanes rural interstate over flat terrain. Were the father of the Interstate Highway System to buy 50 miles of that roadway today, it would cost $222,400. The Air Force’s current premier bomber would buy more than 328,500 miles of that kind of road.

Fighter Jet

A half-million bushels of wheat might have been enough to buy a fighter jet in Eisenhower’s day, but that is not quite the case at present. Trading at roughly $7 a bushel today on the commodities markets, that half-million bushels costs $3,500,000 in 2013. Looking at the data on today’s fighters, that much money would buy only spare parts at best.

On the high end of today’s fighters, the F-22 Raptor has a range of prices depending if you choose unit cost or lifecycle cost. Officials at the Air Force’s public affairs office put the price at $214,000,000 per plane. That would buy more than 29,500,000 bushels of wheat today.

Destroyer

According to the National Association of Realtors, the national median price for a single family home (each houses four people) is $173,600, as of February 2013. Building enough of them to house 8,000 people would cost $347,200,000. Or put a different way, about a quarter of the cost of the Navy’s current Flight IIA DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The money spent on a single DDG, roughly $1.5 billion, would put durable roofs over the heads of more than 34,000 Americans. The proposed “Flight III” Burkes have an estimated delivery cost of $3 billion to $4 billion apiece. Or another way, it is enough to rebuild all the homes in New Jersey damaged by Hurricane Sandy.

Conclusion

Are there any parallels to present day? Osama bin Laden has been dispatched, but was he the same kind of existential threat that Stalin embodied? Are any politicians looking at the terrorist leader’s demise as an opportunity for the United States to take a different path? Is it time for an American president to give a new speech?

In this comparison of the past 60 years, one important data point not yet discussed is the current total defense spending. For all the debate over the size of the defense budget, it represents 4.3 percent of G.D.P. Compared with spending in 1953, that is three times smaller — relative to the gross domestic product — than what Eisenhower dealt with.

But while defense spending as a percentage of the G.D.P. has shrunk, the cost of each military item Eisenhower cited has grown enormously even after accounting for inflation.

As a former five-star general, Eisenhower had a keen appreciation for military thinking and strategy, and he often pushed back on requests made by his admirals and generals. This included proposals for new weapons systems.

In light of the continuing sequestration fight, the minutes of one National Security Council meeting in 1960, the last year of Eisenhower’s administration, give an idea of what he might have thought of the current morass:

“He believed it was the duty of military officers to get along with less if at all possible. He realized it was also the duty of military officers to ensure the military safety of the U.S., but he believed that no absolute assurance on this point could ever be given.”

What Eisenhower shows us today is that while we cannot completely assure safety given any amount of spending, we can definitively show what that spending could otherwise accomplish. And that is valuable.

John Ismay is a former United States Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal officer and a member of Columbia Journalism School’s Class of 2014. Follow him on Twitter (@johnismay) and on his blog.



And that, Eisenhower's speech, is why defence procurement is a political matter. The views of generals and bureaucrats, pilots, engineers and accountants, are interesting but, at the end of the day, unimportant. What our pilots fly, when, where and why, is a political decision made for political reasons.
 
Interesting economic calculations.

1953 ( from the post above ):

> "The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
> It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
> It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway."

1944:

"This being so, a Lancaster has only to go to a German city once to wipe off its own capital cost, and the result of all subsequent sorties will be clear profit..."

Air Staff Intelligence report dated 19 Feb 1944, from "A Review of the Work of Int I".

 
Upcoming event. . .


All Canadians invited to webinar on the F-35 Lightning II
Canada’s plan to recapitalize the Royal Canadian Air Force’s fighter capability has been one of the most dominate and sustained media stories, political issues and topics of discussions since the Government announced its intention to procure 65 F-35 Lightning IIs in July 2010.
Since that time, many media reports have been filed, there has been much political debate and many studies have published on the issue. While some of the information presented publicly has been accurate and factual, much of it has been inaccurate and incorrect.

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013, Lockheed Martin will host a webinar, open to all Canadians, on the F-35 program in order to set the record straight on several issues and provide Canadians with accurate and factual information on the F-35.

In addition to being the most advanced, most capable and most affordable next generation fighter for Canada, the F-35 will also provide Canadian industry with the best industrial benefits. Already, without Canada having purchased a single aircraft, more than 70 Canadian companies across the country have won contracts totalling more than $450 million. Beyond that, Canadian industry has an opportunity to win contracts totalling more than $10 billion over the life of the program.

This webinar is open to any and all Canadians interested in learning about the F-35 program.  Lockheed Martin will provide a full and open briefing on the status of the program, including capabilities of the aircraft, challenges faced and overcome, unit cost of the aircraft, delivery schedule, and industrial opportunities and benefits the program has and will bring to Canada.

The format will be a 30 minute presentation by Steve O’Bryan, Vice President of F-35 Program Integration and Business Development, and Billie Flynn, Senior F-35 Test Pilot and former Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 pilot.

Following the presentation, Steve and Billie will respond to as many questions from Canadians as possible during a 30 minute Question and Answer session.

Lockheed Martin Webinar on the F-35
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time

Register to participate at:
http://event.on24.com/r.htm?e=606258&s=1&k=B3BDB1977DF28382A1A9B00FA24A693E

– 30 –

For more information, please contact:

Keelan Green, 613-220-2016, green@thornleyfallis.ca
Carrie Croft, 613-231-3355 ext 227, croft@thornleyfallis.ca
 
Well this should set a few heads of hair on fire . . .  Possibly puts it at a lower CPFH than the CF 18's

"F-35 Ops Cost Exceeds F-16 By 10%
Posted by Amy Butler 12:12 PM on Apr 18, 2013

The long and sometimes contentious wait for a cost-per-flying-hour for the new F-35 is over.

The single-engine F-35A is expected to cost about 10 percent more to operate than the F-16 it is intended to replace for the U.S. Air Force and other international military services, according to U.S. government officials.

USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer overseeing the F-35 program, told Dutch lawmakers that the cost-per-flying-hour for the F-35A, which The Netherlands intends to buy, is $24,000, according to an Air Force spokeswoman. He provided the data to Dutch legislators, including a “side-by-side comparison of flying hour costs between the F-16 and the F-35,” she says."


http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a6345dff9-c4c4-4298-b842-a4c806bdbc38

Just in time for the CBC to rerun their Fifth Estate Comedy Report this weekend.


 
Russia's answer

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/russia-stealth/

Russia’s T-50 stealth fighter prototype, the first radar-evading warplane outside the U.S. when it debuted in January 2010, is slightly less stealthy than the American F-22 and about equal to the smaller F-35. But in several other respects the new warplane from the Russian Sukhoi design bureau is actually superior to the American models.

 
This study is all hypothetical.  It's based on the fact that there are going to be design changes on the T-50.

AusAirPower is a self-advertised anti-JSF organisation.  I would not trust their products that much....
 
The IDF looks at the generation after next. The CF-35 may or may not be replaced by UCAVs (I personally think that the EW spect of future combat might make UCAVs far less viable than most people believe), but when the CF-35 eventually retires, this may be the replacement. The USAF demonstrated the ability to shoot dow satellites using a missile launched from an F-15 in the late 1980's, so the idea of a microsatellite launched from a fighter jet isn't that far fetched:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130421/NEWS/304210010/Israeli-official-says-drones-could-replace-planes

Israeli official says drones could replace planes
Apr. 21, 2013 - 03:13PM  |  Comments

By Daniel Estrin, The Associated Press

TEL AVIV, Israel — Israel’s air force is on track to developing drones that within four to five decades would carry out nearly every battlefield operation executed today by piloted aircraft, a high-ranking Israeli officer told The Associated Press Sunday.

The officer, who works in the field of unmanned aerial vehicle intelligence, said Israel is speeding up research and development of such unmanned technologies for air, ground and naval forces.

“There is a process happening now of transferring tasks from manned to unmanned vehicles,” the officer said, speaking anonymously because of the classified nature of his work. “This trend will continue to become stronger.”

Isaac Ben-Israel, a former Israeli air force general, said however there was no way drones could entirely overtake manned airplanes. He said there are just some things drones can’t do, like carry heavy payloads needed for major assaults on targets like underground bunkers.

“The direction is drones playing a bigger and bigger role in the air force,” he said. “In a decade or two they should be able to carry out a third or half of all missions. But there are still certain things you cannot do without a piloted plane.”

Israel is a pioneer in drone technology. Its military was the first to make widespread use of drones in its 1982 invasion of Lebanon and Israeli companies are considered world leaders and export unmanned aircraft to a number of armies, including U.S.-led forces that have used them in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The unmanned aircraft have been a major part of Israel’s arsenal in battling Gaza rocket launchers over the years. Drones were seen as crucial by giving soldiers eyes in the air, keeping watch over rooftops and alleyways in congested urban areas and notifying troops of threats or obstacles in their path. Israel insists its drones only perform surveillance missions but Palestinian witnesses have long claimed that Israeli drones fire missiles in Gaza.

The officer claimed Israel is second only to the United States in the range of unmanned aerial systems its produces. He said he was “aware” that American drones are capable of firing missiles, but refused to say whether Israeli drones could do the same.

The officer cited one technology recently unveiled: the unmanned Hermes 900 aircraft, developed by the Israeli military manufacturer Elbit Systems Ltd. and recently rolled out for Israeli military use.

It features double the performance capabilities of the previous generation of the same unmanned aircraft, the Hermes 450. It can carry up to 350 kilograms, features advanced systems of surveillance and reconnaissance and offers support to forces on the ground and at sea, according to a description of the technology on Elbit’s website.

Israel is also looking to develop small tactical satellites that warplanes could launch into the earth’s orbit, the officer said.

Unlike satellites in permanent orbit which are more easily monitored by other leading armies in the world, the tactical satellites Israel hopes to develop would be cheaper to build and less susceptible to interception because they would be launched during wartime and there would be less time for foreign armies to track their orbit, Israeli military officials said.

 
4 to 5 decades down the road?

Perfect, our F-35s should be pretty much ready for replacement by then.

 
Haletown said:
4 to 5 decades down the road?

Perfect, our F-35s should be pretty much ready for replacement by then.

Assuming that, by then, the Block upgrades have managed to meet our requirements.  Current Block doesn't do weapons... a minor issue...


 
Haletown said:
4 to 5 decades down the road?

Perfect, our F-35s should be pretty much ready for replacement by then.

Ready for replacement or will parliament have even quit arguing about their procurement and issued a purchase order?
 
F-16s Step Up For Tardy F-35
April 24, 2013
Article Link

The U.S. Air Force has increased the number of F-16s it wants to refurbish to 1,018. Last year the plan was to refurbish a few hundred of its 22 ton F-16 fighters because their replacement, the 31 ton F-35, was not arriving in time. So far 11 F-35s have been built and another 19 are to be built this year. That’s too slow to deal with the number of F-16s that are growing too old to fly. The air force is doing a similar refurb on 175 F-15C interceptors. It may take a decade or more for F-35 production to get to the point where most F-16s can be replaced. Until then, the F-16s must be ready to get the jobs done.

This is one of several reasons why many nations upgrade their F-16s. Some of these nations are holding off on ordering F-35s (or cancelling existing orders), either because of the high price or doubts about how good it will be. Aircraft manufacturing and maintenance companies see a huge market for such upgrades. Half or more of the 3,000 F-16s currently in service could be refurbished and upgraded to one degree or another. That’s over $25 billion in business over the next decade or so.

The F-35 began development in the 1990s, and was supposed to enter service in 2011. That has since slipped to 2017, or the end of the decade, depending on who you believe. Whichever date proves accurate, many F-16 users have a problem. Their F-16s are old and year by year more of them become too old to operate.

No matter how late the F-35 is, the U.S. Air Force now plans to refurbish at least a thousand Block 40 and 50 F-16s. The work will concentrate on extending the life of the airframe, plus some electronics upgrades. The air force does this sort of thing frequently to all aircraft models. It's called SLEP (Service Life Extension Program), and this one is special only because it concentrates on very old aircraft and is intended to keep these birds viable for another 8-10 years.

Many air forces are finding that it’s more cost-effective to upgrade via new electronics and missiles and, as needed, refurbishing engines and airframes on elderly existing fighters, rather than buying new aircraft. This is especially the case if the new electronics enable the use of smart bombs or more capable air-to-air missiles. One of the more frequently upgraded older fighters is the American F-16. Even the U.S. Air Force, the first and still largest user of F-16s, had always planned to do this with some of its F-16s.

The F-16C was originally designed for a service life of 4,000 hours in the air. But advances in engineering, materials, and maintenance techniques have extended that to over 8,000 hours. Because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, F-16s sent to those areas have flown over a thousand hours a year more than what they would in peacetime. The current planned SLEP will extend F-16C flight hours to 10,000 or more.

The F-16 has proven to be remarkably adaptable and is one of the most modified jet fighters in service. The most numerous F-16 is the C model. The first version of this, the F-16C Block 25, entered service in 1984. The original F-16, as the F-16A Block 1, entered service in 1978. While most F-16s still in service are the F-16C, there are actually six major mods, identified by block number (32, 40, 42, 50, 52, 60) plus the Israeli F-16I, which is a major modification of the Block 52. Another special version (the Block 60) for the UAE (United Arab Emirates) is called the F-16E. The F-16D is a two seat trainer version of F-16Cs. The various block mods included a large variety of new components (five engines, four sets of avionics, five generations of electronic warfare gear, five radars, and many other mechanical, software, cockpit, and electrical mods).

The F-16 is the most numerous post-Cold War jet fighter, with over 4,200 built and still in production. During The Cold War Russia built over 10,000 MiG-21s and the U.S over 5,000 F-4s, but since 1991, warplane production has plummeted about 90 percent. Since the end of the Cold War the F-16 has been popular enough to keep the production lines going.
More on link
 
Webinar tomorrow.

https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=registration.jsp&key=7126662B4532D1B55D61ACD48211259F&eventid=606258&sessionid=1&

 
GAP said:
F-16s Step Up For Tardy F-35
April 24, 2013
Article Link

The U.S. Air Force has increased the number of F-16s it wants to refurbish to 1,018. Last year the plan was to refurbish a few hundred of its 22 ton F-16 fighters because their replacement, the 31 ton F-35, was not arriving in time. So far 11 F-35s have been built and another 19 are to be built this year. That’s too slow to deal with the number of F-16s that are growing too old to fly. The air force is doing a similar refurb on 175 F-15C interceptors. It may take a decade or more for F-35 production to get to the point where most F-16s can be replaced. Until then, the F-16s must be ready to get the jobs done.

This is one of several reasons why many nations upgrade their F-16s. Some of these nations are holding off on ordering F-35s (or cancelling existing orders), either because of the high price or doubts about how good it will be.

Sorry, I've haven't been paying much attention lately, but has any country actually cancelled their F-35 orders?
 
Back
Top