Jump to content


Photo

F-35C Procurement Curtailed


  • Please log in to reply
541 replies to this topic

#21 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,091 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 08 February 2015 - 0339 AM

RCS reduced is more correct.



#22 CaptLuke

CaptLuke

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco, CA, USA

Posted 09 February 2015 - 0004 AM

I would hope that the CNO knows his comment is a strawman. Stealth was never supposed to be invisible but low-observable.

 

 

Yes and no.  Literally, you are certainly correct.

 

The problem is that the costs of continually reducing RCS rise, as each reduction becomes harder than the last, while the benefits of each additional reduction actually fall.

 

For a given baseline RCS:

  • Reducing the detection range by 50% takes a 16 times reduction (i.e. 'new' RCS is about 6.35% of the 'old' RCS)
  • Reducing the detection range by 60% takes a 39 times reduction
  • Reducing the detection range by 70% takes a 124 times reduction 
  • Reducing the detection range by 80% takes a 652 times reduction
  • Reducing the detection range by 90% takes a 10,000 times reduction

Note that, depending on which version of the F-16 you use as a baseline (and on how accurate published F-16 numbers are), the F-35 is an 800 to 3,500 times reduction in RCS from the F-16.

 

What this implies, and I believe what Greenert is saying, is that there is a "sweet spot" somewhere around a 50 times to 100 times reduction that gets the great majority of the F-35's stealth benefits at a fraction of the cost of the F-35's approach.

 

The same logic applies to the Chinese and Russians, though who knows what they're really up to.



#23 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,316 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 09 February 2015 - 0014 AM

What about Mk1 eyeball?



#24 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,140 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 February 2015 - 1454 PM

The F-35 was never going to be all aspect wideband stealth... it was tuned to reduce the risk against common wavelengths used by SAM engagement radars from the lower frontal aspect with otherwise basic LO features as I understood it.


Edited by Burncycle360, 09 February 2015 - 1454 PM.


#25 CaptLuke

CaptLuke

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco, CA, USA

Posted 09 February 2015 - 2116 PM

self-deleted post


Edited by CaptLuke, 09 February 2015 - 2135 PM.


#26 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,316 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 11 February 2015 - 2327 PM

So long wave radar alerts against them and the Pantsyrs are cued.



#27 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,316 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 12 February 2015 - 0808 AM

Physics has not. Signal processing just favors the observer.  The Rus and the Czechs both have passive radar and have been offering them.



#28 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 12 February 2015 - 0916 AM

Fundamentally I'd rather be in an aircraft that made detection somewhat harder in some frequencies than not, all other thing equal. If you'd rather be in the Su-27/30/whatever, feel free.



#29 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,316 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 12 February 2015 - 0921 AM

You could have very few planes you cannot afford to lose even one of for any cause. I nominate you as head of the IS Air Force.



#30 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,939 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 12 February 2015 - 0921 AM

With the increase of radio use for data transmission (read: cell phone networks, WiFi...) crowding the æther and sending in all directions, passive radars listening in on all the stray reflections have become even better than years ago, because there are more electro magnetic waves to detect. Even third world countries have quite good cell coverage in the big cities at least nowadays. And reducing the radar signature has become harder in consequence. And the processing power doubles about every year and a half (Moore's Law), favouring the detection as simon already said.

#31 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 12 February 2015 - 1431 PM

You could have very few planes you cannot afford to lose even one of for any cause. I nominate you as head of the IS Air Force.

 

And PAK-FA / Su-35 are/will be cheap and plentiful? Again, AFAIK most of the cost overruns are for the software and avionics, not the structure or shape.



#32 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 1509 PM

but from my reading there are cost both fiscal and in payload coming along with that stealth

 

going by Wiki the F15E can carry more at a faster speed for about the same range


Edited by Colin, 12 February 2015 - 1514 PM.


#33 Brian Kennedy

Brian Kennedy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,467 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 1512 PM

I think the issue's more that we are going to need a lot of cheap planes to drop bombs on people in asymmetrical environments for the foreseeable future, and the F-35 was originally (sorta) intended to be that plane. We already have the who-cares-about-cost, gotta-have-the-best-when-the-balloon-goes-up in the F-22.

 

Unless we're going to be using F-16s for the next 30 years (quite possible!), the F-35 is going to see a hell of a lot of use, and no matter how uber it is, it's still going to crash due to accidents etc. Remember when that B-2 crashed a decade or so ago -- it was basically the cost-equivalent of losing a warship.



#34 urbanoid

urbanoid

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lodz, Poland

Posted 12 February 2015 - 1519 PM

But there's a very high chance that in combat against the stealth aircraft (potential adversaries are working on their own designs), non-stealth ones will be decimated. Bombing the durka-durkas even now can be, to some extent, fulfilled by the UCAVs, and those are getting more and more verstatile as well.

 

Again, is F-15E substantially cheaper than F-35 is going to be? Or F/A-18E? What about operational costs of single vs twin-engine? There's also economy of scale with 2500 aircraft planned.



#35 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 1709 PM

If you can tweak an existing design and come in at half the cost of a f-35 then it's worth it. Plus you don't have all your eggs in one design basket. I don't see cost dropping, because within 5-6 years of operations the new upgrades will need to come in considering how old the current design stuff is.



#36 urbanoid

urbanoid

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lodz, Poland

Posted 12 February 2015 - 1911 PM

Why should I make it cost half of what it does? It's price is comparable to Rafale or EF, and those are not even 5th gen. Sure, you have to upgrade avionics, but it's going to be the same with every other a/c.



#37 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,724 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sebastopol, CA, USA
  • Interests:material engineering, composite armor, GPC, battletank technology

Posted 12 February 2015 - 1934 PM

Again, is F-15E substantially cheaper than F-35 is going to be?


wp suggests F-15E unit replacement cost is $31.1M, vs F-35A at $85M ("full production" in 2018 .. $114M until then).

http://en.wikipedia....5E_Strike_Eagle

http://en.wikipedia....35_Lightning_II

#38 urbanoid

urbanoid

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lodz, Poland

Posted 12 February 2015 - 1939 PM

In 1998 dollars, and according to wiki, so stop joking. The same wiki says 100 mln for F-15Ks (for ROK). And operational costs aren't going to be low...



#39 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,724 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sebastopol, CA, USA
  • Interests:material engineering, composite armor, GPC, battletank technology

Posted 12 February 2015 - 2122 PM

In 1998 dollars


You are quite correct. I apologize; no misrepresentation was intended. Rather, I failed to notice that the F-18E price was in 1998 dollars.

According to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ the unit replacement cost of the F-15E in 2015 would be $45.1M.

Edited by TTK Ciar, 12 February 2015 - 2123 PM.


#40 urbanoid

urbanoid

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lodz, Poland

Posted 13 February 2015 - 0447 AM

In early 2000s Poland bought 48 F-16s and paid USD 3.5 billion, which means 73 mln apiece. Sure, with all the associated equipment, but it's not like the USAF wouldn't need it. IIRC it was also cheaper than Mirage 2000 and JAS-39 Gripen. The Koreans were paying closer to 100 mln for F-15.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users