It's also expensive, $100 million each. For a RUSSIAN jet!

http://www.business-standard.com/article...51502009_1.html

Three programs would have been significantly more expensive, even if they went well - and bottom line is that nobody wants to pay for that. There is no point people moaning about the cost of F-35 when it is still far cheaper than the alternative.
Like the F-35ABC the capability of these 3 other Jets would all hinge on hardware and software development - so now 3 different contractors all trying to come up with their own pioneering 1st gen systems - and what 3 - 4 different engines? all catching fire and destroying pre IOC jets.

Welcome to the world of software development - any modern jet is a flying computer - software patches and development will occur for its entire lifetime - whether that's adding new capability or fixing bugs - it simply takes a lot of time and resource.

If I told you that the FA-18E/Fs radar was still not deemed fit for purpose about 7 years after IOC you will get some idea of how long it takes to get 1st gen systems working properly in todays world - this can be expected and is part of the risk.

There is no evidence the F-35A/B/C is a turkey - even though gutter press journalists who haven't got the first understanding of what they are talking about make it out to be.

Exactly.

Just how many news outlets would be interested in the story "New Fighter Aircraft Works Exactly as Planned" or "New Fighter Jet Cheaper Than Anyone Expected!"

The media loves disaster stories, even if they have to lie or exaggerate to get the disaster story. And the vast majority of the media does not like nor does it understand the military so they love to bash any military spending program they can.

You have to keep all that in mind when you read / watch their reporting on the F-35 or anything else military related.

No Jet goes from Paper -> Operational Service without problems.

That's the Whole point of the "Trial/Certification/Whatever You wanna call it" before it enters service, to find major flaws or problems that need to be fixed.

Not Even the F-15, F-16, F-14 or F-18.

Could there be even a chance that it's just too ambitious a goal to build 3 variants of the same aircraft, each with very different operational requirements? And how can you say with 100% certainty, as if you're some kind of authority on the matter who's in the decision-making loop, that building 3 different aircraft would cost far more when nobody even knows how much doing it THIS way will cost? You simply don't know one way or the other, any more than I do, so please stop with the unfounded speculation. Optimism is one thing, blind devotion is something else.

As of right now, is this program on the budget used to sell it, both in cost per unit and total program cost? On the schedule used to sell it? If "no" to either of those questions, how far over budget or behind schedule is it? I honestly don't know and would like to know?



Well, last I knew engine oil leaks, fires, tailhooks bouncing off the deck and missing the wires because their location on the aircraft puts them at too steep of an angle, etc, aren't caused by software problems.



I'm not arguing that point with you, believe me on that - I've been a professional mechanic for 15 years and doing it at varying levels for over 20, and I know how rarely things come together on the first try. I've also done a fair amount of programming back in the day, and know that software is far more difficult to get right. But we're not talking about fixing a car or writing a game or piece of business software, we're talking about having a national tactical aviation capability for the next however many decades. At what point are we better off cutting our losses and starting over with a less ambitious program? Or should we continue spending money on the program regardless of how much it ends up costing? What happens if other buyers get tired of delays and buy an existing design, deciding that a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush? And please don't take that as my saying the time is now, next year, etc.



You're right, this thing could turn out to be the most impressive aircraft ever to take to the skies. That's not a guarantee, though, but you'd never know that from the love fest. A lot of people aren't even willing to entertain the thought that it COULD turn out to be a turkey, and are acting as though the manufacturer brochure is really an AAR. A healthy level of skepticism is always a good thing.

Actually it's already too late to cancel this one, at least, I don't think you can do anything useful by canceling it. The airframe is being tested, issues are being corrected. Except for the flyoff/prototype stage, this thing is going through the same motions as fighters before it:

F-16's were crashing due to to engine issues, and cabling issues.
F-15's were very expensive and they also had engine issues (sames ones as the F-16 in fact, but having 2 engines helps you not be a lawn dart )
I haven't heard much about the F-18 development, but I'm sure it had its own challenges.

When put in context, all of these fighters brought 'new game' into tactical aviation. The F-35 is doing the same thing, and this costs lots of money. If you want to keep the edge, you have to pay for it. Lots.

And I will mention also the race to the moon: That was a fast-paced, expensive and deadly (to some) programme. The F-35 is pretty tame by comparison.



The pilots aren't going to let it be a turkey. There would be a revolution. This whole thing is about putting the screws to LM for mismanagement, as it should be.

Other aircraft leak oil, other aircraft catch fire and the tail hook issue is solved:

There's no such thing as "less ambitious programs." Look how much money the CH-53K project is going to cost, and that's taking a CH-53E and modernizing it without major redesign!

In other words, the F-35 program may cost $400 bn (one estimate I saw) for 3 variants. But what good is it if the USAF, USN, and USMC each have $250bn programs for their own unique airframe? There's no way to make one cheaper today. Software costs have skyrocketed and no one is going to ask for a plane that is LESS advanced than what is in service now. Look how much the Super Hornet cost and that was a "successful" program, wing drop and other problems included.

The reason they're not just building the C model and making the USAF buy it instead of the A is because the A is much cheaper than the C. They're not making the USMC buy it because they couldn't use it on their ships. The USMC and USN can't use the A because it's likewise not ship ready. The USAF isn't getting the B either because it's far more expensive than the A and they don't need STOVL. No variant is good for all 3 services.

The idea that 3 separate programs would cost less is lunacy and not supported by the history of modern fighter development which demonstrates that every successive program costs far more than the one before--look at the T50's price for a Russian jet. In the end the F-35 likely won't have saved too much money in development challenges, but the commonality in production of the engines, avionics, and other components along with the logistics and maintenance will.



The Jedi Master

Because economics.

Three different aircraft will have 3 times the overhead. Three different aircraft will all have software development. Three different aircraft will all have flight control, engine, avionics and weapons etc integration to accomplish. Three different aircraft will have three different flight test programs. Three different aircraft will each be bought in smaller numbers, making the overhead, R&D for each higher per airframe.

Edit: Forgot to add, 3 different aircraft would have 3 different government program managers / staff! That alone would probably add a few million per airframe!

Fatigue Cracks on teh Vertical Stabs, Caused them to be grounded in 1984.
Stabs were strengthened, and they added the Vertical Fence to the top of the LEX in 1988.

The Fence added Control Stability, as well as control LEX Vortices, but also added Drag.

The 1984 internet equivalent response would be "F-18 is junk! Scrap the entire program and build more Phantoms!"

Phantoms are overpriced trash! A-7s 4EVER!!!



The Jedi Master

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Outof_f8.gif


Wheels

Actually, I know someone who flew A-7s before transitioning to F/A-18s, and they didn't want to do it. They felt the A-7 was a more stable strike platform, with better range and a larger weapons payload.

He and a few squadmates went to a T-shirt shop in the Philippines or someplace and asked to have some shirts made up with a picture of an A-7 on it, and saying "A-7s Forever" along with it, and the person behind the counter pulled out a shirt that had an A-4 and "A-4s Forever" on it and said, "Like this?"

The pilots all looked at each other and realized they were just fighting change and walked out without placing an order. That pilot went on to fly Hornets, then Super Hornets when everyone was complaining about them (does anyone remember the Marine pilot saying he was embarrassed for the SH pilot after flying against it in a Legacy Hornet?), and stopped hating change.

Cleared to fly:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-cleared-fly-not-farnborough-yet