WASHINGTON, Oct 23 (Reuters) - A new Pentagon study has

affirmed previous findings that Lockheed Martin Corp's

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, the costliest U.S. arms

purchase program, will require billions of dollars more than

planned, and more time, an online news service said on Friday.



The Greeks

I wonder if we will end up cancelling it then. With the Democrats in power, they've already cancelled further production of the F-22. This might be different because there's other countries involved, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a few Democrats who would like to cancel this project too.

Don't worry, it won't get cancelled, as the F-35 is considered as the sole realistic solution to the even costlier F-22 program. And unlike the F-22, it's an international collaboration with hundreds of initial orders already confirmed. Developing such an advanced new aircraft always will require surprise expenses. That's nothing new.

Turk Bir Dev

The future of aerial combat...

Turk Bir Dev

LOL.

Slow, unmaneuvrable, less stealthy than F-22 costing too much to afford.

Good luck with that.

Thunder Supports Rafale

http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

If "speed" was everything, the Cold War era Russian aircraft would be the best.

Good luck with the Fafale.

The -35 will do Mach 1.6 with a full internal load. No Eurocanard will come close in a similar configuration.



When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.

i don't intend to weigh in here with my full analysis and opinion of the f-35, or on turkey's prospects of operating a model with full-up USAF capabilities.

i can say fairly though that the program has tripped over numerous engineering and budgetary goals so far. not horrible trip-ups, but enough to reveal that the design was somewhat half-baked far deeper into the project than you would hope. i'm thinking mainly of the structural redesign and overweight fiasco. this is not such a surprise, as it was being developed in a vacuum of necessity (plenty of legacy platforms, LACMs, and UCAVs to bomb the 'terrorists') and with bush-era defense dollars sloshing around like water. no one was cracking the whip on lock-mart.

i think we can all agree that those days are over. with the federal budget looking as scary as it does, and the dems in full control these are dangerous times for the f-35.

add to that the complexity of international partnership (look at all the bs with the brits... source codes, engines, threats to back out of the program!), and the fact that the UCAV future seems to be arriving a little ahead of schedule, and you can see how likely it becomes that the US will order lower than projected numbers of f-35.

whether that translates into much higher costs or diminished capabilities for the turks is anyone's guess at this point. as an american i personally feel that the f-35 is an utter waste for us and should be immediately sh1t canned in favor of strike UCAVs. pilots are so over.

"The -35 will do Mach 1.6 with a full internal load. No Eurocanard will come close in a similar configuration."

I've read the Eurofighter can do mach 2.

Furthermore, the Eurofighter has more hardpoints than the F-35 has in it's internal bays. To match the Eurofighter's payload, the F-35 has to carry weapons externally, which will hurt it's RCS.

I've read the Eurofighter can do mach 2.
---
Yes clean. I'll give you an example. The F-15 is able to fly at Mach 2.5. Pilots say that in a regular A2A weapon load (and this the F-35 can carry internally), the F-15 will fly at most at Mach 1.5.




Furthermore, the Eurofighter has more hardpoints than the F-35 has in it's internal bays. To match the Eurofighter's payload, the F-35 has to carry weapons externally, which will hurt it's RCS.
---
True. But I think a more relevant question is: does the internal weapon load of the F-35 suffice to do its job? We could debate that but the EF has not the possibility to fight "clean" unlike the F-35.



When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.

Pentagon Study Shows F-35 Jet to Cost MoreReport (excerpt)


(Source: Reuters; published Oct. 23, 2009)



WASHINGTON --- A new Pentagon study has affirmed previous findings that Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, the costliest U.S. arms purchase program, will require billions of dollars more than planned, and more time, an online news service said on Friday.

A military "Joint Estimate Team" tasked in July to examine the program has found the F-35 program's performance "is not markedly improving," InsideDefense.com said, citing an unidentified source.

Lockheed is developing three radar-evading F-35 models to replace at least 13 types of aircraft, initially for 11 nations.

The United States plans to buy 2,443 F-35s. Purchases by partner nations Britain, Canada, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and Australia and others could raise production to 3,000 or more.

Northrop Grumman Corp and BAE Systems Plc are Lockheed's chief F-35 sub-contractors.

"A new assessment of the Joint Strike Fighter program affirms earlier findings that substantially more money and time are required for the Pentagon's largest acquisition effort, a conclusion that could pose a formidable test of Defense Secretary Robert Gates' recent support for the F-35 program and President Barack Obamas pledge to terminate weapons with bloated price tags," InsideDefense.com reported.

Its headline said the program would need "billions" more.

Obama vowed in March to reform the Pentagon's procurement practices and to crack down on programs that run over budget.

Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates decided to cap production of the Lockheed F-22 fighter at 187 planes, citing his support for the $300 billion F-35 program.

The study was undertaken to update one last year that found the program would need at least two more years and nearly $15 billion more.

"The initial results are as bad as last year's," InsideDefense.com quoted its source as saying. "In other words, things have not improved. And their cost estimate will be at least where they were last year."

In response, Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales, said it disagreed with the joint estimate team conclusions.

"Lockheed Martin acknowledges that modest risks to our cost and schedule baselines exist," said John Kent, a company spokesman, "but we envision no scenario that would justify a substantial delay to completion of development or transition to production milestones." (ends of excerpt)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/109347/jet-study-shows-f_35-costs-continue-to-rise%2C-schedule-to-slip%3A-report.html


Thunder Supports Rafale

http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html