6 ms·

But how would this compare if you had upgraded, let's say the F16 and F18, to have the same avionics and weapons systems capabilities as the F35? Or is that imp

by erentz 10y ago

But how would this compare if you had upgraded, let's say the F16 and F18, to have the same avionics and weapons systems capabilities as the F35? Or is that impossible without an entirely new triple-gold-plated air frame design?

threeseed 10y ago
Not sure that would've been possible or probable. You are talking about replacing basically everything except the aircraft frame. A frame which is using decades old technology and lacks any form of stealth. And given that the entire point of the F-35 is the deployment of sensors within a contested environment not sure what the point would be.
adamson 10y ago
Next-gen fighters are moving in the direction of quadruple-gold-plating
- Gravityloss 10y ago
  You probably love Norm Augustine's writings...
  - rhcom2 10y ago
    I hadn't heard of these before, the one you're referencing probably is: "In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one tactical aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3½ days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day." but Law Number XI might apply to this audience the best: "If the Earth could be made to rotate twice as fast, managers would get twice as much done. If the Earth could be made to rotate twenty times as fast, everyone else would get twice as much done since all the managers would fly off."
    - Gravityloss 10y ago
      Yes, and he wrote a really good article recently for Aviation Week's 100 year theme number that expands on that [1]. Basically, how could aircraft cost increase, when it's at the level of the aircraft's weight in gold? You can't add hardware that would increase cost... unless you invent something that uses no space and has no mass. It's software. x: http://aviationweek.com/defense/next-100-years-norm-augustine http://aviationweek.com/defense/next-100-years-norm-augustin... (paywall)
      - dingaling 10y ago
        The weight-in-gold metric was first passed by the B-58 in 1956. So 60 years on and we're now at weight-in-platinum I think.
cnnsucks 10y ago
>> But But, but, but...!!1 Now that they are in the field producing results the haters begin retreating to ever smaller and more qualified hypotheticals. I'm pleased with myself for not having participated in the stupid F-35 flame wars that have been raging for years with these people.
blackflame7000 10y ago
The whole point of the F-35 is stealth which is determined by the shape and materials used on the fuselage. You cannot simply retrofit stealth.
- erentz 10y ago
  Agreed on the stealth aspect. But it seems a reasonable data point to consider. Granted, it would be fairer to analyze how much of the program cost is tied to the air frame and stealth vs the avionics and weapons systems. When I hear figures of over $1 trillion in program cost, I think "Wow, you could get 10,000 new F18s for that price! What would 10,000 F18s do against a couple hundred F35s!" I do think we would got more for our money if we took more iterative approached to military technology to continuously improve air frame and avionics technology rather than making large risky step wise projects like the F35.
  - eric_h 10y ago
    I'm not really sure how you do iterative development of jet aircraft without spending unholy amounts of money.
  - na85 10y ago
    >When I hear figures of over $1 trillion in program cost Bear in mind that that's not the same type of price you're quoted when buying a car. The weapon system program includes the cost of training technicians to maintain and fix it, training pilots to fly it, the projected cost of expected mid-life upgrades, and most often overlooked is the cost of disposing the airframes when they are to be replaced in the future. You can't just put it in a landfill, it's loaded with highly classified military equipment.
na85 10y ago
Aerospace engineer here: You're talking about an upgrade of such scope that it's probably of comparable cost to just buying a new jet. F-16s and -18s aren't without their flaws either, and aren't stealthy at all.
neurotech1 10y ago
The fly-away cost difference between a F-35A(USAF) ($95m-$105m) and a top-of-the-line F/A-18F(RAAF) ($80m + FMS costs) is less than 30%, and not "half" like some people are claiming. F-16C Block 70 Viper II is about $80m each, so not much under a F-35A

by erentz 10y ago

threeseed 10y ago

Not sure that would've been possible or probable. You are talking about replacing basically everything except the aircraft frame. A frame which is using decades old technology and lacks any form of stealth. And given that the entire point of the F-35 is the deployment of sensors within a contested environment not sure what the point would be.

adamson 10y ago

Next-gen fighters are moving in the direction of quadruple-gold-plating

Gravityloss 10y ago
You probably love Norm Augustine's writings...
- rhcom2 10y ago
  I hadn't heard of these before, the one you're referencing probably is: "In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one tactical aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3½ days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day." but Law Number XI might apply to this audience the best: "If the Earth could be made to rotate twice as fast, managers would get twice as much done. If the Earth could be made to rotate twenty times as fast, everyone else would get twice as much done since all the managers would fly off."
  - Gravityloss 10y ago
    Yes, and he wrote a really good article recently for Aviation Week's 100 year theme number that expands on that [1]. Basically, how could aircraft cost increase, when it's at the level of the aircraft's weight in gold? You can't add hardware that would increase cost... unless you invent something that uses no space and has no mass. It's software. x: http://aviationweek.com/defense/next-100-years-norm-augustine http://aviationweek.com/defense/next-100-years-norm-augustin... (paywall)
    - dingaling 10y ago
      The weight-in-gold metric was first passed by the B-58 in 1956. So 60 years on and we're now at weight-in-platinum I think.

cnnsucks 10y ago

>> But But, but, but...!!1 Now that they are in the field producing results the haters begin retreating to ever smaller and more qualified hypotheticals. I'm pleased with myself for not having participated in the stupid F-35 flame wars that have been raging for years with these people.

blackflame7000 10y ago

The whole point of the F-35 is stealth which is determined by the shape and materials used on the fuselage. You cannot simply retrofit stealth.

erentz 10y ago
Agreed on the stealth aspect. But it seems a reasonable data point to consider. Granted, it would be fairer to analyze how much of the program cost is tied to the air frame and stealth vs the avionics and weapons systems. When I hear figures of over $1 trillion in program cost, I think "Wow, you could get 10,000 new F18s for that price! What would 10,000 F18s do against a couple hundred F35s!" I do think we would got more for our money if we took more iterative approached to military technology to continuously improve air frame and avionics technology rather than making large risky step wise projects like the F35.
- eric_h 10y ago
  I'm not really sure how you do iterative development of jet aircraft without spending unholy amounts of money.
- na85 10y ago
  >When I hear figures of over $1 trillion in program cost Bear in mind that that's not the same type of price you're quoted when buying a car. The weapon system program includes the cost of training technicians to maintain and fix it, training pilots to fly it, the projected cost of expected mid-life upgrades, and most often overlooked is the cost of disposing the airframes when they are to be replaced in the future. You can't just put it in a landfill, it's loaded with highly classified military equipment.

na85 10y ago

Aerospace engineer here: You're talking about an upgrade of such scope that it's probably of comparable cost to just buying a new jet. F-16s and -18s aren't without their flaws either, and aren't stealthy at all.

neurotech1 10y ago

The fly-away cost difference between a F-35A(USAF) ($95m-$105m) and a top-of-the-line F/A-18F(RAAF) ($80m + FMS costs) is less than 30%, and not "half" like some people are claiming. F-16C Block 70 Viper II is about $80m each, so not much under a F-35A