8 ms·

What does a competent fighter jet program look like?

laydn 7y ago
I believe no such thing exists in the western world. Russian fighter jet program costs appear to be orders of magnitude smaller though, at least on paper.
- adventured 7y ago
  The Su-57 has a supposed ~$35-$45 million unit cost (versus closer to $78m for eg the recent F35A planes [1]). If you adjust that to the US economic output per capita figures, you're looking at up to a quarter of a billion dollars per plane equivalent for the Su-57. A crushing sum, in other words, for the Russians and their economic capabilities. However, the Russians sold Su-35s to China at a cost of $83 million a few years ago. So the quoted Su-57 numbers certainly appear fraudulent. The real unit cost is probably twice the claims. There is minimal transparency in such things as it pertains to Russia. So far it appears they can't afford or deliver their supposedly cost effecient plane: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-stealth-fighter-awesome%E2%80%94%E2%80%8C-it-cant-afford-lot-them-111136 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-stealth-fight... [1] https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/29/in-newly-inked-deal-f-35-prices-fall-to-78-million-a-copy/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/29/in-newly-inked-de...
  - Xixi 7y ago
    It's very hard to compare sales figures with fly-away costs as they measure completely different things. Sales figures usually include many extras like weapons, simulators, training, support, spare parts, spare engines, integration with other (usually local) weapons, and other custom developments that can massively raise the bill. Conversely fly-away costs tend to exclude everything to look as small as possible: things like radars, helmet mounted displays, sometimes even engines are left aside.
- Polyisoprene 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
hef19898 7y ago
The F-117. Great story, was finished in budget and ahead of time. But then it was a black program without any political oversight. Basically a couple of brilliant engineers closed into a room with the sole task to built a stealth plane. EDIT: They used components from the F-16 and F-15 programs. Being a black program, this was hidden in spare parts needs for these other planes. I have congress report lying around somewhere which complains about excess spare needs for the F-16 from that period. So, maybe some of the F-117 costs are driving costs of other programs.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  My dad was convinced this was how they paid for UFOs. I really hope that's true, but I find it nearly impossible to believe our government would be competent enough to maintain secrecy.
  - erulabs 7y ago
    Well at very least these USAF/USN Stealth jet programs are at least competent at secrecy. From an Occam's Razor perspective, it's almost certainly that UFOs are either strange optical aberrations in peoples camera lenses or experimental military aircraft, so in part I think I agree with your dad. Camera weirdness being more common than billion dollar black programs, and those being more common than apparent life in the universe.
    - Zancarius 7y ago
      My father worked in connection to some of these programs many years ago (long since retired), and his favorite quip was to suggest that a closer inspection of "real" UFOs would reveal a USAF roundel painted on the side. So, naturally, I'm inclined to believe that if any such thing were ever spotted, it would be the result of one of these programs.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > Basically a couple of brilliant engineers closed into a room with the sole task to built a stealth plane. I think being able to focus was a big part of it. The F-35 (and F-32) is a 'kitchen sink' of a plane: multi-purpose sounds great in theory, but rarely works out in practice. Especially if you try shoehorning VTOL into the picture. If they had tried focusing on the F-35A and C variants, perhaps things should be less complicated.
tropo 7y ago
SuperHornet, the F-18D and F-18E, was great. Basically the navy pretended to update the Hornet (F-18A, F-18B, F-18C) but actually built a completely new plane. Clearly it isn't the same, because the airframe is dramatically larger. There is a tiny bit of stealth (nothing fancy) but otherwise it looks like the Hornet... except way larger. It was designed very quickly and cheaply. That was the requirement, and it was met. The whole project was sort of an open secret, pretending to be a revision of the Hornet while actually being an entirely new aircraft. This seems to have evaded lots of bureaucracy.
- moosedev 7y ago
  Small nitpick: the Super Hornet is actually the F/A-18E and F variants. F/A-18D was the two-seater variant of F/A-18C. (Great planes though, yeah!)
- adwww 7y ago
  This reminds me of how my city managed to secure money for a world class concert hall by claiming it was just a multipurpose hall that _could_ possibly be used for concerts. I've submitted the story here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22200328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22200328
Xixi 7y ago
France's Rafale program is usually considered to have been very competently managed. Of course it's quite a bit older than the F-35, as the program started in the early 80s. But it has been mostly on time [1], on budget and on spec. This is despite sharing some of the complexity of the F-35 in that it replaced most previous aircraft types in use in the French air force (a true multi-role aircraft), and even has a carrier capable version (CATOBAR, not VTOL). It's basically equivalent to making the F-35A and F-35C, without the F-35B. Of course, having only one nation in the program helped a lot keeping the specifications consistent over time. I strongly doubt the NGF currently being developed with Germany and Spain is going to be that smooth... [1] delays were incurred by the end of the Cold war: the so-called peace dividends, resulting in military budget restrictions.
- Glawen 7y ago
  It definitely is a competently managed program, as were the mirage programs. However if you look at the a400m or eurofighter programs, you see delays and budget overruns. The issue lies in the spec creep by the funding parties of these programs. For example the french took deliveries of the first a400m because they needed the plane, but it could not drop parachutists in the first version !
  - Xixi 7y ago
    Also note that the makers of these three products are completely different. The Rafale was helmed by Dassault, the A400M by former CASA (Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA in Spain, now part of Airbus) and the Typhoon by what I believe is a former part of British Aerospace (now also part of Airbus). Airbus really is a collection of companies, so it can be hard to figure out exactly which part does what. I hope Dassault remains the project manager on the NGF, although in the end spec creep really is the biggest program killer...
- greedo 7y ago
  Rafale was doomed to be too expensive due to the limited production run. This makes it hard to sell to other countries.
hestefisk 7y ago
F-16 Fighting Falcon.

I believe no such thing exists in the western world. Russian fighter jet program costs appear to be orders of magnitude smaller though, at least on paper.

adventured 7y ago
The Su-57 has a supposed ~$35-$45 million unit cost (versus closer to $78m for eg the recent F35A planes [1]). If you adjust that to the US economic output per capita figures, you're looking at up to a quarter of a billion dollars per plane equivalent for the Su-57. A crushing sum, in other words, for the Russians and their economic capabilities. However, the Russians sold Su-35s to China at a cost of $83 million a few years ago. So the quoted Su-57 numbers certainly appear fraudulent. The real unit cost is probably twice the claims. There is minimal transparency in such things as it pertains to Russia. So far it appears they can't afford or deliver their supposedly cost effecient plane: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-stealth-fighter-awesome%E2%80%94%E2%80%8C-it-cant-afford-lot-them-111136 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-stealth-fight... [1] https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/29/in-newly-inked-deal-f-35-prices-fall-to-78-million-a-copy/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/29/in-newly-inked-de...
- Xixi 7y ago
  It's very hard to compare sales figures with fly-away costs as they measure completely different things. Sales figures usually include many extras like weapons, simulators, training, support, spare parts, spare engines, integration with other (usually local) weapons, and other custom developments that can massively raise the bill. Conversely fly-away costs tend to exclude everything to look as small as possible: things like radars, helmet mounted displays, sometimes even engines are left aside.
Polyisoprene 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

hef19898 7y ago

The F-117. Great story, was finished in budget and ahead of time. But then it was a black program without any political oversight. Basically a couple of brilliant engineers closed into a room with the sole task to built a stealth plane. EDIT: They used components from the F-16 and F-15 programs. Being a black program, this was hidden in spare parts needs for these other planes. I have congress report lying around somewhere which complains about excess spare needs for the F-16 from that period. So, maybe some of the F-117 costs are driving costs of other programs.

dr_dshiv 7y ago
My dad was convinced this was how they paid for UFOs. I really hope that's true, but I find it nearly impossible to believe our government would be competent enough to maintain secrecy.
- erulabs 7y ago
  Well at very least these USAF/USN Stealth jet programs are at least competent at secrecy. From an Occam's Razor perspective, it's almost certainly that UFOs are either strange optical aberrations in peoples camera lenses or experimental military aircraft, so in part I think I agree with your dad. Camera weirdness being more common than billion dollar black programs, and those being more common than apparent life in the universe.
  - Zancarius 7y ago
    My father worked in connection to some of these programs many years ago (long since retired), and his favorite quip was to suggest that a closer inspection of "real" UFOs would reveal a USAF roundel painted on the side. So, naturally, I'm inclined to believe that if any such thing were ever spotted, it would be the result of one of these programs.
throw0101a 7y ago
> Basically a couple of brilliant engineers closed into a room with the sole task to built a stealth plane. I think being able to focus was a big part of it. The F-35 (and F-32) is a 'kitchen sink' of a plane: multi-purpose sounds great in theory, but rarely works out in practice. Especially if you try shoehorning VTOL into the picture. If they had tried focusing on the F-35A and C variants, perhaps things should be less complicated.

tropo 7y ago

SuperHornet, the F-18D and F-18E, was great. Basically the navy pretended to update the Hornet (F-18A, F-18B, F-18C) but actually built a completely new plane. Clearly it isn't the same, because the airframe is dramatically larger. There is a tiny bit of stealth (nothing fancy) but otherwise it looks like the Hornet... except way larger. It was designed very quickly and cheaply. That was the requirement, and it was met. The whole project was sort of an open secret, pretending to be a revision of the Hornet while actually being an entirely new aircraft. This seems to have evaded lots of bureaucracy.

moosedev 7y ago
Small nitpick: the Super Hornet is actually the F/A-18E and F variants. F/A-18D was the two-seater variant of F/A-18C. (Great planes though, yeah!)
adwww 7y ago
This reminds me of how my city managed to secure money for a world class concert hall by claiming it was just a multipurpose hall that _could_ possibly be used for concerts. I've submitted the story here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22200328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22200328

Xixi 7y ago

France's Rafale program is usually considered to have been very competently managed. Of course it's quite a bit older than the F-35, as the program started in the early 80s. But it has been mostly on time [1], on budget and on spec. This is despite sharing some of the complexity of the F-35 in that it replaced most previous aircraft types in use in the French air force (a true multi-role aircraft), and even has a carrier capable version (CATOBAR, not VTOL). It's basically equivalent to making the F-35A and F-35C, without the F-35B. Of course, having only one nation in the program helped a lot keeping the specifications consistent over time. I strongly doubt the NGF currently being developed with Germany and Spain is going to be that smooth... [1] delays were incurred by the end of the Cold war: the so-called peace dividends, resulting in military budget restrictions.

Glawen 7y ago
It definitely is a competently managed program, as were the mirage programs. However if you look at the a400m or eurofighter programs, you see delays and budget overruns. The issue lies in the spec creep by the funding parties of these programs. For example the french took deliveries of the first a400m because they needed the plane, but it could not drop parachutists in the first version !
- Xixi 7y ago
  Also note that the makers of these three products are completely different. The Rafale was helmed by Dassault, the A400M by former CASA (Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA in Spain, now part of Airbus) and the Typhoon by what I believe is a former part of British Aerospace (now also part of Airbus). Airbus really is a collection of companies, so it can be hard to figure out exactly which part does what. I hope Dassault remains the project manager on the NGF, although in the end spec creep really is the biggest program killer...
greedo 7y ago
Rafale was doomed to be too expensive due to the limited production run. This makes it hard to sell to other countries.

hestefisk 7y ago

F-16 Fighting Falcon.