The A-12 would have been a glorious attack plane and it could well have served as a baseline configuration for the next Navy interceptor.
It could have, but it was canceled because of cost.
Interesting because I'm sure (going by instinct because I don't have the numbers) it would still have been cheaper than the F-35C. So we have another program that faced tougher scrutiny than the F-35. If Comanche, Crusader, FCS and EFV were all canceled for cost, how do you explain those programs being killed and yet the F-35 survives?
I can't.
Check this GAO doc
ReplyDeleteThey were looking at $100 mil in 1990 dollars which is over $178mil today. This is much more expensive than an FRP F-35C
wait. you can't do that because we don't know what a full rate production cost for the F-35 would be. right now we're looking at over 200 mill per airplane. that makes the A-12 a bargain.
Deletebut the bigger debate is this. when does a program become unaffordable? if the F-35 isn't then neither was the crusader, or efv.
If this were the first year of production, then sure, you might have a case for unknown FRP costs. However, we are not talking about estimated costs “many” years into the future without some history to base them on. We are talking about the JPO having 5+ years if LRIP of production on which to base its estimations. Keep in mind that today’s FY2014 F-35C cost of $192 mil is for only 4 aircraft. Fy15 has 6 for $161, FY16 has 9 for $144, FY17 has 14 for 126, etc. These are just the LRIP contracts and FRP will be even less. The A-12 program FY1990 $100 mil was for 36 aircraft per year and its costs did not include planned upgrades.
Delete36 airplanes at 100 mill a piece? a bargain. it is and you know it.
DeleteToday that is 36 planes at $178... not such a bargain.
DeletePer the latest SAR, FRP (40 per year) projections have the cost at less than $100 mil, FY2012 dollars.
I'm still hoping Something good can come out of the program. Sorta like the original FB-111 program for the Navy failed but from it we got the awesome F-14 and F-111.
ReplyDeleteIt was not just budget issues...it did have a 30% weight increase wich made it difficult to integrate with the Navy carriers...price also skyrocketed...
ReplyDeleteBut yes...it could have been awesome...
As for the F-35 ,it was made to be impossible to kill..so many international partners,more than 100 planes bought before IOC...its here to stay...
In fact the JSF is a cuckoo bird program...it allready push several needed program out of the nest...
-Premature kill of the F-22
-No money for the FB-22
-Forget advanced versions of the F-15 and F-16
-Killed the EB-52 stand off jammer and the B-1R
In the USMC it as killed the MPC,the SuperHornet/Growler and lets see wath it will do to the CH-53K and the ACV...
--The Cold War, or more correctly the end of the cold war, along with the high cost of the F-22 are the two main contributors that ended the F-22’s production run.
Delete--There was never an FB-22 program. It was a LM design study that was later put forward as part of the Long-Range Strike program, which in and of itself keeps getting delayed.
--As far as advanced F-15/16s goes, why take a step back when you have 5th gen systems available?
--B-1R was never a program and EB-52 died due to its own budget problems
--The USMC were never getting the SH
Just because a new program exists does not mean that it caused another program to get canceled. Using that logic, Obamacare is the cause of all the budget problems we have today.
-The high cost off the F-22 came from cuts in the planned 750 to 187 airframes...
Delete-«The Lockheed Martin FB-22 (sometimes called the Strike Raptor) was a proposed United States Air Force bomber aircraft. Its design was derived from the F-22 Raptor. The FB-22 was canceled following the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review.»So it was an USAF program...they even put budget money for it...
-Step back?The F-15 outperforms the JSF in every way exept stealth(I hope).You can buy 2 F-16s for the price of one F-35(being nice here)
-B-1R is a proposed upgrade for existing B-1B
-I know...nevermind that they could get 2 of these and 5 MPCs for the price of a F-35B...
-Money has to come from some place...if you have X money to spend in 5 programs that cost xx ...you have to do cuts...
--Try again, the term “FB-22” has never appeared in any budget doc from 2000 on. Try searching for it on the RDDS site and see for yourself.
Delete--The B1-R was a Fantasy proposal, not a request from the USAF. It too does not show up on any budget doc.
--The F-35 is replacing the F-16, not the F-15 (but would still kick it’s butt). While you may be able to buy two “current” f-16s for one “current” F-35, you cannot buy two “advanced” F-16s for one “current” or “FRP” F-16. Then there is the whole issue of it taking dozens of planes to do what a 4-flight of F-35s will do by themselves.
--A Superhornet cannot fly form an LHD or be forward deployed... so that is a moot point.
They are at least(not going to do a «my d*ck is bigger than your d*ck» discution)industry proposals...like the F-20 Tigershark...
Delete-The F-15 Se in air to air can destroy any fighter...only competition in town...F-22...
-The production of the Viper as slown down...if ramped up you could have an F-16V(block 70?)foe hlf the price of an F-35...
-Worst thing is that it can...need proof?http://pt.scribd.com/doc/102730496/Combat-Aircraft-No-2-F-A-18-Hornet-read it before saying anything else...its cleared for ski-jump and the USMC uses the Hornet from WW2 airfields...
So now you are blaming industry proposals, that were never asked for and never accepted, on the F-35? :)
DeleteF35 is a transnational theft programme; not an aero vehicle.It was designed to completely destroy the West.
DeleteHow much money and so little in the air?
How many design teams now extant?
And then the last remaining team will be gone.
Ignorance = Priceless :)
DeleteFrom my perspective the A-12 ghost will be haunting naval aviation for decades to come. The entire medium attack community was eliminated and at best some of that capability will return with UCLASS. That said why the A-12 was cancelled is easy to understand.
ReplyDeleteThe Cold War had just ended and the programs costs were really spiraling out of control. Nobody could tell SECDEF Cheney what it was going to cost and he was perfectly happy to kill a major program as a political statement. The A-6/A-12 was only 10 of 80 aircraft then carried aboard our carries and cutting it was not critical and actually allowed the USN to significantly lower operating costs and have the carrier force survive post Cold War.
That's not something anyone should be happy about. We cut every long range aircraft (A-6/A-12, F-14, S-3) from our carriers in favor of a smaller wing of strike fighters. The only virtue in doing that was affordability.
The F-35 is not replacing a small number of aircraft but rather is being used to replace the vast majority of USAF tactical aviation, all of USMC tacair, and is critical to many other nations as well. It's too big to fail on multiple levels. It's probably going to end up hitting the upper ceiling of what customers are willing to pay but it won't exceed these costs and will thus survive.
The real problem is going to be exactly how much more it costs to operate over the aircraft it replaces. The USAF now agrees with the leaked NAVAIR estimates, which really shouldn't be any surprise. The F-35 weighs more than an F-15C. We're replacing what used to be called the low in the high/low mix of aircraft with essentially a high aircraft. That was simply never going to be affordable. What's going to happen are force structure cuts together with some units once planned to gain the F-35 gaining a different aircraft such as the AF version of UCLASS.
Not only is the F-35 too big to fail, but there is no viable alternative.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how late, or how expensive it is, there is no turning back. The F-22 is too expensive, the F-18E/F is too outdated. Ordering a new design (like the F/A-XX) would take years worth of R&D while at the same time delaying the F-35 even further as resources get diverted away.
Of course, there is the Eurocanard option (Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen) but that would require a LOT of people admitting that they were wrong, and Pentagon hubris makes the purchase of European equipment distasteful.
No, better to keep throwing money at the problem then admit that the concept itself is seriously flawed. Meanwhile the entire western world's air power superiority is left in serious doubt as Russian and Chinese hardware not only catches up, but surpasses us. The Su-35 is a beast, and jets like the PAK FA and J-20 should be viewed as a serious wake up call. The F-22 won't be the undisputed king of the skies much longer.
The F-35C replaces F-18A-D while the F/A-XX is aimed at F-18E-F and maybe F-15 replacement. They are two separate requirements and will likely serve together in the future.
Delete-Again the Raptor is too expensive because production was closed at 187...
Delete-If the SuperHornet is outdated the Su-35(based also in a 1970s design)is to...the SH has inferior transonic and supersonic performance but is au pair in low speed performance...and MUCH BETTER avionics and RCS...
In fact its much more advanced than the Eurocanards in many features...
-Doug,you left out the F-15Se that could be au pair or superior to the Su-35 and to the Eurocanards...
As for the Eurocanards...
-The Eurofighter is a very good Air superiority fighter but is not yet multirole...costs much more than a Silent Eagle and has inferior RCS,payload and in some areas/configurations inferior performance.Inferior avionics as well
-The Rafale is even worst than the Eurofighter in performance and lacks and HMD ans integration with american hardware/payload as off today .Similar price.
-The Gripen is just an european F-16...it is inferior to the Viper in many areas and it only superior features are cost per hour and its STOL performance
Read up on the Su-35. It's far beyond what the Super Hornet is to the legacy Hornet. It's also starting from a much more lethal platform (Su-27 = F-15/F-14, the MiG-29 = F-18/F-16).
DeleteThe F-15SE could be a match for the Su-35... If it existed (it doesn't yet) and it had thrust vectoring and IRST (it doesn't). The Eagle is also a very expensive jet to fly, much more than the F-16s and F-18s the JSF is meant to replace.
The Tranche 3 Typhoon has full ground attack capabilities along with other goodies (conformal tanks, AESA, etc). There's talk that 3D thrust vectoring is in the works. It and the Rafale now have HMD.
The Gripen E/F (NG) will be as good, if not better than the Block 60 F-16. More powerful engine, more fuel, AESA radar, IRST, more weapons. And cost per hour is a pretty big deal for most western nations that actually want to fly their planes instead of park them.
Odds are, the F-15SE will remain a concept, and nothing more. The single most likely candidate to procure the SE is South Korea, and that procurement program gets a bit deeper in the muck with each passing day.
DeleteTranche 3 Typhoon's will be great birds, once fielded. 3D thrust vectoring is a great goal, but look at the current budgetary climate in European defense spending, and it looks unlikely that upgrade will ever happen. What works against Typhoon is its operating cost. Germany tried offloading some of theirs to the Swiss, and the UK is downsizing their numbers much earlier than anyone expected.
Doug,you are wrong...the SH is equivalent to the Fulcrum or the Rafale...never to the EFA-2000 or the Grulla...
Delete-TVC is there if a customer whants it...like the Eurofighter...it is just a feature...UNLIKE THE EUROFIGHTER TVC IS ALLREADY TESTED WITH THE EAGLE...
-They are clearing (has of 8/7/2013)ground weapons for the EFA-2000...not yet multi-role
-Where is the Gripen better? It does not even have CFTs...
«In relation to the marketing efforts of the Gripen to multiple countries, including South Africa, Austria, the Czech Republic and Hungary, there were media reports of widespread bribery and corruption by BAE and Saab.[37] In 2007, Swedish journalists reported that bribes equivalent to millions of dollars had been paid by BAE,[38][39] and was followed by investigative reporting on BAE Systems in the UK and South Africa.[40][41] Following criminal investigations in eight countries, only one individual in Austria, Alfons Mensdorf-Pouilly, was prosecuted for bribery, the scandal tarnished the international reputation of the Gripen, BAE Systems, Saab, and Sweden.[42]»no wonder its better than F-16...(from wikipedia)
Yeah the A-12 would have been awesome, just like all the other programs the government cut that live on in our imaginations in an idealized world.
ReplyDelete"The Gripen E/F (NG) will be as good, if not better than the Block 60 F-16."
Of course it will, that is why it is selling so well. LOL