Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fuxy | Hacker News Reader

So really this is a more of necessity not to encourage competition.

They need a replacement for the Russian rocket engines and SpaceX is the only good alternative.

Competition is about alternatives - the Air Force could have just trusted the Lockheed-Boeing venture to do it. F-35 comes to mind and not in a good way.

I'm not seeing the connection to the F-35. I guess you know there was a competition for the right to build the JSF. Both aircraft met all the requirements for the competition. So can you please clarify?

The F-35 continuously overruns budgets and gets more and more money poured into it. I think this is the what is being referred to.

It has a history of overrunning budgets, yes, but the per-aircraft cost is declining and should continue to decline. I thought parent might have been referring to budget issues but I'm not really grasping how that's relevant.

The per-aircraft cost is still 3x or more that of the F/A-18, and the costs of operating it are also dramatically higher. http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/gao-draft-slams-f-35-on-u...

http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/F-18-Super-Hornet.html F-18E/F: $65.3 million (flyaway cost) or $80.7 million incl. support costs. You'll see a number of places quoting slightly different per unit costs for an F-18E/F, but they cluster around that figure. The cost of an F-35 in the latest LRIP lot (8) was as follows:

http://www.janes.com/article/46129/pentagon-finalises-f-35-l... "The US buy is for 19 F-35A conventional take-off and landing aircraft at USD94.8 million apiece; 6 F-35B short take-off and landing aircraft for USD102 million each."

That does not include an F-135 engine for each jet, which is anywhere from $10 to $15 million depending on the variant.

So while the F-35 is more expensive than the F-18, I do not believe the figures bear your "3x or more" assertion.

Also it's difficult to compare the operating costs of a fully mature aircraft like the F-18 with the F-35, which is still being tested and developed. I don't think that is an apples/apples comparison.

Disclaimer: all opinions my own, not those of my employer, etc.

Sorry, I was going off F/A-18D unit costs from Wikipedia rather than the Super Hornet. Still, ~2x the unit cost plus a 79% increase in support costs is nothing to sneeze at.

Well keep in mind that we are still in a low production rate situation. Production will ramp up greatly in the next few years, driving costs down further.

I'm pretty sure those costs are estimates based on a high production rate.

The costs I gave are the costs as contracted for LRIP lot 8, which consists of 43 aircraft. There are two more LRIP batches after LRIP 8, and then full rate production begins.

While I think the JSF is quite the boondoggle, this is not necessariy a fair comparison. We should expect the F-35 to cost quite a bit more in both upfront and operating costs; it is, after all, much more capable.

There seem to be a wide variety of concerns on the capability front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...

I think somewhere else on HN today there was mention of the famous discussion between Kissinger and Ellsberg about how the world seems different when you have access to information that most people don't.

I think most people that work on the F-35 feel that way.

I don't get your meaning here. Do those people feel like the typical high-clearance honcho that Ellsberg described, or like Ellsberg himself with the wisdom of years?

I can only speak for myself. I haven't had the super high clearances that Ellsberg talks about, but I do understand the feeling because of the work I do. I am paranoid about winding up like the "wisdom of years" version of Ellsberg though.

If one can assume that you have classified knowledge of the F-35 program, and one has seen the analyst's "can't turn, can't climb, can't run" statement, the "trust us we know stuff you don't" stuff rings really false, in today's reduced-trust context. If in fact that's what you're trying to say, because I find this statement to be if anything more impenetrable than the first.

The "can't turn, can't climb, can't run" stuff -- well, sure, compared to a clean F-16, or an F-22, or any number of other platforms, the F-35 has less maneuverability. This pilot says it better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCZmPUQZGvw

To paraphrase him: is the F-35 the world's best pure dogfighter? No. Is it the best pure CAS aircraft? No. For everything else, how does it compare? It's better.

This video is also worth checking out.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U

Sorry for sounding impenetrable.

I believe at first, SpaceX was squeezed out. SpaceX sued the government as choosing a monopoly. The government then went back on that to allow SpaceX to play.

There has been a lot of commentary in the news as to why SpaceX may not have been chosen. They don't have the track record that the current "monopoly" has. Even though SpaceX can deliver cheaper, these loads aren't nearly as price sensitive as commercial loads. SpaceX hasn't yet shown they can deal with increased load of launches.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com