F-35 First Flight Comments...
- Thread starter Kurt Plummer
- Start date
but small is comparative these days it smaller than an f14 and an f22 so it is small compared to some aircraft.
p.s don't you post on tanknet distiller
p.s don't you post on tanknet distiller
Thanks AD. Great to get some good news about the F35. Even allowing for Lockheed Martin spin this seems to have been a successful first flight.
Thanks also to chrisrobsoar for the interesting link and explanatory notes.
Let's hope that things continue to go well. IMHO it is the most important military aviation project developed by the USA (and its partners) for many decades. I can't remember a project on which so much is riding for so many countries (UK and Australia for starters).
Cheers
No, I just switched over from keypublishing.
ah i thought i saw name before
well i should be very difficutlt to cancel the plane now its in flight testing
well i should be very difficutlt to cancel the plane now its in flight testing
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #146
Swerve,
>>
Different price bases.
>>
Snicker. Yes indeed. 'The Armed Forces and The Rest Of The Worlds'.
Where everyone from the Beltway to CBO/GAO has been predicting a 70-77 million dollar airframe unit acquisition cost from the 1997 at least.
Roche` and his lackeys 'announced' a 45 million dollar _flyaway_ cost at the October 2001 SDD signing. And latest numbers (from the first flight articles) are 'in 2002 dollars' for 45 to SIXTY million dollars.
Yet the numbers now in the latest CRS booklet are for 112 million dollars. A year and a half later than the the F-35 was actually supposed to be /in production/ who was closer I daresay?
>>
The PUAC includes development & other fixed costs, some of which have already been spent for the F-35 (I know, most have been spent for the F-22).
>>
Except that when the USAF announced ground breaking for the JSF facilities at Nellis (back when total program costs were 'only' 244 billion) the jet was /already/ stated to be 100 million each in 'real money'.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Aug-21-Sat-2004/news/24587717.html
It's the idiots who 'toe the line' with the public front that you are going to get 2,437 jets who end up defrauding the country of the REAL money involved with PUAC which does indeed include military construction for a force which, even if only half that preposterous number, will still be FOUR TIMES the frontend investment of a 300 plane F-22 force (which is still all we are likely to 276 get).
For an inventory whose scalar economics will be shot to hell because THIS MAN-
>
Rear Admiral Craig Steidle is the director of the Joint Strike Fighter Program. He came to the program in January 1994 after spending four years managing the Navy's F-18 program, where he directed the development of the F-18E/F. A decorated Naval pilot, the admiral has flown over fifty different types of aircraft, among them the F-18, A-6, F-4, A-3, and H-2. He has accumulated over 3,600 flying hours in his flying career, including nighttime carrier-based missions over North Vietnam.
...
Cost and quantity curves flatten out at about 1,600 airplanes. You also have to consider a learning curve, which also becomes relatively flat after a period of time. Through affordability initiatives, though, we are lowering the learning curve to bring the initial cost down. Another aspect of overall cost is cost of ownership-what it costs to operate the airplane, the number of maintenance personnel required to support the airplane. These factors determine operation and support costs, and they are equally as important as production cost.
>
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1997/articles/apr_97/apr97_01/apr2a_97.html
Says so.
I'm betting on less that 1,500 and possibly less than 1,200 _total_ U.S. inventory. At which point Lunchmeat will go bankrupt trying to sell on Tiered price spec to foreign buyers because this is the second iteration of 'buying in' technology base refinance (F-22->F-35).
>>
And that $117mn may be what Lockheed Martin got, but it isn't what the USAF paid. At a "flyaway" price of under $130 mn for an F-22, the unit acquisition cost for the USAF was about $175 mn, excluding fixed costs.
>>
Except 'flyaway' by the 339th example would have been between 74 and 83.5 million dollars depending on whose adjusted dollars you use.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/sept2002/0902raptor.asp
>>
The lowest that's forecast to fall to is ca $160 mn.
>>
Sure, NOW. When you've gutted procurement and everyone is 'onboard with the JSF' as a conspiracy of manned aviation to save itself no matter what it costs this nation because /everyone with a vote/ is realizing that they will be flying 500 F-22s and 500 Teen jets as an alternative.
NEVER STOPPING TO THINK (egotistical little pricks that they are) that _maybe being in the cockpit is not the best answer at all_. That there shouldn't /be/ a mutant under glass effect destroying the REAL combat capabilities edges of the system. Specifically: no baby onboard = no goldplate.
>>
That's the real cost of adding one more F-22 to the inventory. Also, these are current prices.
>>
See above. I don't believe you. I would have to be a fool to do so. You would have the fox tell the farmer what a chicken is.
>>
The F-35 PUAC & APUC are "then-year" prices, and include forecast inflation between now & when the money is spent, i.e. over ten years in the future, on average. In 2006$ the PUAC & APUC are forecast at about $92 mn & $78 mn respectively.
>>
Except that this-
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...ical_Aircra/B.19961003.US_Tactical_Aircra.htm
Showed the 'real' unit costs of the JSF as being some 63 to 81 million dollars _in 1996_.
Back before the program was effectively halved.
Back before the program was shoved right by 2+ years thanks to _predicted_ 'technology has not been sufficiently proven' weight problems.
Back before the SDD scheduling:cost problem was so extreme that they decided to run the IOT&E 'production decision' based on a NON PWSC REPRESENTATIVE AIRCRAFT because they knew they couldn't afford to make an apples to apples comparison with the specs since the STOVL and CVTOL models are STILL **vastly overweight**.
Even as all the things like Quick Mate and Structural redundancies for manufacturing efficiencies and 'thin skin' lifing are either gone or need to be completely revalidated. And they can't wait or risk being caught out in a fraud of achieved capabilities as the F/A-18E/F was.
Because after our 'vaunted military' runs yiping from the Gulf, oil will be sold by rabid Muslims in whatever currency it takes to ruin the USD. At which point all our foreign held commercial and private credit debt will blow up in our faces and _this country's economy will collapse_.
Do you get the idea that it is REALLY STUPID to trust to PUACs that /have always been pipedreams/?!?
>>
Sound point about the F-35 not having yet flown (or even been assembled!) in production configuration, though. F-22 costs are known, while F-35 costs are only forecast.
>>
I'm not your pet, don't pat me like a dog.
The USAF has known what the Just So F'd would cost from the very beginning. When it comes to spending money they hire the best accountants and lawyers as a function of figuring out the most sly way to commit grotesque acts of Deficiency Act fraud the likes of which billions ALL OF ORGANIZED CRIME TOGETHER can only gape in wonder at.
If the captains and the generals and the brats in the pentagon were to be treated like the mafia in 'The Firm' with RICO indictments all 'round for multiple corrupt organization acts of deliberate contract fraud, every man jack associated with the JSF effort would spend the rest of their worthless lives in prison.
THEN, maybe, we could start to look at how the ongoing WAR in Iraq is being _lost_ by inept use of military airpower as the principal NTISR surveillance modeal for places we won't strip Korea and NATO and CONUS units to _permanently_ station troops to cover by ground.
And the idiots who exclaim 'If the UCAV didn't have the endurance, we wouldn't even be considering it!' would be finally exposed as the street whore manned-airpower hustlers they are.
CONCLUSION:
PUAC is not a given. Most especially, it's not an excuse to be thrown about in _failing_ to compare what-is-sunk vs. what is STILL TO BE PAID for **like numbers** of line-vested airframes. 500:500 the F-22 will WIN because it is a UNIFIED NOT THREEWAY SPLIT FORCE. And one which will have LESS THAN HALF the 'one glowing hole, gone dark' _peacetime_ losses. Just like the F-15/16 have shown to do (as of 1994, _SIX_ of 380 jets had been lost in combat. Of the rest the predominant majority were stupid-pilot-showing-off faulted. But of the rest 30% were _engine related_).
The Air Force knows all of this. But being a boys club of Sky Knights fraternity, they all want to preserve cockpit airpower **at all costs**.
And we can simply no longer afford to indulge the image.
I suppose you've heard of the Pentagon Paradox. That performance is inversely proportional to expectation. There is a corollary to this. When nobody expects anything but lies and subpar excuses for contractual performance from those they vote into office with higher fiduciary trust, the very system of accountability breaks down under the premise that what is unfixable is also 'never to be acknowledged as broken'. Because that would mean admitting that there is no point in oversight and indeed the democratic system of allocated funds for responsible program management is itself a farce.
What we have failed to acknowledge here is that _there can be external modifiers_ which force the adjustment of such an entropic staticism of corruption and parochial service self interests. And the end of our commitment in the Gulf is about to be just that.
Congratulations on losing another war gentlemen. You couldn't have played into my argument any better if you had tried.
KPl.
>>
Different price bases.
>>
Snicker. Yes indeed. 'The Armed Forces and The Rest Of The Worlds'.
Where everyone from the Beltway to CBO/GAO has been predicting a 70-77 million dollar airframe unit acquisition cost from the 1997 at least.
Roche` and his lackeys 'announced' a 45 million dollar _flyaway_ cost at the October 2001 SDD signing. And latest numbers (from the first flight articles) are 'in 2002 dollars' for 45 to SIXTY million dollars.
Yet the numbers now in the latest CRS booklet are for 112 million dollars. A year and a half later than the the F-35 was actually supposed to be /in production/ who was closer I daresay?
>>
The PUAC includes development & other fixed costs, some of which have already been spent for the F-35 (I know, most have been spent for the F-22).
>>
Except that when the USAF announced ground breaking for the JSF facilities at Nellis (back when total program costs were 'only' 244 billion) the jet was /already/ stated to be 100 million each in 'real money'.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Aug-21-Sat-2004/news/24587717.html
It's the idiots who 'toe the line' with the public front that you are going to get 2,437 jets who end up defrauding the country of the REAL money involved with PUAC which does indeed include military construction for a force which, even if only half that preposterous number, will still be FOUR TIMES the frontend investment of a 300 plane F-22 force (which is still all we are likely to 276 get).
For an inventory whose scalar economics will be shot to hell because THIS MAN-
>
Rear Admiral Craig Steidle is the director of the Joint Strike Fighter Program. He came to the program in January 1994 after spending four years managing the Navy's F-18 program, where he directed the development of the F-18E/F. A decorated Naval pilot, the admiral has flown over fifty different types of aircraft, among them the F-18, A-6, F-4, A-3, and H-2. He has accumulated over 3,600 flying hours in his flying career, including nighttime carrier-based missions over North Vietnam.
...
Cost and quantity curves flatten out at about 1,600 airplanes. You also have to consider a learning curve, which also becomes relatively flat after a period of time. Through affordability initiatives, though, we are lowering the learning curve to bring the initial cost down. Another aspect of overall cost is cost of ownership-what it costs to operate the airplane, the number of maintenance personnel required to support the airplane. These factors determine operation and support costs, and they are equally as important as production cost.
>
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1997/articles/apr_97/apr97_01/apr2a_97.html
Says so.
I'm betting on less that 1,500 and possibly less than 1,200 _total_ U.S. inventory. At which point Lunchmeat will go bankrupt trying to sell on Tiered price spec to foreign buyers because this is the second iteration of 'buying in' technology base refinance (F-22->F-35).
>>
And that $117mn may be what Lockheed Martin got, but it isn't what the USAF paid. At a "flyaway" price of under $130 mn for an F-22, the unit acquisition cost for the USAF was about $175 mn, excluding fixed costs.
>>
Except 'flyaway' by the 339th example would have been between 74 and 83.5 million dollars depending on whose adjusted dollars you use.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/sept2002/0902raptor.asp
>>
The lowest that's forecast to fall to is ca $160 mn.
>>
Sure, NOW. When you've gutted procurement and everyone is 'onboard with the JSF' as a conspiracy of manned aviation to save itself no matter what it costs this nation because /everyone with a vote/ is realizing that they will be flying 500 F-22s and 500 Teen jets as an alternative.
NEVER STOPPING TO THINK (egotistical little pricks that they are) that _maybe being in the cockpit is not the best answer at all_. That there shouldn't /be/ a mutant under glass effect destroying the REAL combat capabilities edges of the system. Specifically: no baby onboard = no goldplate.
>>
That's the real cost of adding one more F-22 to the inventory. Also, these are current prices.
>>
See above. I don't believe you. I would have to be a fool to do so. You would have the fox tell the farmer what a chicken is.
>>
The F-35 PUAC & APUC are "then-year" prices, and include forecast inflation between now & when the money is spent, i.e. over ten years in the future, on average. In 2006$ the PUAC & APUC are forecast at about $92 mn & $78 mn respectively.
>>
Except that this-
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...ical_Aircra/B.19961003.US_Tactical_Aircra.htm
Showed the 'real' unit costs of the JSF as being some 63 to 81 million dollars _in 1996_.
Back before the program was effectively halved.
Back before the program was shoved right by 2+ years thanks to _predicted_ 'technology has not been sufficiently proven' weight problems.
Back before the SDD scheduling:cost problem was so extreme that they decided to run the IOT&E 'production decision' based on a NON PWSC REPRESENTATIVE AIRCRAFT because they knew they couldn't afford to make an apples to apples comparison with the specs since the STOVL and CVTOL models are STILL **vastly overweight**.
Even as all the things like Quick Mate and Structural redundancies for manufacturing efficiencies and 'thin skin' lifing are either gone or need to be completely revalidated. And they can't wait or risk being caught out in a fraud of achieved capabilities as the F/A-18E/F was.
Because after our 'vaunted military' runs yiping from the Gulf, oil will be sold by rabid Muslims in whatever currency it takes to ruin the USD. At which point all our foreign held commercial and private credit debt will blow up in our faces and _this country's economy will collapse_.
Do you get the idea that it is REALLY STUPID to trust to PUACs that /have always been pipedreams/?!?
>>
Sound point about the F-35 not having yet flown (or even been assembled!) in production configuration, though. F-22 costs are known, while F-35 costs are only forecast.
>>
I'm not your pet, don't pat me like a dog.
The USAF has known what the Just So F'd would cost from the very beginning. When it comes to spending money they hire the best accountants and lawyers as a function of figuring out the most sly way to commit grotesque acts of Deficiency Act fraud the likes of which billions ALL OF ORGANIZED CRIME TOGETHER can only gape in wonder at.
If the captains and the generals and the brats in the pentagon were to be treated like the mafia in 'The Firm' with RICO indictments all 'round for multiple corrupt organization acts of deliberate contract fraud, every man jack associated with the JSF effort would spend the rest of their worthless lives in prison.
THEN, maybe, we could start to look at how the ongoing WAR in Iraq is being _lost_ by inept use of military airpower as the principal NTISR surveillance modeal for places we won't strip Korea and NATO and CONUS units to _permanently_ station troops to cover by ground.
And the idiots who exclaim 'If the UCAV didn't have the endurance, we wouldn't even be considering it!' would be finally exposed as the street whore manned-airpower hustlers they are.
CONCLUSION:
PUAC is not a given. Most especially, it's not an excuse to be thrown about in _failing_ to compare what-is-sunk vs. what is STILL TO BE PAID for **like numbers** of line-vested airframes. 500:500 the F-22 will WIN because it is a UNIFIED NOT THREEWAY SPLIT FORCE. And one which will have LESS THAN HALF the 'one glowing hole, gone dark' _peacetime_ losses. Just like the F-15/16 have shown to do (as of 1994, _SIX_ of 380 jets had been lost in combat. Of the rest the predominant majority were stupid-pilot-showing-off faulted. But of the rest 30% were _engine related_).
The Air Force knows all of this. But being a boys club of Sky Knights fraternity, they all want to preserve cockpit airpower **at all costs**.
And we can simply no longer afford to indulge the image.
I suppose you've heard of the Pentagon Paradox. That performance is inversely proportional to expectation. There is a corollary to this. When nobody expects anything but lies and subpar excuses for contractual performance from those they vote into office with higher fiduciary trust, the very system of accountability breaks down under the premise that what is unfixable is also 'never to be acknowledged as broken'. Because that would mean admitting that there is no point in oversight and indeed the democratic system of allocated funds for responsible program management is itself a farce.
What we have failed to acknowledge here is that _there can be external modifiers_ which force the adjustment of such an entropic staticism of corruption and parochial service self interests. And the end of our commitment in the Gulf is about to be just that.
Congratulations on losing another war gentlemen. You couldn't have played into my argument any better if you had tried.
KPl.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #147
With the certainty that the type 'will pass' the pass or fail elements of DIOTE and IOTE which brings it to later 'lett'er rip' phases, the sheer size of the SDD fleet shows a 'building inertia' which will be well nigh unstoppable as a juggernaut of profit over sense.
It is the delays in the schedule economics which Lunchmeat are 'so earnest' in getting past that is funny and that is why the initial CTOLs will be the ones which effectively hurdle the jet through the initial development phases, long before the other two variants can embarrass the program with hangups or 'complexity' of what remains 3 planes, 1 name.
Given that the CTOLs are the ones least effected by weight overages this is hardly surprising.
Though you can do a fair amount (with the proper bus interface, cooling and spare computation for telemetry and internal test) to expand from basic flying qualities and envelope expansion into initial avionics and even tactical weapons testing (though Lot 1 will be little more than an F-117 of internal only carriage) the true nature of the airframe's performance with particularly full mission suite avionics installed installed and integrated is not going to be a known for quite awhile because DAS is not ready and EOTS is at a very early (despite the Sniper heritage) technology spiral. Only the BAe Sanders EW set is 'coming along nicely', last I heard.
I'm not even terribly impressed with the number of engines cleared for flight test thus far.
Also questionable, IMO, is the relevance of 'production quality' when the _line itself_ has not transitioned to full rate and indeed /cannot/ because the initial jets are not 'production configured' absent such things as the stripped Quick Mate joins. It being the rate improvements as much as uniform quality which will dictate the rampup to full production and thus the point where you are over the hump on upfront costs vs. buy back in the outyears.
From here-
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_new.html
What strikes me is the unusual nose-high approach attitude and all the implied airframe trimmed angles inherent to those visibly offset-deflected mains.
I bet that unified gear door is a veritable barn door of unwanted directional effect and that the margin on lift for that aftset wing makes for a very interesting flare process with quite a bit of phantom touchdown expectation as a result of the wheelbase being so long. Too high an AOA as you 'Aim Low', reaching for the ground, will make it hard to keep the beast centered in crosswinds as the exposed sidearea and unspoiled lift will probably tend to make the jet bunny hop, even with the wide stance.
It's got the clearance to do so of course, even with the PWSC 'sacral pouch', but again, the long wheel base and intakes-as-lift is going to lead to some really unique lift curve distributions and funny-as-hell 'slam landings' as pilot positioning even further ahead of the airframes natural C/L rotation point will magnify misperceptions of ground effect settling and flyable lift across what I bet is a fairly tight AOA range between 'you wanna fly, let's go fly!' and backside of the curve.
And it is HUGE. Which of course is a large part of why it costs so much more than it should.
But which also implies a _great deal_ of Missouri Conservatism in taking Lunchmeats word for it that this is a jet that is going to be a 'lighter, quicker, version of Raptor'.
Because assuming that the non-optimized jet is probably 'around' 30,000lbs empty with a ca. 18,500lb fuel load and a 5,000lb weapons load, you are looking some 116lbs per square foot on that 460ft wing area.
Now of course there will be those who claim that 'the fuselage acts as a lifting body' and blah-blah-blah E+E FLCS else. But the acceleration and sustained EM factors will always be about smash and with only 43Klbst coming out the back (27 odd in military) the resulting T/Wr of .80 and .50 is also rather pathetic.
(by comparison an A2A configured F-16C with the 110-100 is in the 80lb/sqft range with a 1.15 T/Wr)
Now factor in only two internal AAM, neither of which is deliberately intended or SRM backed up for ACM.
And this jet is going to be a victim more than a hunter in any kind of sportscar-DACM 'feats of agility'.
Indeed, given they didn't even have the confidence to retract the gear whereas the F-22 has had years to open up it's envelope, it's clear that Lunchmeat are so desperate to sell you this aircraft that they are even willing to hose their own to emphasize that 'new-car smell'.
Caveat Emptor to the max people.
KPl.
It is the delays in the schedule economics which Lunchmeat are 'so earnest' in getting past that is funny and that is why the initial CTOLs will be the ones which effectively hurdle the jet through the initial development phases, long before the other two variants can embarrass the program with hangups or 'complexity' of what remains 3 planes, 1 name.
Given that the CTOLs are the ones least effected by weight overages this is hardly surprising.
Though you can do a fair amount (with the proper bus interface, cooling and spare computation for telemetry and internal test) to expand from basic flying qualities and envelope expansion into initial avionics and even tactical weapons testing (though Lot 1 will be little more than an F-117 of internal only carriage) the true nature of the airframe's performance with particularly full mission suite avionics installed installed and integrated is not going to be a known for quite awhile because DAS is not ready and EOTS is at a very early (despite the Sniper heritage) technology spiral. Only the BAe Sanders EW set is 'coming along nicely', last I heard.
I'm not even terribly impressed with the number of engines cleared for flight test thus far.
Also questionable, IMO, is the relevance of 'production quality' when the _line itself_ has not transitioned to full rate and indeed /cannot/ because the initial jets are not 'production configured' absent such things as the stripped Quick Mate joins. It being the rate improvements as much as uniform quality which will dictate the rampup to full production and thus the point where you are over the hump on upfront costs vs. buy back in the outyears.
From here-
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_new.html
What strikes me is the unusual nose-high approach attitude and all the implied airframe trimmed angles inherent to those visibly offset-deflected mains.
I bet that unified gear door is a veritable barn door of unwanted directional effect and that the margin on lift for that aftset wing makes for a very interesting flare process with quite a bit of phantom touchdown expectation as a result of the wheelbase being so long. Too high an AOA as you 'Aim Low', reaching for the ground, will make it hard to keep the beast centered in crosswinds as the exposed sidearea and unspoiled lift will probably tend to make the jet bunny hop, even with the wide stance.
It's got the clearance to do so of course, even with the PWSC 'sacral pouch', but again, the long wheel base and intakes-as-lift is going to lead to some really unique lift curve distributions and funny-as-hell 'slam landings' as pilot positioning even further ahead of the airframes natural C/L rotation point will magnify misperceptions of ground effect settling and flyable lift across what I bet is a fairly tight AOA range between 'you wanna fly, let's go fly!' and backside of the curve.
And it is HUGE. Which of course is a large part of why it costs so much more than it should.
But which also implies a _great deal_ of Missouri Conservatism in taking Lunchmeats word for it that this is a jet that is going to be a 'lighter, quicker, version of Raptor'.
Because assuming that the non-optimized jet is probably 'around' 30,000lbs empty with a ca. 18,500lb fuel load and a 5,000lb weapons load, you are looking some 116lbs per square foot on that 460ft wing area.
Now of course there will be those who claim that 'the fuselage acts as a lifting body' and blah-blah-blah E+E FLCS else. But the acceleration and sustained EM factors will always be about smash and with only 43Klbst coming out the back (27 odd in military) the resulting T/Wr of .80 and .50 is also rather pathetic.
(by comparison an A2A configured F-16C with the 110-100 is in the 80lb/sqft range with a 1.15 T/Wr)
Now factor in only two internal AAM, neither of which is deliberately intended or SRM backed up for ACM.
And this jet is going to be a victim more than a hunter in any kind of sportscar-DACM 'feats of agility'.
Indeed, given they didn't even have the confidence to retract the gear whereas the F-22 has had years to open up it's envelope, it's clear that Lunchmeat are so desperate to sell you this aircraft that they are even willing to hose their own to emphasize that 'new-car smell'.
Caveat Emptor to the max people.
KPl.
At 2002 dollars, & a forecast made in early 2002. Have to add on a bit over 10% for 2006 $, plus any underestimate in the forecast. And we all know how unreliable those forecasts are.
Why do you think a forecast from several years ago is more reliable than the current accounts?
Why do you think a ten-year old forecast is more accurate than a curent one?
OK, you're a curmudgeonly conspiracy-theorising windbag. Remember to get your tinfoil hat checked regularly. But you still come out with sense occasionally, & I call 'em as I see 'em.
Yip, I thought the same when watching the video. It needed a lot of nose-up on rotation before getting off the ground. Will have a lot of drag with the large deflection needed thanks to the short lever main landing gear - elevator. Perhaps on the carrier version the do a Brit-Phantom like nose-up ground position, there's enough space for that under the tail.
I was never a fan of the X-35, always thought the X-32 would be the more capable medium tactical attack aircraft of the two, since none looked like a fighter anyway, and this YF/A-35 sure is no fighter. But even that wouldn't hurt with enough F-22 overhead protecting against Sukhois and F-10.
Now they have not enough F-22 and F-35 will have to go air-to-air against the Su-27 derivates. Cheers!
They chose the X-35 because it looked more like a fighter than the X-32, just in case something went wrong with the F-22, which would have left them without a fighter.
And with a navalized F-22 the USN wouldn't have needed a "fighter"-JSF, but go for the X-32 instead (CTOL only).
More on the F-35: I guess the small wing should be dropped, and all versions be built with the large wing. This F-105 sized monster is heavy enough to go low and fast at acceptable vibration levels even with the big wing, and btw stealth and more so operational doctrines should keep it away from low and fast anyway.
Additionally I question the operational relevance of the STOVL version. On a small carrier the numbers are too low anyway for more than a single "shock"-mission (talking about the small Euro-carriers), and in the U.S. forces you better would have the Army capture an airfield (per Panzerkeil or air assault) and operate the CTOL version from land bases. Who needs STOVL when you haven't the matching STOVL cargo lifter? Or do they want to use that Quad-Osprey as fuel/ammo truck for a forward based STOVL F-35? That would be very un-U.S., have quite low mission rates and wouldn't have any advantage whatsoever over carrier-based or land-based CTOL versions.
Besides survivability in a Cold War Europe scenario, the only reason to go STOVL are the small carriers. For that they compromise the whole design. Another good point for the X-32, a less by STOVL requirements compromised design.
But who cares, it's past.
jawad amjad
New Member
hi my name is Mailk Mohd Jawad and i live in Pakistan ans if all other need information about Pakistan defence so would like to help you.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #151
Swerve,
>>
Why do you think a forecast from several years ago is more reliable than the current accounts?
>>
Because back in 1996 outside sources were closer to calling it like it is TODAY on pricing. Because the latest CRS quotes are in fact for 112 million as a PUAC rather than 'flyaway' which Rumsfeld, Roche et al. are still calling /at least/ 20 million dollars under-the-sanity-check.
If the press refused to take flyaways for the F-22, we should be able to hang the F-35 by much the same manner because, with the 4X numbers involved it WILL cost more to bring to service and so long as we stake the beast before that commitment is made we will /always/ save money.
>>
Why do you think a ten-year old forecast is more accurate than a curent one?
>>
Because the original (1994) _DOD_ quotes for the F-35 were for a 28, 32 and 35 million dollar airframe. And yet in 2001, the best Roche could be made-to-mutter was 'around 45 million'.
I now see the F-35 program acquisitions being /halved/ by the customer and yet despite the stated word of the SPO chief, nobody is price escalating either PUAC or flyaway to levels which reflect a real purchase of 1,100 + 140 + 170. Which is what the USAF and USMC and USN have ALL _put to paper_ as their 'desired' airframe counts as much as FIVE YEARS AGO.
If the original pricing by the outside agencies was more accurate than even the /updated/ pricing by the DOD pirates, how can it not be the baseline for trust when DOD _does not admit_ that the JSF pricing increment is about to be gouged to the max by _preplanned_ reduced inventory purchases /yet again/?
>>
OK, you're a curmudgeonly conspiracy-theorising windbag. Remember to get your tinfoil hat checked regularly. But you still come out with sense occasionally, & I call 'em as I see 'em.
>>
That's better. I'd hate to think you were a shyster and a scam artist representing an industry for-profits-sake and manned airpower as pilot-preservation-society and you couldn't even speak your real opinion about someone who despises all you /really/ stand for.
KPl.
LINKS-
USN/USMC TAIP
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21488.pdf
Delusions Of Displaced Grandeur: "We don't want'em but someone will!"
http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=9924&printer=no
>>
Why do you think a forecast from several years ago is more reliable than the current accounts?
>>
Because back in 1996 outside sources were closer to calling it like it is TODAY on pricing. Because the latest CRS quotes are in fact for 112 million as a PUAC rather than 'flyaway' which Rumsfeld, Roche et al. are still calling /at least/ 20 million dollars under-the-sanity-check.
If the press refused to take flyaways for the F-22, we should be able to hang the F-35 by much the same manner because, with the 4X numbers involved it WILL cost more to bring to service and so long as we stake the beast before that commitment is made we will /always/ save money.
>>
Why do you think a ten-year old forecast is more accurate than a curent one?
>>
Because the original (1994) _DOD_ quotes for the F-35 were for a 28, 32 and 35 million dollar airframe. And yet in 2001, the best Roche could be made-to-mutter was 'around 45 million'.
I now see the F-35 program acquisitions being /halved/ by the customer and yet despite the stated word of the SPO chief, nobody is price escalating either PUAC or flyaway to levels which reflect a real purchase of 1,100 + 140 + 170. Which is what the USAF and USMC and USN have ALL _put to paper_ as their 'desired' airframe counts as much as FIVE YEARS AGO.
If the original pricing by the outside agencies was more accurate than even the /updated/ pricing by the DOD pirates, how can it not be the baseline for trust when DOD _does not admit_ that the JSF pricing increment is about to be gouged to the max by _preplanned_ reduced inventory purchases /yet again/?
>>
OK, you're a curmudgeonly conspiracy-theorising windbag. Remember to get your tinfoil hat checked regularly. But you still come out with sense occasionally, & I call 'em as I see 'em.
>>
That's better. I'd hate to think you were a shyster and a scam artist representing an industry for-profits-sake and manned airpower as pilot-preservation-society and you couldn't even speak your real opinion about someone who despises all you /really/ stand for.
KPl.
LINKS-
USN/USMC TAIP
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21488.pdf
Delusions Of Displaced Grandeur: "We don't want'em but someone will!"
http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=9924&printer=no
Wanna Buy A Bridge?
I reckon Jon will be ringing the bell in bars for many years to come because of this one liner.
nfloorl:
Gee, Aussie Digger, the JSF is certainly smaller than the Raptor, I give you that, though likely to be around the same empty weight when the marketeers are finished with it. As to being quicker than the Raptor, this is truly amazing technology considering it demonstrated this to Jon Beesely with the landing gear still down! Oops!
I reckon Jon will be ringing the bell in bars for many years to come because of this one liner.
nfloorl:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I told you guys this. Still I think Jon has a better idea than any of us do about these things. He was the FIRST pilot to fly the F-22 as well...Gee, Aussie Digger, the JSF is certainly smaller than the Raptor, I give you that, though likely to be around the same empty weight when the marketeers are finished with it. As to being quicker than the Raptor, this is truly amazing technology considering it demonstrated this to Jon Beesely with the landing gear still down! Oops!
I reckon Jon will be ringing the bell in bars for many years to come because of this one liner.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #155
And here I thought it was Dave Ferguson and Paul Metz respectively: YF-22, F-22.
Of course Mr. Beesely was along for the ride on at least the latter.
In an F-16 chase.
Never mind the fact that the F-22 retracted it's gear on _it's_ first flight.
What you people are IGNORING AS USUAL! is three simple facts:
1. The F-16 with the late GE engine can run rings around the F-15 anywhere below 20K. Above 25K and it's a fight. At 30-40K both sides are down to being missileers with min-G on the jet just to keep in play at best-pole. Yet the LGPOS is the mudfighter whenever the environment is 'pure' and when it's /not/ the theater CINCs call for it only because it can _self suppress_ with intelligent ARM. Not because it is a better radar weapons platform.
2. We haven't faced a competent (organized, in numbers, with an objective ability to _win the air war_ rather than stage desultory harrassment-as-target-practice) air threat in almost 35 years. With no /requirement/ to joust, it makes _no sense_ to half-ass design a machine to do so. Particularly when said air vehicle COSTS 112 MILLION DOLLARS EACH!
3. Nobody dogfights in a jet with two radar missiles and half 18,000lbs of get-home gas at the bad end of 700nm radius. NOBODY. 'Agility' is thus down to specific excess to dominate the BVR game and -run away- after the first shot so that this particular phase of acquisition-closure-combat-extension /never/ happens. And while the F-22 is an honest 9G @ 45,000ft _fighter_ in the BVR sense of the word. The F-35, at best, is going to transit 'in the range of' this height before going lower to put some real air under those tiny ass wings. Why do you think the F-22s own internal fuel is a 'State Secret', hmmm?
CONCLUSION:
Never ass-u-me that a man who knows 'all about' his own solution to a particular problem in fact is also competent to state that his is the /best solution/ to it.
Both by psychology of personal commitment as a preexisting bias (nobody wants to put 10+ years of their life into a bust). And the certainty that he is 'playing for the team' (who pays his worthless ass) makes it a given that neither Beesely nor anyone else at Lunchmeat Inc. are in a position to give a valid UCAV vs. JSF argument. Hell, I doubt they can even give a valid F/A-18F vs. JSF argument.
Nor is anyone at Wright Pat. Or NATC. Or Quantico. Because NONE of them have worked with that kind of a system before.
If you want to ask a 'valid expert' about what the best plane is to the kinds of wars we face today, ask a boot infantry colonel who KNOWS _exactly_ how many of his walking patrols lost a man because airpower was 'not available' as a COP'd insurance factor.
Ask the guy in the back of a tanker how many jets he dragged up north to Kandahar and beyond vs. how many the navy 'would have liked to' but for their flying a light weight fighter which had no business being so far from the boat with all of 'both pylons today I tell'ya!'.
And still only 20-40 minutes in the target area.
Ask the SOF grunt whose entire gameplan of 'play for us and we will make your war happen' was based on his ability to enable indig mercs as no more combat-reliant for OUR cause than a fixing force which brought tacair to obliterate whatever threat exposed itself to finish them.
Ask the politician who 'knows he should' but can't convince the American people that it's 'for a good cause' after the cluster bleep of Iraq.
They have a right to demand 8 bombs on a 10-15hr commitment 500 miles from their basing mode. They have a right to demand _effective_ all 'round LO inherent to no-tails and active isoluminance on a kite fuselage.
Because they are the ones who, when made routine fools of by an enemy whose 'outraged ridicule' makes a ruin of our strategic policy, the fighter pilots can only shrug and say "Not our war...".
DO NOT ASK A 'FIGHTER PILOT' WHAT _HIS_ WAR IS. Because he will tell you //exactly// what he wants you to hear. And damn all better-else that threatens his job description.
KPl.
Kurt Plummer:
If I understand You correctly - and You are very difficult to read:
Why build a F-35 because there is no opposition and haven't been for the last 10 odd years?
My reasons are:
1. You don't know what threat might come in say midlife for the F-35, thus the options for specialisation of the design is limited. The plane must cover a wide range of possibilities as it will be the only combat jet for the allies and the other half of the F-22/F-35 combination.
We are trying to plan 50 years ahead!
2. The aim of the aircraft is as much to elevate the barrier for ANY opposition. That is: Defeat them before they even begin to fold aluminium. If the strategy is successfull, we will be stuck with a plane that only ever uses say 25% of its ability. I know this sound round about - and it is.
But suppose you halve lifespan and price by specialisation - you run the risk of specialiazing the features away that will be needed. This risk is large as the enemy really wants to kill us, and he will exploit any weakness.
3. I do agree the F-35 is approaching the dinosaur concept stage: It is to big to survive in the long run; but the long run doesn't matter if you die in 25 years. The comparison is the Battleship - in the event they were hardly used in their intended role - and they nearly ruined several countries; but hadn't they been build the opposition would have flattened the parcimoneous.
4. Before You discard allies out of hand: (I know I'm being provicial) Denmark will probably buy 2-3 squadrons; but these squadrons will cover quite a large area in the Baltic - and the alternative for the US would be building a base structure and probably use a squadron more.
If I understand You correctly - and You are very difficult to read:
Why build a F-35 because there is no opposition and haven't been for the last 10 odd years?
My reasons are:
1. You don't know what threat might come in say midlife for the F-35, thus the options for specialisation of the design is limited. The plane must cover a wide range of possibilities as it will be the only combat jet for the allies and the other half of the F-22/F-35 combination.
We are trying to plan 50 years ahead!
2. The aim of the aircraft is as much to elevate the barrier for ANY opposition. That is: Defeat them before they even begin to fold aluminium. If the strategy is successfull, we will be stuck with a plane that only ever uses say 25% of its ability. I know this sound round about - and it is.
But suppose you halve lifespan and price by specialisation - you run the risk of specialiazing the features away that will be needed. This risk is large as the enemy really wants to kill us, and he will exploit any weakness.
3. I do agree the F-35 is approaching the dinosaur concept stage: It is to big to survive in the long run; but the long run doesn't matter if you die in 25 years. The comparison is the Battleship - in the event they were hardly used in their intended role - and they nearly ruined several countries; but hadn't they been build the opposition would have flattened the parcimoneous.
4. Before You discard allies out of hand: (I know I'm being provicial) Denmark will probably buy 2-3 squadrons; but these squadrons will cover quite a large area in the Baltic - and the alternative for the US would be building a base structure and probably use a squadron more.
But if UCAVs aren't, technologically, much further out (if at all), and they promise all the A2G capability of an F-35, with greater range and endurance (and expendability) - at a third the cost - does the F-35 really make sense?
We have a stealthy, manned fighter in production in the F-22.
The USN has a bunch of brand-spankin new F-18E/Fs.
Regardless of whether we stay in Iraq much longer or not, we are probably looking at a major budget crunch in the coming years.
Can we afford the F-35 in quantities that make it affordable? And is a large number of new, expensive, short-range, tactical fighters really what we need as a country right now?
Can UCAV (plus F-22 and the youngest of the F-teens) do the job better, for a lot less?
The thing is our aircraft needed replacements yesterday... not 15-20 years down the line when unmanned strike aircraft will be able to run the full gambit. By the time these unmanned craft make the transition, F-22 and JSF will be a couple decades old. Their replacements will be unmanned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to address the procurement of F-35B. Numbers have the USMC getting more than Navy... why?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to address the procurement of F-35B. Numbers have the USMC getting more than Navy... why?
Last edited:
Although this isn't so much a discussion about UAV, I'm extremely doubtful that it will ever really, at least in our lifetime, represent the majority of combat aircraft.
There are huge risks from having such a force structure, specifically communications. IMO it's a little like a force relying soley on satellite guided munitions...
What if a controlling ship/ground-station/satellite is "lost", whether that be through jamming or destruction? That's a loss of quite a bit of power in one hit.
There are huge risks from having such a force structure, specifically communications. IMO it's a little like a force relying soley on satellite guided munitions...
What if a controlling ship/ground-station/satellite is "lost", whether that be through jamming or destruction? That's a loss of quite a bit of power in one hit.
What if they hijack the controls? :shudder