Grand Danois
Entertainer
Thanks, that's a good way to explain it. I've had some difficulties wrapping myself around it semantically.
F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked
- Thread starter djpav
- Start date
blackhawknz
New Member
To me lockheadmartin and Co seem to be getting off so lightly, Money wise credibility wise and its the Americana payers and USMilatry And Allies who are paying for it. Would be nice to see Lockheed Martin and Co Stand up and inject some more of its own money from is cash reserves it no doubt has and invest into the F-35 to get it back on track and deliver before the new dates Gates came up with.
To me if u going to pay $97m-$120m for an F-35 why not loss a few f-35s and Continue to buy and build f-22 to fill the fighter gap along with the F-18DE.I mean god damn The Billions to build and develop it make it so stupid to close the F-22 after the investment .Why not bring back the
F/A-22and give it a ground attack, Meads roll. Its not like blockhead is going to losses money on this they are going to billions on building F-35s And it means allied customers get it earlier. As for the F136 Alternate engine if the Genelect RR are willing to foot a fair size of development why not 2s better than 1
To me if u going to pay $97m-$120m for an F-35 why not loss a few f-35s and Continue to buy and build f-22 to fill the fighter gap along with the F-18DE.I mean god damn The Billions to build and develop it make it so stupid to close the F-22 after the investment .Why not bring back the
F/A-22and give it a ground attack, Meads roll. Its not like blockhead is going to losses money on this they are going to billions on building F-35s And it means allied customers get it earlier. As for the F136 Alternate engine if the Genelect RR are willing to foot a fair size of development why not 2s better than 1
You are too concern with buying costs, but seem to forget about operating costs. One engine is cheaper to operate and maintain than two engines. Its really that simple...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Some interesting information from Air Marshall John HARVEY at a Senate Hearing on 30 March 2010.
Australia's $3.2b acquisition of it's initial 14x aircraft contains some interesting components to the overall cost.
First of all it's in Australian dollars.
Second of all it is in "then year" dollars expected in 2014 (with projected inflation over the next 4 years included).
Thirdly 50% of that $3,2b figure is for non-aircraft related costs.
The important point therefore is that 14x LRIP 6 F-35A aircraft are actually costing Australia $1.6b in " 2014 then year" inflation adjusted dollars. In 2014, Australia will be paying about $101.5m per aircraft.
Remove the inflation and you get a figure of about $80m a piece in 2008 dollars.
Then consider that these are LRIP aircraft, but the bulk of our order comes from full rate production. Consider that these should be somewhat cheaper and you start getting somewhat close to Dr Gumley's predicted $75m in 2008 dollars, figure, that was so poo-pooed by the self-proclaimed "experts" about the place.
I guess it's not simply all lies afterall, eh?
Australia's $3.2b acquisition of it's initial 14x aircraft contains some interesting components to the overall cost.
First of all it's in Australian dollars.
Second of all it is in "then year" dollars expected in 2014 (with projected inflation over the next 4 years included).
Thirdly 50% of that $3,2b figure is for non-aircraft related costs.
The important point therefore is that 14x LRIP 6 F-35A aircraft are actually costing Australia $1.6b in " 2014 then year" inflation adjusted dollars. In 2014, Australia will be paying about $101.5m per aircraft.
Remove the inflation and you get a figure of about $80m a piece in 2008 dollars.
Then consider that these are LRIP aircraft, but the bulk of our order comes from full rate production. Consider that these should be somewhat cheaper and you start getting somewhat close to Dr Gumley's predicted $75m in 2008 dollars, figure, that was so poo-pooed by the self-proclaimed "experts" about the place.
I guess it's not simply all lies afterall, eh?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
GAO, JET I, JET II, CAPE, IMRT, DOD sources all agree with above - so what's the surprise? (Though I guess you mean FY14 and not TY14 AUDs, but that's a minor detail. EDIT: Dear gawd, there is apparently also such a thing as TY$ in Aussie context!)
Obviously it's a surprise to a few, but they'll lose traction over the next two-three years, as their obfuscations become apparent for everyone.
Obviously it's a surprise to a few, but they'll lose traction over the next two-three years, as their obfuscations become apparent for everyone.
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
With the sentence highlighted in red in mind - what does APA have to say on supersonic weaps release from the JSF?
Hehe!
A 1.6M missile shot means the AIM-120C is going to fly even further, and hit even harder. =D
The JDAMs are also going to reach about 30nmi with a 1.6M release at 30-40,000 ft.
Lots of reach. =D
F-15 Eagle
New Member
So much for the F-35 not being able to fire off missiles supersonically
. It would be interesting to see what APA will say.
nfloorl:That it can't out-turn a Su-27 Flanker. =DSo much for the F-35 not being able to fire off missiles supersonically
It would be interesting to see what APA will say.
Won't have to when you can take over the shoulder missile shots. =D
F-15 Eagle
New Member
Can't out turn a Su-27 my ass....excuse my language.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
It probably cant, point is it wont need to. A Flanker will be a cloud of aluminium foil at 40nm.Can't out turn a Su-27 my ass....excuse my language.
fretburner
Banned Member
Maybe the marines' version can, with it's thrust vectoring?
F-15 Eagle
New Member
I don't know since the F-35A will have the maneuverability of the F-16 and F-15, the question is, can an Su-27 out turn an F-16? But I agree with you the Su-27 will be toast ether way.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I wouldn't be surprised if it did have a smaller turning circle/greater sustained turn rate at various airspeeds. AFAIK the F-35 is intended to match the F-16 in terms of turn performance, which is better than an F-15C and Su-27. The instantaneous turn rate (and to a lesser extent sustained) of the SU-30/35BM should be superior though.
The Suks do have slightly better instantaneous and sustained turn rates. The differences become a more obvious with the Su-30MK series with the TV nozzles.
However, the vanilla explanation that I usually got when asking about the turn performances of the Su-27 and the F-16, was that, "It depends on the altitude and the speed regime." Which is kinda accurate in an imprecise way. At the risk of oversimplification, the F-16 and the F-15s have better turn performance than the Su-27s at above 400kts airspeeds while the Russian jets(excl TV nozzle types), are better below 400kts.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Yeah, what I said!
fretburner
Banned Member
Right. I forgot about that. It only goes downwards.
If the F-16 and F-15 can out turn the SUs at higher speeds, then more often than not, the F-16 and F-15 would beat the SUs anyway, since fighters don't really slow down while in a dogfight?
I've read somewhere the Top Gun (the movie) thing of hitting the brakes is just that - movie stuff. Although, I might have watched an episode in History Channel where pilots actually slow down to gain an advantage in a dogfight.
Not really... the longer a dogfight persists, the lower and slower it'll get. The idea is to not have to get into one if possible. Also, I heard they did studies and discovered that about 80% of dogfight kills are due to an unseen wingman popping up to kill off whoever is attacking the lead. This is not unbelievable as the wingman behind would usually call the fight, telling the defensive fighter where and when to turn so that he can have a clear shot.Right. I forgot about that. It only goes downwards.
If the F-16 and F-15 can out turn the SUs at higher speeds, then more often than not, the F-16 and F-15 would beat the SUs anyway, since fighters don't really slow down while in a dogfight?
I've read somewhere the Top Gun (the movie) thing of hitting the brakes is just that - movie stuff. Although, I might have watched an episode in History Channel where pilots actually slow down to gain an advantage in a dogfight.
I think the most important thing about combat aviation is that its, its not about the single fighter versus another single fighter. Its about the systems, weapons, flight discipline and the teamwork.
What Maverick did in Top Gun is not unbelievable, just that he did in an odd fashion? Its called forcing an overshoot ("he'll fly right by"). More of a gamble than a tactic in Maverick's case. What he should have been doing was jinking for his life in a guns defense.
bills been nobbled, i smiled with the news, i hope kopp and elp can pick up the slack :coffee
Aviation Week suspends Bill Sweetman from F-35 story - The DEW Line
Aviation Week suspends Bill Sweetman from F-35 story - The DEW Line