F-35 Purchase

[waldo]

The USAF never intended to operate the "B" version......

say what? Then what's being splattered all over about the USAF decision to not proceed with replacing it's A-10s with the F-35-B variant? C'mon, try to keep up, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

you're part way there... for starters, push that on up to the actual 36 year life-cycle estimate number and adjust for the additional estimated costs for the F-35 @ $32,500 per hour versus the F/A-18 @ $18,900 per hour.

72 Hornets x 18900 per hour = ?

48 Lightning II x 32500 per hour = ?

Now Calculate:

72 pilots x ~90k a year = ?

48 pilots x ~90k a year = ?

[Guest Derek L]

say what? Then what's being splattered all over about the USAF decision to not proceed with replacing it's A-10s with the F-35-B variant? C'mon, try to keep up, hey?

You know not of what you speak, the F-35A, like the (F)A-16 has been the planned A-10 replacement for since the 90s.

[waldo]

Next on the F-35’s list of issues? Cyberattacks

May 16, 2012

And then there was the software.

Already, the F-35 program has been singled out as a target for international hackers and now a former vice-chairman of the U.S. military Joint Cheifs of Staff is raising the issue again.

Marine Gen. James “Hoss” Cartwright told the Joint Warfighting Conference that he fears the F-35 could prove to be as vulnerable to enemy hackers as older Humvees were to roadside bombs, according to a report from AOL Defense.

“We built the F-35 with absolutely no protection for it from a cyber standpoint,” he said, adding that there ought to be a switch that can shut off the aircraft’s electronic transmission functions in case enemies access them.

Cartwright’s words come only months after Chinese hackers broke into computers owned by UK defence manufacturer BAE in an attempt to steal details about the F-35’s design and electronic systems.

According to a report in The Australian, a BAE representative told a source that “for 18 months, Chinese cyber-attacks had taken place against BAE and had managed to get hold of plans for one of its latest fighters.”

CHINESE spies hacked into computers belonging to BAE Systems, Britain's biggest defence company, to steal details about the design, performance and electronic systems of the West's latest fighter jet, senior security figures have disclosed.The Australian Published

The Chinese exploited vulnerabilities in BAE's computer defences to steal vast amounts of data on the $300 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a multinational project to create a plane that will give the West air supremacy for years to come, according to the sources.

The hacking attack has prompted fears that the fighter jet's advanced radar capabilities could have been compromised.

[Signals.Cpl]

you're part way there... for starters, push that on up to the actual 36 year life-cycle estimate number and adjust for the additional estimated costs for the F-35 @ $32,500 per hour versus the F/A-18 @ $18,900 per hour.

Now lets compare the abilities of the 2 aircraft.

[Guest Derek L]

Next on the F-35’s list of issues? Cyberattacks

Why would the ChiComms try to steal F-35 data if it was such a bunk aircraft?

[waldo]

Now lets compare the abilities of the 2 aircraft.

you mean... the abilities of the F-35 you're presuming upon? Have you heard... ~20% tested. Oh... you mean you want to compare the "on paper" abilities of the F-35?

[waldo]

Why would the ChiComms try to steal F-35 data if it was such a bunk aircraft?

I accept your unconditional surrender!!!

[Guest Derek L]

I accept your unconditional surrender!!!

You think spying is a new phenomena?

[bush_cheney2004]

...that's right... we're using the U.S. Pentagon's estimate number per its latest F-35 SAR

Well, it's a damn good thing that those darn Americans can not only provide the aircraft R&D and production, but also cost comparisons to operate in Canada! What's next...buying engines and precision guided munitions from the Americans too?

I think Canada should get an honorary seat at U.S. Congressional hearings !!

[bush_cheney2004]

Why would the ChiComms try to steal F-35 data if it was such a bunk aircraft?

Because Canada beat them to the far more valuable "costs/flight hour" data...LOL!

Edited May 20, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[bleeding heart]

Why would the ChiComms try to steal F-35 data if it was such a bunk aircraft?

Not to derail the discussion...just to suggest that we might have to start calling them ChiCaps, now. The times they are a' changin.'

[Guest Derek L]

Because Canada beat them to the far more valuable "costs/flight hour" data...LOL!

Have you ever seen fat free yogurt go through someone’s nose?

[Guest Derek L]

Not to derail the discussion...just to suggest that we might have to start calling them ChiCaps, now. The times they are a' changin.'

Then what would we call the Taiwanese?

[waldo]

The USAF never intended to operate the "B" version......

say what? Then what's being splattered all over about the USAF decision to not proceed with replacing it's A-10s with the F-35-B variant? C'mon, try to keep up, hey?

You know not of what you speak, the F-35A, like the (F)A-16 has been the planned A-10 replacement for since the 90s.

oh really! Your citation to counter the above/following... waiting:

USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz: But while the USAF had at one time considered the variant as a potential replacement for the A-10, given the fiscal constraints the services faces and the need to generate more sorties, the USAF will not buy the F-35B, he says.

[Guest Derek L]

oh really! Your citation to counter the above/following... waiting:

F-35B

[waldo]

oh really! Your citation to counter the above/following... waiting:

F-35B

buddy... how about a USAF source that counters the provided quote from the USAF Chief of Staff.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is no replacing the A-10 Warthog, as it was a purposeful designed close air support attack aircraft. This has been going on in the "U.S. Air Force" for decades, but when it comes to the mighty F-35 procurement battle in Canada, what is old becomes new again.

[Guest Derek L]

buddy... how about a USAF source that counters the provided quote from the USAF Chief of Staff.

F-35A?

The F-35A is primarily intended to replace the F-16 Fighting Falcon and the A-10 Thunderbolt II, but does far more than just replace these legacy platforms. The F-35A is challenged to integrate new technologies, meet new lethality, and maintain affordability. The F-35A is also available to the partner nations and additional U.S. allies—this will close the “capability gap” between the U.S. and other nations—a critical part of coalition missions.

And

JSF

U. S. Navy First day of war, survivable strike fighter aircraft to complement F/A-18E/F

U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22

U.S. Marine Corps STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18 as their only strike fighter

United Kingdom Royal Navy & Royal Air Force STOVL aircraft to replace Sea Harriers & GR.7s as a supersonic strike fighter

Other Countries Potential JSF customers include current operators of F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8B

[Guest Derek L]

There is no replacing the A-10 Warthog, as it was a purposeful designed close air support attack aircraft. This has been going on in the "U.S. Air Force" for decades, but when it comes to the mighty F-35 procurement battle in Canada, what is old becomes new again.

Indeed, as demonstrated by the A-16 in the 80s.......As for if the USAF wants to (or ever did) operate the A-10 is another story.......

[waldo]

more cowbell

so... you throw up another Lockheed Martin link and a JSF link/quote that doesn't include variant breakouts. Again, keep on trying to counter that quote from the USAF Chief of Staff Gen Norton Schwartz --- here, read it again:

But while the USAF had at one time considered the variant as a potential replacement for the A-10, given the fiscal constraints the services faces and the need to generate more sorties, the USAF will not buy the F-35B

[bush_cheney2004]

OK...jingo break for the venerable A-10:

[Guest Derek L]

so... you throw up another Lockheed Martin link and a JSF link/quote that doesn't include variant breakouts. Again, keep on trying to counter that quote from the USAF Chief of Staff Gen Norton Schwartz --- here, read it again:

Hey, I’ve provided a quote from the manufacture and the US military, with links and you not so much:

In this other quote:

USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz: Thinks Waldo doesn't know what he's talking about

[Signals.Cpl]

you mean... the abilities of the F-35 you're presuming upon? Have you heard... ~20% tested. Oh... you mean you want to compare the "on paper" abilities of the F-35?

No the abilities that the F-35 has...vs the abilities of the F/A-18s.

[Guest Derek L]

OK...jingo break for the venerable A-10:

Too much music and not enough gun audio: