Derek 2.0 Posted July 8, 2014 Report Posted July 8, 2014 other than a flyover photo-op just what can those current F-35Bs actually do? They should just photoshop the planes in and call it a day! They already did: Outside the sales optics, the transoceanic flight will be another milestone, coupled with flying in weather in Scotland. Quote
Moonbox Posted July 8, 2014 Author Report Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) Do you believe, outside Pentagon or Lockheed “cheerleaders” (and armed forces of the partners), anyone actual knows the performance of the F-35? I believe that various aviation experts around the world might know a thing or two. That’s a contradiction though…….perceived threats that couldn’t be handled by the F-35, in concert with the F-22 force. Sorry, you'll have to clarify what you mean. I have no idea what you're saying here. The Serbs were able to shoot down an F-117 for two reasons…….First and foremost, the USAF operationally grew complacent using only a handful of transit corridors for their outbound and return F-117 strike packages…….Second, the Serbs shot down the F-117 with a Soviet designed SAM with a IR seeker head, not a radar guided one……IR reduction techniques have been improved since the 1970s. First, the F-117 was detected when it opened its bomb bay doors by Serbian RADAR. Second, where IR reduction techniques have improved ince the 1970's, I'm sure you're equally aware that IR detection techniques have progressed as well. At any rate, the F-117's RCS has been compared to that of the F-35, so it's conceivable that Russian/Chinese radar techniques have progressed significantly since the early 1980's when the Nighthawk was first operational. It’s not adjusted for the several years out when the F-35 enters full rate production……… Well they've built a hundred of them so far, they're building over a hundred this year, and it's been the cost per plane that's been rising, not Lockheed's production efficiency. They've been building these things for 6 years now, and the costs have been RISING, when you'd expect them to be falling as they gain experience and scale. What was the unit price for LRIP block 8 aircraft........We'll be able to compare once LRIP 9 is signed in the weeks ahead. The $188M is the Pentagon's own numbers for the 2014 fiscal year. The price in 2011 was $172M. Take a look at these articles if you like. They're pretty interesting. There's actually 5 of them altogether. http://nation.time.com/2013/06/06/different-planes-common-problems/ http://nation.time.com/2013/06/07/on-final-approach-to-fighter-fiscal-sanity/ The F-22 tooling has been retained by Lockheed and the USAF………If Romney had of won in 2012, continued production of the F-22, under the guise of FB-22 (likely replacement/complement to the Strike Eagles) would likely have come to fruition. Yes, but production cost of each plane were they to do this at this point would come out at something ridiculous like $240/unit, so it's so impractical that it might as well be discarded as a suggestion, barring a huge emergency. That’s because the Cold War ended before full production ramped up……The Soviet and Warsaw pact forces did outnumber NATO substantially in Europe, and remember, though the bulk of their forces were made up of Mig-21/23s/25s/27s and Su-7s/17s/24s, until the mid 80s, the bulk of the NATO forces were made up of first generation F-16s(no medium range missile), Phantoms and Mirages…… Prior to the 80's I'd perhaps give you that point, but even by the early 1980's the Soviets knew that they were outmatched and that the situation would continue to deteriorate. That's why, like I said earlier, they placed significantly more resources into mobile SAM. Regardless, at this point I don't even know what we're arguing about. We both know the F-35 is the best and only real option for Canada moving forward. I don't believe the plane will be as good as you seem to, nor do I think they're going to manage cost per plane as well as you seem to think, but I still think it's the best overall option. At this point we should just consider it a fait accompli. Edited July 8, 2014 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 I believe that various aviation experts around the world might know a thing or two. Experts like who? Frankly, said "experts" are not purvey to the actual performance data attached to the F-35, fore if they were and divulged such information publicly, they’d be residing within Leavenworth. Sorry, you'll have to clarify what you mean. I have no idea what you're saying here. You stated the F-22 production was halted because of no perceived threats, thusly allowing the F-35 to continue sans further F-22s…..Of course couldn’t it be said that the USAF and Lockheed, the builders of both, realize there are no near-term threats to the F-35, including the developments out of Russia and China, the same aircraft that are often touted of being able to handle the F-35 with ease? First, the F-117 was detected when it opened its bomb bay doors by Serbian RADAR. Second, where IR reduction techniques have improved ince the 1970's, I'm sure you're equally aware that IR detection techniques have progressed as well. At any rate, the F-117's RCS has been compared to that of the F-35, so it's conceivable that Russian/Chinese radar techniques have progressed significantly since the early 1980's when the Nighthawk was first operational. Ahhh…..not quite, don’t rely on crib notes…..The Serbs positioned a large portion of their search radars along the air corridor, as I mentioned, that the Americans and NATO used repeatedly. To avoid being waxed by American and NATO Wild Weasels, much like the NVA two decades earlier, they would strobe their radars on and off…….They have claimed to have detected the F-117 with said radars, but of course, when using older Soviet SAMS (SA-2 and SA-3), said SAMS require continuous telemetry data from the fire control radar…if you strobe the radar on and off, as made evident during Vietnam, said missile becomes a firework…….Unless of course the missile also makes use of infrared homing, as was the case with upgraded SA-3s. Well they've built a hundred of them so far, they're building over a hundred this year, and it's been the cost per plane that's been rising, not Lockheed's production efficiency. They've been building these things for 6 years now, and the costs have been RISING, when you'd expect them to be falling as they gain experience and scale. Do you have a source……of course, if this is in relation to sequestration reductions, that of course is not the fault of Lockheed. The $188M is the Pentagon's own numbers for the 2014 fiscal year. The price in 2011 was $172M. Take a look at these articles if you like. They're pretty interesting. There's actually 5 of them altogether. Winslow Wheeler? I notice he didn't break down said figures......and added the costs of the continual upgrades.......Of course, the biggest and often most quoted critic of the F-35 has no direct aviation experience, was fired/forced to resign from Government, just after the X-35 won, and hasn’t had any direct experience with the program……and of course, works for a peacenik think tank that is critical of every defence program. Yes, but production cost of each plane were they to do this at this point would come out at something ridiculous like $240/unit, so it's so impractical that it might as well be discarded as a suggestion, barring a huge emergency. Of course, because there is no threat in the near term that the F-35 and diminished F-22 fleet won't be able to cope with. Prior to the 80's I'd perhaps give you that point, but even by the early 1980's the Soviets knew that they were outmatched and that the situation would continue to deteriorate. That's why, like I said earlier, they placed significantly more resources into mobile SAM. I never said there weren't........They outnumbered NATO in terms of aircraft, much like your concern of Russia repeating this past trend........I've no doubt in my mind that Western aircraft like the F-35, will contend well against future Russian aircraft. Regardless, at this point I don't even know what we're arguing about. We both know the F-35 is the best and only real option for Canada moving forward. I don't believe the plane will be as good as you seem to, nor do I think they're going to manage cost per plane as well as you seem to think, but I still think it's the best overall option. At this point we should just consider it a fait accompli. I have since it beat the X-32 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Is the F 35 still grounded or not? Is it going to be embarrased by not making it to Farnborough or not? Did the engine buren AGAIN or not? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Is the F 35 still grounded or not? Is it going to be embarrased by not making it to Farnborough or not? Did the engine buren AGAIN or not? Is the Super Hornet fleet still troubled after being grounded for engine issues? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Apparently not. It's in service. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Apparently not. It's in service. How can that be? I mean, the fleet was grounded twice for engine problems.....Is it possible that professional engineers were able to create a solution to said problem? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 How can that be? I mean, the fleet was grounded twice for engine problems.....Is it possible that professional engineers were able to create a solution to said problem? No idea what you are talking about. It's been in service for a number of years. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 No idea what you are talking about. It's been in service for a number of years. But how could that be? The Super Hornet fleet was ground twice for engine issues......... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 And how many times has the F 35 been grounded, and not just for engine problems including fires? Granted engine problems can develop on all types of aircraft engines. Sometimes early in the game, sometimes later on. That's why a lot smart manufacturers where possible hang at least two on their airframes. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 And how many times has the F 35 been grounded, and not just for engine problems including fires? Granted engine problems can develop on all types of aircraft engines. Sometimes early in the game, sometimes later on. That's why a lot smart manufacturers where possible hang at least two on their airframes. So you're suggesting the Super Hornet fleet is ok now? You consider Boeing "smart"? Well how come their Super Hornet fleet was grounded twice, despite having two engines? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 So you're suggesting the Super Hornet fleet is ok now? You consider Boeing "smart"? Well how come their Super Hornet fleet was grounded twice, despite having two engines? Once again, how many times has the F 35 been grounded, including the current one? Let me put it simply: if you have an engine failure with 1 engine, what happens? If you have an engine failure with 2 engines what happens? If you want the F 35, with that troublesome engine they should at least equip it with a spare. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Let me put it simply: if you have an engine failure with 1 engine, what happens? If you have an engine failure with 2 engines what happens? Why was the twin-engine Super Hornet fleet grounded twice? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 USAF single engine safety record as of March 31 2014: http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140520-049.pdf The recent F-35 engine failure is the first Class A engine related mishap since the P&W-229 started entering service in the F-16 fleet in 1989.......Not a bad 25 year record...... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Why was the twin-engine Super Hornet fleet grounded twice? You're flogging a dead horse here. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 You're flogging a dead horse here. I don’t think said horse is dead, just suffering mild brain damage………So why was the twin engine Super Hornet fleet grounded twice in the 1990s? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 I don’t think said horse is dead, just suffering mild brain damage………So why was the twin engine Super Hornet fleet grounded twice in the 1990s? They are simply trying to get too much power out of one engine. That's what seems to be causing the thremal creep which causes the fan failures. Kind of ironic when you sum it all up, we'll build a n engine that can take the place of 2, but in order to get 2 times power outr of it, it tends to fail a lot. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 They are simply trying to get too much power out of one engine. That's what seems to be causing the thremal creep which causes the fan failures. Kind of ironic when you sum it all up, we'll build a n engine that can take the place of 2, but in order to get 2 times power outr of it, it tends to fail a lot. I asked this of you before: What is too much power for a single engine? And how many failures has the F-35 fleet had due to it's engine? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 And the original Hornet was grounded back then for airframe cracks (in the tail mostly) but guess what, the F 35 has demonstrated the same problem, before it even got into service none the less. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 I asked this of you before: What is too much power for a single engine? And how many failures has the F-35 fleet had due to it's engine? I think it's 8 so far. Go look it up if you like. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 And the original Hornet was grounded back then for airframe cracks (in the tail mostly) but guess what, the F 35 has demonstrated the same problem, before it even got into service none the less. Yes, as the Super Hornet also faced problems with icing on their engine inlets.......yet neither the Hornet or Super Hornet fleets were cancelled, and solutions to those problems found. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 I think it's 8 so far. Go look it up if you like. Engine related? So, what is too much power for a engine? Quote
waldo Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Is the F 35 still grounded or not? Is it going to be embarrased by not making it to Farnborough or not? Did the engine buren AGAIN or not? yup - as of a Pentagon update earlier today, still grounded... tick-tock on making those British airshows. However, this lil' gem is already there and will be at the shows. Developed in 2 years ... yes, 2 years... no public/government financing, no 'corporate welfare'. Has a $20Million unit cost (as compared to the F-35s $120Million hit). What were Canada's needs again? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Yes, as the Super Hornet also faced problems with icing on their engine inlets.......yet neither the Hornet or Super Hornet fleets were cancelled, and solutions to those problems found. From a taxpayer point of view, there's no question. We don't need to line the pockets of LockMart. From a pilot's point of view (and I am one) there's no question. One sketchy engine or 2 proven engines. Those two concepts converge at the point of view of flying the plane, or buying the plane. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 yup - as of a Pentagon update earlier today, still grounded... tick-tock on making those British airshows. However, this lil' gem is already there and will be at the shows. Developed in 2 years ... yes, 2 years... no public/government financing, no 'corporate welfare'. Has a $20Million unit cost (as compared to the F-35s $120Million hit). What were Canada's needs again? I like it (I worked for Textron ).........perfect COIN aircraft, and they are looking at a single engine version, with swept wings, based off this concept, as a trainer......... Realistically though, most of the intended roles are/could be covered with a Predator…..In a sense, this is a solution looking for a problem. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.