Mighty AC Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Wow, the US could have purchased a home for every homeless person in the country for the cost of the F-35 project. Damn! http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/07/09/3458101/f35-boondoggle-fail/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Why would the U.S. waste billions on "homeless people" ? Canada sure doesn't..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 Wow, the US could have purchased a home for every homeless person in the country for the cost of the F-35 project. Damn! http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/07/09/3458101/f35-boondoggle-fail/ Hell they could have opted for a competitor (like say the Superhornet) had an airplane you could actually fly across the ocean to an airshow, and still helped out the homeless. Sounds like a win/win to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Why would the U.S. waste billions on "homeless people" ? Canada sure doesn't..... Screw the homeless, we're buying single engine, flightless planes as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted July 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Hell they could have opted for a competitor (like say the Superhornet) had an airplane you could actually fly across the ocean to an airshow, and still helped out the homeless. Sounds like a win/win to me. Sure, let's spend a whole bunch of money on soon to be dated plane that will need replacing within a decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2014 Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 Sure, let's spend a whole bunch of money on soon to be dated plane that will need replacing within a decade. I suppose the Chinese are having a bit of a giggle. They've already cracked the "stealth" code apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 30, 2014 Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 Apparently..:probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted July 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 I suppose the Chinese are having a bit of a giggle. They've already cracked the "stealth" code apparently. The "stealth" code?!? Suffice it to say the Chinese are still probably about 15-20 years behind the US in their weapon designs, at least to any reasonable scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 None of those questions offer any relevant information to the argument at hand. If there are items not included in the Australian purchase, then the purchase price is understated, which doesn't help your case at all. Logic. You bring up the differing costs, but do not feel questions on why there are differing prices relevant? Are you suggesting that Australia has the same financial stake as the Americans? Sure. The Australian purchase of two test planes is completely useless for the discussion. Agreed. Let's go back to the American numbers then. Australian "test planes" useless.............American "test planes" benchmark...........What level partner are both nations? What level is Canada? Would you think tier III prices the most relevant to Canada? Lockheed and the DoD can't do anything but say that. They are depending on volume to keep costs down, and if they indicate now that their projected costs are going to be higher than planned, they risk potential buyers going with a competitor before the F-35 is even available. There is no reason, whatsoever, for either party to be honest if their cost estimates are fabricated. If they're proven wrong later, they can just say "well it's because this plane is so much better than its competition". Canada and Japan etc will still be on the market for a new fighter, and won't already be flying something else. So again you’re going on assumptions……and that’s fine………I’ll go with the MSRP until proven wrong…. For an engineer, your perceptions on the actual effectiveness of economies of scale and production learning curve are rather fanciful, particularly since this is a labour-intensive fighter plane we're talking about, and not a Playstation 3. The idea that an F-35 will be cheaper than the Super Hornet is completely ludicrous, as those are numbers that nobody (even LM as far as I'm aware) is projecting. That, right there, pretty much summarizes your delusional bias in this thread. The magical twists and leaps your mind had to make to come up with the reasoning that brings a plane currently pegged at $120-130M per unit down to $60M is tragic. What will a combat capable (with targeting pods and ECM etc?) Super Hornet cost, ~5 years from now when adjusted for inflation? What would a legacy Hornet cost today when adjusted for inflation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 It's a "fat boy bomb truck" that has to have an F22 holding it's hand or it gets it's ass, (literlally) shot off as it tries to leave the scene to head for the fuel truck. Smart marketing by LM. Not perhaps such smart purchasing by others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 When was the last time that a Canadian "fighter" pilot engaged in actual air-to-air combat ? Korea ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 When was the last time that a Canadian "fighter" pilot engaged in actual air-to-air combat ? Korea ? Maybe on exchange, no RCAF fighters made it to Korea.........But last RCAF air-air fight would be WW II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 Maybe on exchange, no RCAF fighters made it to Korea.........But last RCAF air-air fight would be WW II. Sure about that? Aren't F 86 Sabres considered fighters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 1, 2014 Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 Sure about that? Aren't F 86 Sabres considered fighters? Yes I am.........the RCAF didn't deploy Sabres to Korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 (edited) You bring up the differing costs, but do not feel questions on why there are differing prices relevant? If there are items missing on the Australian purchase that are included in the American purchases, then the Australian purchase price is effectively understated in comparison. If so, this provides absolutely no useful data for you to support your low-ball F-35 production costs, nevermind the fact that the purchase was only for two freaking planes. Are you suggesting that Australia has the same financial stake as the Americans? No, and you know I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that since the Americans DO have the biggest financial stake, they're certain to get the best deal on the plane. Knowing this, when you see the Australian purchase coming in at a lower price than current American purchases, you can be almost certain that either they got a steep discount for testing/training purposes or that their purchase contract was missing items the American one had. Either way, it's useless information for our debate other than it gives a pretty clear indication Australia is going to purchase the plane. So again you’re going on assumptions……and that’s fine………I’ll go with the MSRP until proven wrong…. Yes, my assumption is based on the numbers we're seeing now, and based on the painful history of Lockheed Martin not meeting its targets and commitments. You, on the other hand, are basing your assumptions on nothing but the promises and commitments of the people who keep failing to fulfill their promises and commitments. Brilliant. What will a combat capable (with targeting pods and ECM etc?) Super Hornet cost, ~5 years from now when adjusted for inflation? What would a legacy Hornet cost today when adjusted for inflation? Inflation? That's another big fat red herring. Aside from the fact that inflation has been at best lethargic since the mid 90's, it will have an equal effect on the F-35. Also, why are you bringing the legacy F-18 into this? It's out of production. As for targetting pods, we know Australia spent about $100M six years ago to outfit ~70 planes, so unless ECM systems on the F-18E cost roughly $30-35M per unit (which they don't), the F-35 still comes out way more expensive, best case scenario. It's a much cheaper plane, because it's not nearly as effective or sophisticated. Saying the F-35 is going to end up cheaper than it on a per-unit basis is just sad. Edited August 2, 2014 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 If there are items missing on the Australian purchase that are included in the American purchases, then the Australian purchase price is effectively understated in comparison. If so, this provides absolutely no useful data for you to support your low-ball F-35 production costs, nevermind the fact that the purchase was only for two freaking planes. No, and you know I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that since the Americans DO have the biggest financial stake, they're certain to get the best deal on the plane. Knowing this, when you see the Australian purchase coming in at a lower price than current American purchases, you can be almost certain that either they got a steep discount for testing/training purposes or that their purchase contract was missing items the American one had. Either way, it's useless information for our debate other than it gives a pretty clear indication Australia is going to purchase the plane. What tier level in the program are the United States, Australia and Canada? Yes, my assumption is based on the numbers we're seeing now, and based on the painful history of Lockheed Martin not meeting its targets and commitments. You, on the other hand, are basing your assumptions on nothing but the promises and commitments of the people who keep failing to fulfill their promises and commitments. Brilliant. An assumption based on figures provided by the maker, the United States government and budgeted around the partner nations………your assumption was based on what again? Bloggers? Inflation? That's another big fat red herring. Aside from the fact that inflation has been at best lethargic since the mid 90's, it will have an equal effect on the F-35. Also, why are you bringing the legacy F-18 into this? It's out of production. As for targetting pods, we know Australia spent about $100M six years ago to outfit ~70 planes, so unless ECM systems on the F-18E cost roughly $30-35M per unit (which they don't), the F-35 still comes out way more expensive, best case scenario. It's a much cheaper plane, because it's not nearly as effective or sophisticated. Saying the F-35 is going to end up cheaper than it on a per-unit basis is just sad. You're suggesting inflation has no impact on defence programs? That's just ignorant.....And the RAAF, like RCAF, doesn't have one for one targeting or ECM pods, fore they're far too expensive...of course the F-35 will have more advanced systems integral to each aircraft.....What exactly do you think the Super Hornet, combat capable, actually costs per aircraft? I'll leave the floor to you and OGFT to parrot wikipedia to each other Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Yes I am.........the RCAF didn't deploy Sabres to Korea. About 60 of them and they even took down some Mig's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 About 60 of them and they even took down some Mig's. The RCAF didn't have a single combat aircraft deployed to Korea during the war......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 The RCAF didn't have a single combat aircraft deployed to Korea during the war......... Have a read. https://legionmagazine.com/en/2013/09/killing-migs-in-korea/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Have a read. https://legionmagazine.com/en/2013/09/killing-migs-in-korea/ Have another read. http://www.kvacanada.com/stories_cmcdnairmen.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Have another read. http://www.kvacanada.com/stories_cmcdnairmen.htm Read what? That Canadians, on exchange with the USAF, flew Sabres? Like what I said above As I said, the RCAF didn't deploy Sabres to Korea.........thanks for proving my point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 Read what? That Canadians, on exchange with the USAF, flew Sabres? Like what I said above As I said, the RCAF didn't deploy Sabres to Korea.........thanks for proving my point... Apparently you don't read well at all. Oh well, your problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 (edited) Apparently you don't read well at all. Oh well, your problem. What RCAF squadron(s) deployed to Korea, with Sabres (or Vampires, Canucks etc) and engaged in combat operations? Clearly it is you with issues with reading......... Edited August 2, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 About 20 per cent of all combat missions by Canadian pilots were flown in Canadian built Sabres and included some MiG kills. What part of that don't you get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 2, 2014 Report Share Posted August 2, 2014 What part of that don't you get? What part of on exchange with the USAF don't you get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.