waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 No......The 72 aircraft figure is the requirement to replace their legacy Hornets.......the additional ~28 aircraft, bringing the total to 100, will include the Super Hornet replacements in the later part of next decade, which at one point were planned to be F-35As, but will now likely entail an earlier purchase of F-35Bs to be shared by both the RAAF and the RAN FAA. citation request... provide something concrete that supports your claim of an additional ~28... bringing "the total to 100" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 citation request... provide something concrete that supports your claim of an additional ~28... bringing "the total to 100" Already provided..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Has the claimed support translated into funding for a Super-Duper-Hornet? Also, the what exactly is supported? You suggest additional aircraft, or is it actually retrofitting of current aircraft to keep them relevant until they retire in the 2030s? are you denying the Advanced Super Hornet exists? Is that why you refuse to speak of it... is that why you're forever falling back to references to Hornets/Super Hornets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 are you denying the Advanced Super Hornet exists? Is that why you refuse to speak of it... is that why you're forever falling back to references to Hornets/Super Hornets? Yes, in it's fully proposed developed form......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Has the claimed support translated into funding for a Super-Duper-Hornet? Also, the what exactly is supported? Definitely not....and certainly not forthcoming from Canada. See Northrop's Canadian experience with F-18L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Already provided..... BS you have! Your nattering response is to now repeatedly claim "it's already being spoken to"! You did it in refusing to provide actual latest/greatest LockMart pricing and now this! Well done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Yes, in it's fully proposed developed form......... proposed? You mean the result that the USN was presented with... that "proposed"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Commitments to purchase the aircraft once it has entered FRP. yes! I've noted that's now become the standard fall-back line you've been parroting... like I asked you last time you parroted this: why all the hype and media buzz from LockMart over "commitments" that actually mean nothing in terms of real contracts, real money? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 proposed? You mean the result that the USN was presented with... that "proposed"? No.......Boeing has only offered conformal tanks (like what the F-15 has had for decades) to increase the Super Hornet's range, and a flared weapons pod as a retrofit to existing Super Hornets to make them relevant until they retire.........Boeing's proposed new radar, avionics and new engine has not been funded by the US Government, nor Boeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 You would think tht these days they could design an engine, or at least get one after a redesign that you could run for more than 3 hours without having to make an internal inspection to see if anything was about to blow apart like it actually did in Florida not long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Definitely not....and certainly not forthcoming from Canada. See Northrop's Canadian experience with F-18L. Exactly, doing so is simply throwing good money after bad.........said funds are better allocated to developing the Super Hornet's replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 I never suggested that it would replace all other types........The Americans will replace their current air superiority types, the F-22, F-15C and F-15E Strike Eagle (and the Super Hornet) with a 6th generation type in the early 2030s....... huh! The F-15 ain't no so-called "5th gen" aircraft. And why is your answer only in terms of "Americans"... I was speaking to all participants; pointedly partner nations. Per the top-dog USAF general's comment, without the F-22 to support the F-35... the F-35 is irrelevant in regards "air superiority". No one else has F-22s other than Yawnkees! What does that translate into... and why did you refuse to answer the pointed question as to just why did Canada presume to purchase the F-35 - for what purpose(s)? Other than as a "bomb truck"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 No.......Boeing has only offered conformal tanks (like what the F-15 has had for decades) to increase the Super Hornet's range, and a flared weapons pod as a retrofit to existing Super Hornets to make them relevant until they retire.........Boeing's proposed new radar, avionics and new engine has not been funded by the US Government, nor Boeing. that's not the "kit" I've read described... not the "kit" that, apparently, received such glowing response from the USN - go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 yes! I've noted that's now become the standard fall-back line you've been parroting... like I asked you last time you parroted this: why all the hype and media buzz from LockMart over "commitments" that actually mean nothing in terms of real contracts, real money? . That's simple.........they signal the levels of expected production once the F-35 enters FRP...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 You would think tht these days they could design an engine, or at least get one after a redesign that you could run for more than 3 hours without having to make an internal inspection to see if anything was about to blow apart like it actually did in Florida not long ago. it's bloody amazing that these self-expressed F-35 cheerleaders show such absolute disregard for real testing results and real shown/proven performance metrics. Particularly when the plane just blew up... blew up, reeeal good, and is still confined to flying constraints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 That's simple.........they signal the levels of expected production once the F-35 enters FRP...... "expected" production!!! Guess that's why Bogdan was out on his recent "volume sales" inentive drive, hey? I asked you for an update on his success... you didn't bite. Is there a problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 huh! The F-15 ain't no so-called "5th gen" aircraft. And why is your answer only in terms of "Americans"... I was speaking to all participants; pointedly partner nations. Per the top-dog USAF general's comment, without the F-22 to support the F-35... the F-35 is irrelevant in regards "air superiority". No one else has F-22s other than Yawnkees! What does that translate into... and why did you refuse to answer the pointed question as to just why did Canada presume to purchase the F-35 - for what purpose(s)? Other than as a "bomb truck"? The F-15 has been, and will continue to be the mainstay of the USAF’s air supremacy fighter fleet, coupled with the F-22, until the latter half of the next decade…………Of course, other F-35 partners operate the F-15 (Israel, Japan and South Korea) and will be looking to replace the aircraft in the same timeframe………… As has been stated numerous times, the F-35 was never intended to replace the F-15 (and F-22) in the air supremacy role……….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 "expected" production!!! Guess that's why Bogdan was out on his recent "volume sales" inentive drive, hey? I asked you for an update on his success... you didn't bite. Is there a problem? No problem at all........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 (edited) that's not the "kit" I've read described... not the "kit" that, apparently, received such glowing response from the USN - go figure. Then you have read wrong......the conformal tanks and pods are the only proposed upgrades, funded by Boeing, that have been presented to the USN.........and of course, have not been funded. One must ask though, why does the lauded Super Hornet require improvements aimed at increasing it range and decreasing it's RCS going forward? Edited August 9, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 No problem at all........ what a useless response... why bother, if this is the best you can up with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 it's bloody amazing that these self-expressed F-35 cheerleaders show such absolute disregard for real testing results and real shown/proven performance metrics. Particularly when the plane just blew up... blew up, reeeal good, and is still confined to flying constraints. I hear ya. The fact that it burns too hot has been discussed for a long time now. And that's only one limitation. Of course the huge resources that have already been pumped into this thing will ensure they will come up with something, but it will have to be escorted lest it get it's arse shot off after the bomb run. It kinda reminds me of an old joke: something about a camel being a horse designed by commitee or some such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 One must ask though, why does the lauded Super Hornet require improvements aimed at increasing it range and decreasing it's RCS going forward? why are improvements ever made? Aren't you the guy incessantly chirping about the F-35 being in perpetual development/improvement mode? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 what a useless response... why bother, if this is the best you can up with? I've already provided an answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 from a recent post from one of the more prolific F-35 critics: c'mon cheerleaders... what actually works... just why would the U.S. Gyreens push that IOC date forward before actual operational testing? Harrier18k per flight hourJDAM. LJDAM, Paveway, Dual-mode Paveway (LM version testing), Laser-Maverick, Gun, LITENING Pod.F-35B-- What exactly works that is worth the money spent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 why are improvements ever made? Aren't you the guy incessantly chirping about the F-35 being in perpetual development/improvement mode? . Clearly to improve the survivability of the aircraft in a modern threat environment…….but one must ask, why is DoD not funding it? Clearly because allocating funds to a design that has it’s aerodynamic roots in the 1970s would akin to Sony improving upon VHS machines today. 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.