On Guard for Thee Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 F-35s are ramping up production...squadrons are taking deliveries...type training is in progress for paying customers. Canada dithers...as usual. Most customers, including the pentagon, are dithering. The good news for us is we arent bound by that patronage stuff for this issue. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 Most customers, including the pentagon, are dithering. The good news for us is we arent bound by that patronage stuff for this issue. By dithering, do you mean about to sign the largest ever defense contract, a contract that would result in the F-35s obtaining a fly-away price (as predicted) of $80-85 million a piece, equal to or lower than the Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen? Or the kind of dithering that saw lead items bought for not only American orders, but also British, Dutch, Australian, Italian, Norwegian and Turkish aircraft? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 By dithering, do you mean about to sign the largest ever defense contract, a contract that would result in the F-35s obtaining a fly-away price (as predicted) of $80-85 million a piece, equal to or lower than the Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen? Or the kind of dithering that saw lead items bought for not only American orders, but also British, Dutch, Australian, Italian, Norwegian and Turkish aircraft? 85 million a piece, now that is funny. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398 Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 85 million a piece, now that is funny. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-much-does-an-f-35-actually-cost-21f95d239398 What isn't funny is your poor understanding of purchase production price versus the figure (cited by you) that includes an average that factors all previously paid development costs......... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 What isn't funny is your poor understanding of purchase production price versus the figure (cited by you) that includes an average that factors all previously paid development costs......... Yeah we all know you can spend hour and hours slicing and dicing numbers to make them say what you want. Don't have the time for that. Its a super expensive bomb truck, with one rather dubious engine that you cant see out of even with a 400k dollar hud if you are in turbulence or pulling gs. I suppose if you throw enough money at anything you can repair it. But who in their right mind wants a multi million dollar Edsel... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 Yeah we all know you can spend hour and hours slicing and dicing numbers to make them say what you want. Don't have the time for that. Its a super expensive bomb truck, with one rather dubious engine that you cant see out of even with a 400k dollar hud if you are in turbulence or pulling gs. I suppose if you throw enough money at anything you can repair it. But who in their right mind wants a multi million dollar Edsel... Far more nations then want the Super Hornet, Gripen, Eurofighter or Rafale..........as I said, despite the "expert opinions" and bloggers, the first operational squadron of F-35s is deploying within weeks on its first operational deployment, displacing the ARG's previous Harrier IIs, providing fast-air for United States Marines if required to do so. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 Far more nations then want the Super Hornet, Gripen, Eurofighter or Rafale..........as I said, despite the "expert opinions" and bloggers, the first operational squadron of F-35s is deploying within weeks on its first operational deployment, displacing the ARG's previous Harrier IIs, providing fast-air for United States Marines if required to do so. Hopefully if another one of those PWs is about to come apart from overheat or turbie rub it happens on the runway like the last one and not force some pilot to have to experiment with that finicky ejection seat. Quote
Argus Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Are we planning to attack anybody with stealth (assuming it could be made to actually work) any time soon, You understand that modern air to air missiles have a range of up to 100km, right? Since fighters can't see who they're shooting at with the naked eye they need to rely on their instruments. Likewise, the missiles need to rely on their seekers to home in on an enemy aircraft. The lower the profile of that aircraft, the more difficult it is for an opposing fighter to see and the more difficult it is for a missile to lock in on. So the 'stealth' aspect of the fighter is not merely designed to enable 'sneak attacks' but for the all around survivability in the face of enemy action. Put another way. If a stealth aircraft can spot and home in on a non-stealth aircraft, then fire and turn away before the non-stealth aircraft can even find them, well, who is going to win that shootout? Edited July 1, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 You understand that modern air to air missiles have a range of up to 100km, right? Since fighters can't see who they're shooting at with the naked eye they need to rely on their instruments. Likewise, the missiles need to rely on their seekers to home in on an enemy aircraft. The lower the profile of that aircraft, the more difficult it is for an opposing fighter to see and the more difficult it is for a missile to lock in on. So the 'stealth' aspect of the fighter is not merely designed to enable 'sneak attacks' but for the all around survivability in the face of enemy action. Put another way. If a stealth aircraft can spot and home in on a non-stealth aircraft, then fire and turn away before the non-stealth aircraft can even find them, well, who is going to win that shootout? Yes I quit understand the theory of how that is supposed to work. Trouble is, it doesn't. Anything that moves, disturbs air molecules, and emits heat is detectable. In order for the F 35 to try and be stealthy, it has to fly with internal weapons load only, which reduces it to about 17% of its payload. And the Chinese already have radar which can find the F 35 well beyond the range of its AMRAAMs. Quote
Shady Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 Yes I quit understand the theory of how that is supposed to work. Trouble is, it doesn't. Anything that moves, disturbs air molecules, and emits heat is detectable. In order for the F 35 to try and be stealthy, it has to fly with internal weapons load only, which reduces it to about 17% of its payload. And the Chinese already have radar which can find the F 35 well beyond the range of its AMRAAMs.That's ok. We won't be bombing China anytime soon. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 That's ok. We won't be bombing China anytime soon. Good. Then lets cancel the bomb truck idea. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 That's ok. We won't be bombing China anytime soon. True....Canada will never have to complete strike missions on its own without air defense suppression by the usual allied suspects. CAP missions presume air superiority and integrated sensors, processing, and data links. The Chinese wish they had it so good. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 Yes I quit understand the theory of how that is supposed to work. Trouble is, it doesn't. Anything that moves, disturbs air molecules, and emits heat is detectable. In order for the F 35 to try and be stealthy, it has to fly with internal weapons load only, which reduces it to about 17% of its payload. And the Chinese already have radar which can find the F 35 well beyond the range of its AMRAAMs. Its not theory but fact, if an F-35 can see an opposing aircraft before it can see it, the opposing aircraft loses............As to the Chinese (or Russian) claim to the advancement of their VHF radars, first, low band frequencies are unable to target/provide terminal guidance to missiles, in addition, low frequencies are not agile between different bands, as such, are easily jammed with countermeasures that were available during the Vietnam war, let alone a modern suite found on a Growler or F-35. As to its internal weapons carriage, yes, it is a greatly diminished load, but is offset by the fact that any other modern aircraft, outside the B-2, would be unable to go into a modern contested airspace without being savaged by modern air defenses........which is why, using Desert Storm as an example, the first stages of the air war were to destroy the Iraqi air defense grid (at the time, one of the largest and most deadly, second only to Soviet defenses defending Moscow and the Kola Peninsula), with stealth aircraft and cruise missiles.... Yes, one has to question a claim of Chinese VHF radars developments, technology developed to it fullest in the 70s and 80s by the Americans ( by Lockheed and Northrop Grumman, makers of the only serving stealth aircraft and the F-35 to boot!!!)..........whats next, are the Chinese going to develop an 8" floppy disk with a level of decryption the world has never seen? And assuming the Russian and Chinese have made stealth obsolete, why are they both developing their own stealth aircraft? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 That's ok. We won't be bombing China anytime soon. When our current Hornets were selected over 35 years ago, with the intended purpose of intercepting waves of Soviet bombers and providing low-level strike to NATO forces on the West German FEBA against the Soviet Hordes, nobody envisioned they would one day be used to conduct fighter sweeps over the Persian Gulf, interdiction missions over the former FRY, provide air defense against hijacked airliners and conduct targeted strikes against insurgent groups over Libya and Iraq............ One can make educated guesses, by there is zero certainty over what Canada could be required to use the replacement for its Hornets for (Or against) going outwards into the 2050s..... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 True....Canada will never have to complete strike missions on its own without air defense suppression by the usual allied suspects. CAP missions presume air superiority and integrated sensors, processing, and data links. The Chinese wish they had it so good. That is probably a safe assumption, but Canada alongside allies could very well see itself doing that in some crap hole armed with then modern Chinese or Russian air defenses, defenses that would negate current 4th and 4.5 generation aircraft like the Super Hornet or Eurofighter It should be noted, all present users of the Super Hornet, likewise 2 of 4 developers of the Eurofighter (3 if you count an eventual Spanish purchase), intend to also operate the F-35...... Quote
cybercoma Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 Its not theory but fact, if an F-35 can see an opposing aircraft before it can see it, the opposing aircraft loses...if Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 if Yeah, the F-35's combination of radar and DAS is the most modern combination of sensors ever put into the air in a fighter sized aircraft, by anyone, ever.........if the F-35 can't see, nothing else can. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 Apparently the US Navy doesn't have quite the faith in the F35 as D2 does since, they have cut their order by about half. Stealth (or lack of) being one of the reasons. http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/09/greenert-questions-stealth-future/22949703/ Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 Apparently the US Navy doesn't have quite the faith in the F35 as D2 does since, they have cut their order by about half. Stealth (or lack of) being one of the reasons. http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/09/greenert-questions-stealth-future/22949703/ And, as already talked about, several years ago, in the other F-35 thread, said remarks are taken out of context when the entire interview is read......As CNO Greenert is speaking to the USN's reliance on stand-off technology, be it air, surface or sub-surface launched, developed in the 1960s and 70s....... And no, the USN didn't cut its requirement for the F-35 in half, its slowing its implementation of the fleet due to the realization that the USN currently doesn't have a surplus of carriers to conduct CARQUALs of the type, bringing it into service at the same rate as the Marines and Air Force......... If, as your cited "experts" suggest the USN had reservations with the F-35, they wouldn't be the deploying the first operational, USMC, squadron this Summer Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 Seems the F-35 isn't performing very well. And said "blogger" is refuted by a factual report: Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target. The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology. And of course, this flight was reported on earlier this year, well naming the actual people involved.......not unnamed sources, from an unknown report, cited by a blogger: The operational maneuvers were flown by Nelson in AF-2, the primary Flight Sciences loads and flutter evaluation aircraft, and one of nine F-35s used by the Edwards AFB-based 412th Test Wing for developmental testing (DT). The F-35 Integrated Test Force at Edwards has six F-35As, two F-35Bs and a single F-35C dedicated to DT work, as well as a further set of aircraft allotted to the Joint Operational Test Team. Work is underway as part of efforts to clear the final system development and demonstration (SDD) maneuvering envelopes on the way to initial operational capability (IOC). The U.S. Marine Corps F-35B IOC is targeted for later this year, the Air Force’s F-35A in 2016, and the U.S. Navy’s F-35C in 2019. “When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, ‘you have no limits,’” says Nelson. “It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.” AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010. The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.” So the actual pilot of the AF-2 test is quoted.......who is the blogger's unnamed source, and what was he/she flying? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 And, as already talked about, several years ago, in the other F-35 thread, said remarks are taken out of context when the entire interview is read......As CNO Greenert is speaking to the USN's reliance on stand-off technology, be it air, surface or sub-surface launched, developed in the 1960s and 70s....... And no, the USN didn't cut its requirement for the F-35 in half, its slowing its implementation of the fleet due to the realization that the USN currently doesn't have a surplus of carriers to conduct CARQUALs of the type, bringing it into service at the same rate as the Marines and Air Force......... If, as your cited "experts" suggest the USN had reservations with the F-35, they wouldn't be the deploying the first operational, USMC, squadron this Summer So you suppose to speak for the US Navy over the voice of its Chief of Naval Operations. Now that actually is a reason for one of these stupid things. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 So you suppose to speak for the US Navy over the voice of its Chief of Naval Operations. Now that actually is a reason for one of these stupid things. No, in the other F-35 thread, I provided the entire interview with the CNO, which adds context to the partial remarks quoted by the anti-F-35 crowd........unlike like you, that relies upon bloggers speaking and distorting his remarks. The CNO in his own words (from the ~19 minute on): Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 And apparently some of the older equipment still works pretty well. Oops! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144873/U-S-air-force-s-sophisticated-stealth-jet-beaten-dogfight-plane-1970s-despite-expensive-weapon-history.html Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 And apparently some of the older equipment still works pretty well. Oops! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144873/U-S-air-force-s-sophisticated-stealth-jet-beaten-dogfight-plane-1970s-despite-expensive-weapon-history.html Already refuted.......Oops!!! And confirmed, by Top Gun graduate and former Hornet pilot: Thomas, who is also an F/A-18 pilot and a graduate of the Navy's Top Gun program and the Marines' Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course, agreed that all three variants should be lethal in the within-visual-range fight. Beyond visual range, the aircraft's radar and stealthiness will enable it to dominate the skies, Thomas said. Sorry, despite the bloggers best tales, its still BS Quote
WWWTT Posted July 2, 2015 Report Posted July 2, 2015 if Yeah, the F-35's combination of radar and DAS is the most modern combination of sensors ever put into the air in a fighter sized aircraft, by anyone, ever.........if the F-35 can't see, nothing else can. Here's a link that's a game changer! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144873/U-S-air-force-s-sophisticated-stealth-jet-beaten-dogfight-plane-1970s-despite-expensive-weapon-history.html?ito=social-facebook WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
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.