It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

T-X to be in 2015 budget

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The Air Force is proposing to add a five year spending plan starting in 2015, that would inject $667M through 2019 for the T-X program, which would replace the existing T-38 trainers the service uses. The final design is far from even reaching RFP stages yet however.

Current competitors include Alenia Aermacchi/General Dynamics with the T-100 (a derivative of the M346), BAE Systems/Northrop Grumman with a variant of the Hawk T2, Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed Martin with the T-50, and Saab/Boeing with a clean sheet design.

The program calls for buying 350 aircraft, and would have and end program cost of $35.3B over 20 years. The cockpit should closely replicate fifth generation aircraft, but it's not clear if it will be a subsonic or supersonic requirement yet.

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


pardon my civilian question, zap...but couldn't they use some of the outdated fighter jets that are already scheduled for replacement, instead of paying for a whole new system?



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Most of the ones that are in the Boneyard, are there because they're at the end of their life cycle, or because they have some sort of structural problem with them. To convert them to trainers would cost a lot more than outright buying a new aircraft would, because you'd have to do a good bit of work to extend their life cycles, and replace some expensive parts on them.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Why on earth does a PEACEFUL country need more fighters?

1) They are not peacful
2) To sell for profit, again, not peaceful
3) Penis waving (aka, all of the above)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by kathat
 


Uhm, did you actually READ it? They're not fighters. They're unarmed training aircraft to train pilots for various types of aircraft.

As for why the US needs more fighters, even though you'll hand wave this away, the current fighter fleet, with the exception of the F-22 is over 20 years old. Some are approaching 30, and all are nearing the end of their life cycle.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

jimmyx
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


pardon my civilian question, zap...but couldn't they use some of the outdated fighter jets that are already scheduled for replacement, instead of paying for a whole new system?


This is a drop in the bucket, the single most wasteful program in our defense budget is this at $1 trillion for total cost of operation:

The F-35 O&S Cost Cover-up

Just a few interesting features of the program include:

• The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
• The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
• The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
• The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
• Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.
• The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
• The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
• The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
• The software development is behind schedule.
• The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
• There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
• The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
• The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.
• Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
• Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.
• Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.
• The radar performs poorly or not at all.
• Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
• Maintenance tools do not work.
• Only a third of the fleet is airworthy.
• The Inertial navigation system does not work.
• There is an unknown bug with the AMRAAM.
• DAS confuses the aircraft's own flare launches with incoming missiles.
• A single well placed bullet can render the F-35B's vertical landing capabilities useless.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by kathat
 


Uhm, did you actually READ it? They're not fighters. They're unarmed training aircraft to train pilots for various types of aircraft.

As for why the US needs more fighters, even though you'll hand wave this away, the current fighter fleet, with the exception of the F-22 is over 20 years old. Some are approaching 30, and all are nearing the end of their life cycle.


Trainers for fighters no doubt.

A peaceful country you hardly hear in the news, all I hear is america america america.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by kathat
 


Ok, you're right. If the US just says "We're peaceful" and gives up their military, the entire rest of the world suddenly will too, and we'll all just get along. Because the US is the ONLY problem in this world, and is responsible for every single problem in the world.

Give me a break. There are no "peaceful countries" out there. Every country on this planet has a respectable military, and almost all of them are growing those military capabilities.

Oh wait, it's because of the US right?

Oh, and the T-38 they're replacing is the initial jet trainer for all types of planes, including tankers, transports, and every other type of jet flown.
edit on 3/27/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Show me any project out there that didn't run into SOME kind of problems (some of them quite major). That's why it now takes almost 30 years to develop a new system. The F-35 is the most advanced aircraft in the world, and at this point it's required as only it can deal with some of the new threats being developed.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I’ll never forget my times at Randolph and Laughlin.
The T-100 is very sweeet, even the GIB gets a chubby




posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


From what they say that one is the middle of the road option. It fits the requirements, but isn't the cheapest, or the most expensive to do so. So it's a pretty good fit.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by greencmp
 


Show me any project out there that didn't run into SOME kind of problems (some of them quite major). That's why it now takes almost 30 years to develop a new system. The F-35 is the most advanced aircraft in the world, and at this point it's required as only it can deal with some of the new threats being developed.


I am certainly not against our military (assuming it continues to be outward facing) but, I am against waste and fraud.

We already knew that manned aircraft were on the way out when this program began so the entire thing was a hand out right from the get go. This is not a case of a few problems slowing down a necessary system rollout.

This kind of crap is what degrades the respectability of our armed forces and will ultimately provide indisputable evidence of corruption (or at the very least, ineptitude) which will then be used to eradicate truly necessary programs.

I was just making the point to Jimmy that there are far more important things to complain about (not that this program is actually worthy of complaint in the first place).



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


There are, but in this case, we have a system trying to do things no other system has ever done. I agree something needs to be done about it, but a this point it's too necessary.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by greencmp
 


There are, but in this case, we have a system trying to do things no other system has ever done. I agree something needs to be done about it, but a this point it's too necessary.


I became livid only when I was watching c-span and heard an exchange in a committee where the number $1 trillion was thrown out as the cost and that the aircraft in question were not capable of night flying. I haven't confirmed the last bit but, having examined the timeline, indications and realistic applications, I do not see the value of the system as equaling the cost. Once you have a complete fly by wire system, a biological pilot on board doesn't even protect against electronic takeover, it just limits the maneuverability of the aircraft making it more likely to be shot down.

More importantly, the people in charge of the program must have known what I know now and went ahead anyway.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Fly by wire is not as easy to take over as portrayed in the media. It's yet another case of them seeing something, and overhyping it. You MIGHT get into the GPS on most aircraft, but not much farther than that, and not for long.

As for the $1T, that WILL come down, as crews learn more about the aircraft, but that's for a 50 year life cycle, and over 1000 aircraft, so it's not quite as bad as it seems.

They do fly at night, they just don't have all the night vision systems developed yet.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by greencmp
 


Fly by wire is not as easy to take over as portrayed in the media. It's yet another case of them seeing something, and overhyping it. You MIGHT get into the GPS on most aircraft, but not much farther than that, and not for long.

Let's hope so, I DO NOT want to hear about an F-35 landing without incident in Iran.



As for the $1T, that WILL come down, as crews learn more about the aircraft, but that's for a 50 year life cycle, and over 1000 aircraft, so it's not quite as bad as it seems.

I would have liked to hear that response to Marsha Blackburn's question in the hearing. Perhaps, since the hearing was about cost overruns, saying that it isn't that bad wasn't going to fly (no pun intended).


They do fly at night, they just don't have all the night vision systems developed yet.


I kind of assumed that so I don't generally cite it as a long term issue but, I wouldn't have discovered the rest of the problems had that not grabbed my attention.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


There are a bunch of problems that are still listed as major problems, that aren't major anymore. But they're still listed, even though they were originally found several years ago.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by kathat
 


Ok, you're right. If the US just says "We're peaceful" and gives up their military, the entire rest of the world suddenly will too, and we'll all just get along.


Yeah, exactly. How did unilateral disarmament work out for Ukraine?


edit on 27-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   

greencmp

Zaphod58
reply to post by kathat
 


Ok, you're right. If the US just says "We're peaceful" and gives up their military, the entire rest of the world suddenly will too, and we'll all just get along.


Yeah, exactly. How did unilateral disarmament work out for Ukraine?


edit on 27-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

But we never heard about Ukraine in the news ... until we did.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   

greencmp

Zaphod58
reply to post by kathat
 


Ok, you're right. If the US just says "We're peaceful" and gives up their military, the entire rest of the world suddenly will too, and we'll all just get along.


Yeah, exactly. How did unilateral disarmament work out for Ukraine?


They got one of their arms lopped off.

Thinking about that. If the A-10 is scheduled for decomissioning, why not sell them to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia?

Might they have a bit of a need?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join