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.

 

Trump calls for F-18 run off against F-35

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

There could be any number of things. Almost certainly related to Boeing, and nothing to do with the F-35 or Lockheed.

The problem is that they're getting Super Hornets, not Hornets. Superficially the two aircraft are similar, but under the skin they're quite a bit different. The forward fuselage is the same, but there similarity ends. The fuselage is almost three feet longer, the wing is 25% larger, it has 35% more thrust using different engines.... That's just the airframe. Once you get under the skin, the Super Hornet has a lot of differences as well.


edit on 12/25/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MALBOSIA

There could be any number of things. Almost certainly related to Boeing, and nothing to do with the F-35 or Lockheed.

The problem is that they're getting Super Hornets, not Hornets. Superficially the two aircraft are similar, but under the skin they're quite a bit different. The forward fuselage is the same, but there similarity ends. The fuselage is almost three feet longer, the wing is 25% larger, it has 35% more thrust using different engines.... That's just the airframe. Once you get under the skin, the Super Hornet has a lot of differences as well.


Well either way, the Super Hornet will do us just fine for now. The F-35 might easily win in a future competition but at least by that time we won't be paying the trial and error surcharge that are making it so damn expensive. Trump might be put of place using the same logic seeing as Lockheed depends on the US military budget so heavily but for us I think it was a good move.

It's too bad though. As amazing as the lighting 2 is, it's coming across to the average voter as a desperate project.



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You might as well have gone with a new aircraft. You're going to have to buy new infrastructure for the Super Hornets, including ground equipment, and other support equipment. That's going to push a replacement program back probably 10 years, and end up with paying twice the cost of having an honest competition now.



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

How can we know that if nobody will tell us what the 35 is actually going to cost in the long run?

Lockheed knows it is dealing in politics, so they only have themselves to blame. When Boeing brought out the Super Hornet to the US they pitched it as economical and got it pushed through. Your showing the differences between the Hornet and your right yet the argument that parts were shared with the legacy Hornet is what got it passed in the US.

And how many are we going to buy? 10-12... no, these are a stop-gap procurement. Like you said, keeping up with obligations. We are not going to build much infrastructure for them. We are going to eventually get a new generation but we don't really see the value in being Guinea pigs and apparently neither does Trump.

It's too much. How about Lockheed gives everyone a a few dozen and spend their own money maintaining it? It might be a waste now but if nobody ever buys them they are going to lose so much more.



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I didn't say buy the F-35 though. I said have the competition that they claimed they were going to have, and get something besides Super Hornets the way they are doing it. By having an open competition, and selecting a new aircraft, you're paying once for the replacement, instead of twice.

They're buying 18 aircraft. List price for an F-18E/F, in 2018 is $98.3M flyaway cost. Current cost for an F-35A is 102.1M, a Eurofighter Typhoon is $183M, and a Gripen E is about $61M right now, but is still in development.

So as it stands now, at list prices (which they won't pay), Canada is paying $1.7B for the aircraft, plus support equipment, training, weapons, etc. The deal will probably top out somewhere near $1B, even with discounts. And they still have to have the final replacement competition, to replace the A-D aircraft, and keep the 64 or so aircraft minimum they need to meet their obligations. You have to have the infrastructure to support the aircraft. That includes ground support equipment, pilot training equipment, maintenance equipment, etc.

So in 10 years, they're going to have to budget another couple billion dollars, to have the actual replacement, and buy what they need, or risk not having an air force that's capable of doing anything, but fly their 18 Super Hornets around Canada (fewer actually when you figure in the aircraft that are in scheduled maintenance, just broke, or unable to fly for various reasons).

If nobody ever buys the F-35? Canada is the only nation to cancel their order. Others have added aircraft to their orders. They delivered 154 aircraft from the start of the program, through 2015, with 45 aircraft delivered in 2015. The F-35 program is going strong, and the other nations involved are happy with their aircraft to date.
edit on 12/25/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/25/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

No...just No. I have been in civilian procurement for many years. No one...I'll say it again...NO ONE in procurement thinks that about DOD procurement professionals. They 're almost universally regarded as very smart and very savvy buyers.
Unfortunately they face the same problems all buyers face. If internal stakeholders keep changing specs. (esp. mid. production) then cost will accelerate. The fact we see block costs declining, points to a healthy SCM.



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod, you know more about this than I do and sure, your not saying "buy the F-35" but I have mentioned the maintenence costs for the F-35 at least twice in this thread and you have not really given that much value.

You just replied to me mentioning it again with comparisons between "fly way costs."

And answer me honestly, is the ground equipment that is unique to the Super Hornet vs the Legacy going to cost anywhere near what it will to have a complete ground infrastructure for the F-35?

Do you have those numbers?



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Those numbers currently don't exist, and won't until there are more non developmental aircraft flying. Like the Mission Capable rates, you can't get numbers from developmental aircraft.

As for the flyaway cost, that's the only real cost you can go with. The life cycle, maintenance, and other costs are too variable to try to add into a discussion. That's one reason negotiations take so long after the aircraft is selected, or an aircraft that doesn't have the lowest flyaway cost gets selected.

The Super Hornet has some overlap with the legacy aircraft so it won't be as much. But, at the same time, by buying Super Hornets now, you're basically getting a short term aircraft, and paying twice as much if not more when you finally do replace the Hornets. You might save on the Super Hornets, but you're in the same position you're in after, only you've spent a lot more money.
edit on 12/25/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


I apreciate the straight answer.

That's the thing though is that annual costs are why Harper couldn't even push the issue and gave up. We don't have a big military budget, we can't sustain a runaway cost for something most voters don't believe we should be using in the first place.

I do get what your saying. Yes, this is going to cost more in the inevitable long run. But I bet if given the option, Canadian voters would walk away from treaties if they could to avoid an expensive air force.

Thanks for all the info Zaphod. As usual.



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Walking away from the F-35, is going to hurt in many more ways, if Lockheed sticks to their guns. According to the contracts with Lockheed, after the existing contracts that Canadian companies have for components end, they won't be renewed. The agreement was that nations that are in the program get the work for the aircraft. Trudeau is currently paying an annual dues to stay in the program, and the work is there for now, but it's questionable for the future. That's a big chunk of money that could potentially be lost.

I'm sure quite a few people would walk away from the treaties, and I know the budget is barely enough to cover what's there. I've seen the status of the navy ships, and watched the legacy Hornets get in worse and worse shape, much as ours are currently doing. But I would think the fact that the budget is so small would be one reason to want to see the bidding for new fighters go through now, instead of waiting another 10 years or more.

Depending on who you listen to, the legacy aircraft have time left on them to get through the competition now, where they won't later. The MoD is claiming that they are in extreme danger of losing the capabilities now, while the RCAF is saying they have another 8-10 years minimum before they get to that point. Instead of risking losing most of those capabilities and relying on a tiny number or aircraft, I would think that it would be better to get it over with while there's not a danger of losing those capabilities.



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It is still a tough sell. Panning logically for a future where military air superiority is consider necessary is tough to get past Canadians. We are in a pickle here. We don't feel threatened by anyone. Most Canadians don't even know that we have thousands so of troops on the Russian border. They were told, it was in the papers but it doesn't mean anything to them.

How do you tell people that do not feel threatened by anything, that yes it is going to be expensive and we cant tell you how expensive but you need this weapon for reasons you don't feel the least bit bothered by?

Unless someone can give us a reason to be afraid, how are we going to keep up? We want to see blue angles and I hear they are going to be flying super Hornets



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

That's the point of a competition. You keep assuming the F-35 is going to win, when there are multiple options open to them. The F-35 may not have exact costs available, but there is a pretty good idea. And the other options, with the exception of the Gripen E all have been flying more than long enough to have almost exact figures available. Even the Gripen E will have a good idea of the costs, based on the existing Gripen fleet. The F-35 may have been what the previous government went for, but it's far from the only aircraft that is going to be offered in an honest competition. It may turn out to be the best fit, based on the requirements put forward by the MoD, or it may not. But at least four other aircraft are going to be offered, possibly five.

I'd rather explain to people why they need a new aircraft, and the costs associated with it than explain to them about how their fathers, brothers, and sons are going to be flying aircraft that are as much or more of a danger to them as to anyone they might potentially fly against. They might not feel the least bit bothered by someone or something, but having no military isn't going to work either. That means money towards new equipment. Especially if you don't want to keep losing pilots. At this point it's less a matter of being afraid of anyone, than it is trying not to kill your own troops.

You keep bringing up costs, but I really don't see how you can be so against spending the money, but don't seem to have a problem spending larger amounts of money, on unnecessary expenses. You don't have to keep up, but when your budget is that small, this is an insane way to spend it. They were barely going to have the money to do a single competition, and now they have to essentially have two.
edit on 12/25/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/25/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fools

This is just another attempt at getting costs down. There are so many things wrong with this idea. First, the Super Hornet can't be made to do all the things the F-35 currently can, let alone what it will eventually be able to do. Second, the Air Force isn't going to buy the Super Hornet, and this would screw the Marines so bad it's not funny. It would totally eliminate their STOVL capability. Third, if they started now, and were able to get a Super Hornet even close to what the F-35 could do, it would be at least another 10 years before it reached IOC, let alone FOC. So we'd be at least 10 years behind where we are now.

What makes it so funny is that they just announced that LRIP 9 costs are down 5.5%, and 1.2% for the A and B, over LRIP 8. That's 60% lower than LRIP 1 for the A. It's dropped with almost every LRIP buy, and will continue dropping as they add more aircraft.


You know what I thought when I read this? Well, apart from agreement, I thought Trump should look across the pond and learn a lesson from history.

Our "F-35 moment" as I've just decided to refer to it, came in 1965. The RAF was going to have the most advanced and capable strike aircraft in the world, the TSR2. It was already flying, but being so advanced it had problems and cost overruns and was scrapped because it was costly and going to be late into service.

Now, what would have been better from an RAF perspective? Spend the extra cash and accept the TSR2 into service in. 1970-72 instead of 1968, or what actually happened, which was to spend even more money than TSR 2 cost and wait another decade to receive the slower, less capable Tornado in the 1980's?

What Trump is saying now regarding the F-18 sounds like America is preparing to remake the entire farce, like you did with Fawlty Towers. Fawlty Trump Tower perhaps? Please don't.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: WAstateMosin

Point of order. The YF-23 did NOT have vectored thrust at all, while the F-22 patently does. Maybe you are thinking ofa different competition where the Boeing X-32, which had vectored thrust lost, while the F-35 does not (except for landing)?
edit on 26-12-2016 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




But lately, technology has been moving in the direction that if war between advanced nations were to break out, everyones satellites would be blown up in the first few minutes,


Not true.

In light of the number of sats currently in operation, very, very many would be lost.

But not all.

Not by a long shot...



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull




Or they'll be uplinked to sats that are more survivable.


That's certainly one plank of the solution.

And it truly doesn't take a rocket or sat scientist to figure out what the other plank is...

And I don't mind saying that today - not because it's the worst kept secret in the world - far from it. The answer or reason if you prefer, is far simpler: Plain old common sense *should* dictate that the accepted belief among most everyone, that countries like ours would put 100's of millions (actually billions) of dollars worth of equipment up there that is of enormously vital strategic and tactical importance to us - with no space based way to defend it - is just ludicrous.

My colleagues and I often joke that some form of mass hypnosis must have been used.

Think about it for 30 seconds.

Does any other conclusion make *any* sense at all, especially once you consider who owns, operates and depends on these sats?

C'mon....


edit on 12/26/2016 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Zaphod, you keep saying F-18e's cost 90 million USD plus. You are not talking about fly away cost? Every source I check says that the E model is bought at 52 million by the USN. The actual current cost of the F-35 at fly away is 130 million USD and they hope to get it down to 98 million USD soon.

Please help me understand where your cost estimates come from. Not trying to call you out on anything at all - just wondering why I have seen such high numbers on the hornet from you. Maybe an EF-18G?

Personally I'd like to see a souped up F-15 to come back just because it has a proven record that cannot be matched (at this time). Potential missile ship - I think I saw one mock up where the advanced version could take off and land with around 12 air to air missiles. Imagining an F-35 directing that plane a few hundred miles away. It would be devastating.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: WAstateMosin


YF-22 did NOT have TV. That maneuverability difference is what cost the YF-23 the bid.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

The Navy paid $52M for them at their original cost, in 1990s dollars. In 2016 dollars the flyaway cost is actually closer to $100M, after adjusting for inflation, and changes and upgrades made to systems since they were originally bought.

The F-35 cost for LRIP 9 was just announced as $102.1M, $131.6M, and $132.2M for each type. They didn't announce if that included engine, or not, but if not that will add about another $8-10M to each, probably on the lower end.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

But the government has been saying that my food procurement costs are not subject to inflation!

:-)

Yeah I did more research, you are correct as usual on that. Damn you!

Now it is just hope and faith at this point that the F-35 can get down to that amount though isn't it?

This brings another issue to mind, since the F-35 obviously has new materials in its construction, isn't it kind of hoping for the best that it will have a longer lifespan than current in use aircraft? I think that is one of the Lockheed claims that help sell it better. If the claim is true, then what sort of proof do they offer to prospective buyers?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join