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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Folks should also remember that the F-35 program is a partner program. So the partners basically DoD standard equipment. When a country wants to buy F-16s they pay their negotiated price. That goes up with ever piece of equipment they want. The UAE bought block 60s(F-16) for under 80m. These are considered the best. Iraq reportedly paid 102m for far inferior F-16IQ. Costs don't always tell the whole story. The F-35 would be way more expensive had it not had so many orders already. If it was say developed by the US independently and then exported.




posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

The goal is to get the A down to $85M flyaway. There's some hope to that, but considering LRIP 9 is 60% lower than LRIP 1, there's a good chance they'll get there. Each LRIP has dropped, and once full rate production starts and the numbers ordered go up that should drop them more.

All this time, while the fleet has been flying and doing development work, at least two airframes have been in Lockheed hands, that have never left the ground. They've been doing nothing but simulating flights and finding the ultimate life cycle of the aircraft. Those fatigue aircraft have already found a few issues that would eventually develop and fixes for them.

Interestingly we have the 787 to thank for proving that we can do extensive repairs to composite materials.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffraftert tha

a fluctuation of stock prices is just a change in the share price

A change in market share would a variation in how many planes that they have contracts to build. THIS has not changed.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: buddha
Go back and read some more IT stayed at the same price with a promise not exceed 2 correction 4 billion.

edited to acknowledge my faulty memory


edit on 26-12-2016 by SmilingROB because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2016 by SmilingROB because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SmilingROB

He said $4B, not two. But yeah, that's a difference of exactly $0.
edit on 12/26/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: sy.gunson

The f-35 current go out fly around drop bombs and fire missiles. all the f/a type planes can do this so we can say it can perform many of the legacy mission

What they are currently working on is refining the tactics that get some real synergy happening between the other aircraft ie the raptor and the legacy fighters. Targetin for other aircraft, accepting target info etc...

The F-35C is build specifically for flat top aircraft larger wing, reinforced landing gear, the hook.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Fools

Trump thinks it is a beauty pageant. he is way out of his depth, as usual.


I guess our PM thinks it is a beauty contest too.



The previous Canadian administration had the country lined up to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed as part of his election campaign to cancel the purchase on the grounds a real competition hadn't taken place and that such an expensive fighter was unnecessary. True to his word, Trudeau canceled Canada's planned purchase of the F-35 and announced a new, open competition for a permanent replacement would be forthcoming.


For some reason, smart business eludes some people.

We are going to re-up on F-18's. If there was an argument for the F-35 being a better option we would have heard about it. More capable does not mean more reasonable. The biggest thing our airforce is going to have to handle is maybe a no-fly zone over.... actually never mind, Syria is the worst situation we are ever going to get sucked into and the F-18 suites it just fine.


THE BIG plan is buy 18 replacement f-18 to get us keep us flying until 2025 and we will run a competition. So at best we will not meet our Nato commitments for another 5-10 years and even then with embarrassing old technology.

None of this will happen with Trudeau in office imho.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA
it varies with how many bases we station either a/c at. For 18 interim f-18e/f it would be most economic to keep on base.

On f16.net they are confident that the flight management system will reduce maintence cost for the f-35 and reduce down time by assisting in the logistics in many ways(preordering parts). I do not recall a firm number.

The high fly away cost is what spooked our cabinet and non of them were bright enough at the time to look at the prices of other jets.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
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.

Wiki say the 2016 price is 98.3 million.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

There is NO WAY, the F-35 can be described as anything other than a boondoggle.

Trying to make one airframe that covers all applications of offensive/defensive air power is an absurdity.

Sure... with a well designed enough platform it could be possible... but the F-35 sure as hell ain't it.

One of the big foopahs is the claim that the F-35 is needed to replace the aging fleet of A-10 "Warthogs" (A-10 Thunderbolt II) Yet the F-35 can't even come close regards to Close Air Support (CAS) mission capability. Anyone who says the F-35 can do that mission is A LIAR, and yet with the shift to a much more asymmetric battlefield environment... there is an INCREASED need for CAS... for both ground pounders and SOCOM Troops.

Best thing that could happen with the F-35? Pull the plug...
edit on 26-12-2016 by dasman888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: dasman888

Worst thing that could happen. If you pull the plug on it now, after it's operational, you're looking at 10-15 years to start replacing the F-15s and F-16s. That's far too long.

You call it a boondoggle, yet they're finding it's performing better than even the crews flying them expected while doing tactics development. It's not going to be a great plane, but it's far from a boondoggle.

Everyone loves the A-10 and seem to think it's irreplaceable. They're currently flying CAS, quite successfully I might add, with heavy bombers. A B-52 is actually a better platform for CAS at this point, simply because it can stay over the area far longer tham any fighter sized platform. The A-10 brings things nothing else can to the CAS table, but for general CAS, almost anything currently flying, that carries ordnance, also works.

The A-10 is great at its mission, but like so many other platforms we're flying now, it's almost useless in the early days of a war, until the defenses are knocked way down. Which is going to require something, probably several somethings, like the F-35.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
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...



This would be a factor of how long hostilities last wouldn't it? An initial volley might not wipe out every satellite, but it would still cripple coverage immensely. Satellites have no way to protect themselves though, as time goes on more and more would be lost. Assuming nuclear weapons don't just end everything in the first hour, the first hour of combat might result in losing 75% of satellites, after a week 90% would be gone, after a month it would be close to 100%.

Planes just seem to me like they're much more survivable. Satellites seem superior in peace time because they're relatively cheap, but in times of war you need a platform that's more defensible, more on demand, and more dynamic. Satellites are slow to maneuver and your enemy will know when they're coming and can work around that schedule (especially if you lose most of your satellites). Something they can't see and can't shoot down gives you much better on demand reconnaissance.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

That was always the advantage the SR-71 had. Everyone knew to the second when a satellite was passing over. They used to have boards with the pass time on them to flight plan during testing.

With an SR-71, even if you had someone watching the bases they flew out of, you got a few hours warning for the longest flights. For shorter flights to target areas you might not even get word until they're on the way.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Oh, I'm sure that is definitely the case. Nothing else makes any sense at all, or not much, anyway.

I'm nothing like an expert on these matters, but from a plain budgetary point of view, it just makes sense.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dasman888

Worst thing that could happen. If you pull the plug on it now, after it's operational, you're looking at 10-15 years to start replacing the F-15s and F-16s. That's far too long.

You call it a boondoggle, yet they're finding it's performing better than even the crews flying them expected while doing tactics development. It's not going to be a great plane, but it's far from a boondoggle.

Everyone loves the A-10 and seem to think it's irreplaceable. They're currently flying CAS, quite successfully I might add, with heavy bombers. A B-52 is actually a better platform for CAS at this point, simply because it can stay over the area far longer tham any fighter sized platform. The A-10 brings things nothing else can to the CAS table, but for general CAS, almost anything currently flying, that carries ordnance, also works.

The A-10 is great at its mission, but like so many other platforms we're flying now, it's almost useless in the early days of a war, until the defenses are knocked way down. Which is going to require something, probably several somethings, like the F-35.


I have to disagree here. The B-52 cannot perform any CAS until there is complete air superiority. The A-10 could loiter and fly low enough to (if needed) avoid certain SAM threats while at the same time having a body that could thwart the ever present golden bb.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Neither can the A-10. The A-10 was designed to go against waves of tanks, guarded by 1980s defenses. It's more vulnerable against systems like the S300 or S400 than other legacy aircraft, due to its much lower top speed. In the first days of a near peer or peer war, the A-10s are going to be parked.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fools

Neither can the A-10. The A-10 was designed to go against waves of tanks, guarded by 1980s defenses. It's more vulnerable against systems like the S300 or S400 than other legacy aircraft, due to its much lower top speed. In the first days of a near peer or peer war, the A-10s are going to be parked.


A-10 will probably never get to fly in a major war. Where are you going to hide them from ground attacks to make them last until you have controll over the sky?

Air port, runways and storage are without doubt priority targets for base pounding missiles. Such attacks are even going to be a major problem for jets like the F-15, F-16, F18, F-22 and F-35. Even these are going to need a Place to land to rearm after a mission.

Strength in numbers is what is going to matter in a major future battle not so much Technology.


Air dominance of the future is alos a short lived dream if you dont have the strength in numbers. There is a calculated risk that the air dominance you think you have gotten is only short lived. It might be a while before you can fly again do to lack of runways, ground crew and proper Resources to arm up a New and proper air offencive.

In a major war, you cant exspect to have the same Resources at you disposal again and agian, attack after attack. The distance you are capable of striking targets at will also change. Because you cant exspect to trike from the same airfields again and again.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Neither will the B-52 fly in a major war. The A-10 did well with loitering on target and bring in direct hits where the troops needed them.
In Vietnam the A-10 would have been a godsend and it was a godsend in Iraq. Of course we had total air superiority in Iraq so there is that.

Are you guys saying that the F-35 will be put into harms way on a supposed major battlefield with China or Russia? It will be supplying CAS to the troops on the front line?

Let's have an imaginary scenario. What if the US Army was suddenly given the opportunity to fly combat aircraft again. And lets say they were given 1 billion dollars to procure this aircraft. Would they buy something similar to the A-10? Or would they buy the F-35?

Also there is this link which states the AF is definitely going to develop an aircraft similar in capabilities to the A-10 as for some missions the F-35 is too expensive to fly in a mission that does not require its high tech initiative.

www.businessinsider.com...
edit on 27-12-2016 by Fools because: link ad



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Also, you would assume the F-35's priority would be to take out all ground to air missiles in the first days of any potential war. Is that not correct?



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Same author of the last link I provided on the A-10 issue has a reasonable argument for the F-18. His thought is that this is purely an argument for the navy as neither the F-35 nor the F-18 work with the expected chinese threat wherein our aircraft carriers would like to stay 1000 miles away from the shore in the advent of a "real war".

www.scout.com...

The point is that they would bring the requirement of the F-35C down and continue buying the FA-18 while using those cost savings to invest in the F/A-XX and a new long-range unmanned strike platform.

I think that makes good sense.

Now it makes me wonder about Cheney cancelling the Avenger back in the day.

Just how much Lockheed stock did Cheney own?

Lynn "Cheney served on Lockheed Corporation's board of directors from 1994 to 2001. She gave up the $120,000-a-year position shortly before her husband's inauguration. She had served on the Lockheed board's Finance, and Nominating and Corporate Governance committees."

en.wikipedia.org...

Program was cancelled in 91 and then Dick's wife is on the board of directors a few years later. Interesting that she specialized in defense her whole life...oops, nope she had a doctorate in English Literature....

:-)
edit on 27-12-2016 by Fools because: links and so on



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join