F-35 - Past, Present ... Future?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 
Isn't this just typical Richard,

The very thing we have been warned about with both the general program cost issue and the (now) lack of competition for the engine, and before the F-136 is even cold in it's grave, the sole remaining engine cost goes supersonic. At over $40M a pop I could almost buy some 4th gen aircraft for the price of the B model engine. In fact for that amount per airframe the USMC could probably do a tear down and rebuild of their current AV-8B's and get another 15-20 years out of them, helped by the thoughtful British taxpayer who provided 72 late model perfectly good Harriers for parts. With this kind of insanity maybe we deserve our collective fate?




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by thebozeian
reply to post by RichardPrice
 
Isn't this just typical Richard,

The very thing we have been warned about with both the general program cost issue and the (now) lack of competition for the engine, and before the F-136 is even cold in it's grave, the sole remaining engine cost goes supersonic. At over $40M a pop I could almost buy some 4th gen aircraft for the price of the B model engine. In fact for that amount per airframe the USMC could probably do a tear down and rebuild of their current AV-8B's and get another 15-20 years out of them, helped by the thoughtful British taxpayer who provided 72 late model perfectly good Harriers for parts. With this kind of insanity maybe we deserve our collective fate?



Just a note, which actually serves to make the point in your post a heck of a lot more apt, but the price is $130million PER ENGINE - the contract is $390M for three engines


You could pick up two Tranche 2 Eurofighters for the cost of one engine.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 
Holy crap Richard!

I had a quick look at the link you provided but didn't realise that was what it was saying. Mate I might have disagreed or argued with you in the past about a couple of things but on this Im 150% behind you, that is INSANE! I think I speak for both of us when I say, "What arse h*le signed off on this piece of delusion?", because we both know our respective countries may subsidize this. For years to come. Lets design our own aircraft now, it cant be any worse.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jensy
 


why not just keep producing refined versions of the F 14 AND F-15 for sea missions?



These aircraft are affordable and are proven to work.


For land the F-16 or preferably the F-16 XL and the F-18 are very good.

are proven.

seriously we really don't need all this stupid maneoverings and fancy cobra stunt aircraft.

nowadays you fire missiles.

you use a fire and forget missile from 50 to 100 miles and are home for teatime.

all this stupid dogfighting nonsense is movie stuff.

the isrealies proved this when they shot down 75 syrian aircraft in that war a decade ago using F-16 without actually seeing the syrians visually.


all we need is large numbers of aircraft instead stupid F-15 which is going to cost 300 million a piece and 10% has been tested and can only carry 2000 pounds and very poor range.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


1) F-16 is a great lightweight fighter but outclassed by most modern combat aircraft.

2) F-15 doesn't cost $300m but can't operate from carriers and the F-14 has been shredded to stop the Iranians buying up the pieces so neither of them is a solution.

You are quite right that firing missiles BVR (beyond visible range) is the way that air-to-air combat is fought, but in order to come off safely with the increasingly small air-forces that western nations are fielding, you need something special to survive (i.e stealth, countermeasures, great maneuverability).

My biggest issue with the F-35 is its lack of a twin engines / two seats. A $150m+ aircraft should not be relying on a single pilot or engine.

Jensy



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by looofo
This problem could be easily solved.
Let the Chinese build the plane, this would cut the costs by 5.

Just kidding. But what a waste of money... for some military games.
That is absolutely gold! I like the way you think


Of course my idea of air defence is a simple one. You fill the skies with cheap drones, carrying long range Phalanx intercept missiles, and accept the attition losses that would naturally follow. No strike fighter could compete against shear weight of numbers. Esp. when the strike fighter is as expensive as an F-22. I say put more money into the weapon, and less money into the platform.
edit on 26-3-2012 by LizardFromOz because: typographical



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LizardFromOz
 




you are right.

which moron is gonna waste time doing the fancy cobra stunts or loop the loop when you have all aspect air to air missiles which you fire from beyond visual range.


the specs for these planes are beyond stupid and not required.

remember that day when the air force using f-16 downed 75 syrian migs fighters in a single day without any of these stupid dog fighting stunts just using better missiles and raders and computers.


they detected,locked on,fired and were on their way home before the first air to air missile hit the syrian mig.



many of these plane specifiers are living in ww2 times in their ancient mental state.they all need to be sacked.

the vast amounts being on air platforms is criminal....and becoming unfordable.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ZIVONIC
 

Manufacturing of high tech products in the US and UK can only get more expensive. In any high income nation it is impossible to keep production cost low. You can build factories in other 3rd world countries producing the components for the plane and have it compartmentalised so that it remains top secret but that would mean no jobs for Americans and British workers. High tech factories cannot sustain a growing population when the factory itself is fully automated and only needs about a hundred people to operate it. You need labour intensive factories like in China to provide more people with jobs. Jobless people are like "idle mind ...devil's workshop"





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join