Trump hints at ASH buy

a reply to: rickymouse

Over priced? List on an E/F is $98M, and initial word is Kuwait is paying closer to $120M for their order. Current price for a C model F-35 is $121M. Even IF Boeing could keep the ASH at $100M, the F-35 cost, unless they screw the deal by cutting the C, will continue to come down.

a reply to: penroc3

And I'm underwhelmed at how well he did with his aviation ventures.

The problem with using legacy airframes with upgrades is, where is he getting the money. If you're buying an older car, that means delaying or ending your plans to buy that new car. So if he does go forward with the buy, the money has to come from somewhere.

a reply to: Zaphod58

In military equipment there has to be a balance between cost/number of units/replaceability/ease of operation.

The later military equipments are getting too expensive, too few, too difficult to repair, too difficult to operate.

Think of a ww2 scenario where forces are relatively balanced. How would you use a Raptor series model on such type of war?

You wouldn´t. These models are useless on a conflict where forces are balanced thus the erosion is high, once they start being shot down, or even fail without any enemy intervention, the war is lost.

There is only one use for fighter planes above 4th generation, show off and surprise attacks agains irrelevant enemies. This is what they have been used for and this is all they can do.

Do you know how many p-51 the US produced during the ww2? Can you see something like that with Raptors or Thunderbolt2 or any of these highly sophisticated planes?

The US is not even self sufficient in raw materials for these planes... This is all BS planes, useless.

a reply to: CrapAsUsual

p-51 and F-35's are like comparing oranges to microchips.

the only thing they share is they fly. F-35's have a 5:1 kill ratio on our own forces.

there are also many force multipliers and assets that even a defencive posture is easily managed and won

Perhaps it just makes better economic and military sense to go with the cruise-missile, drone and other standoff-weapon approach rather than increasingly expensive and sophisticated manned low-observable aircraft, in which case the launch platform is of decreased importance?

Ever sophisticated search and track systems, missiles, satellites and automated systems may one day make manned aircraft obsolete, if not technologically, at least economically. How many stealth cruise-missiles or long range A2A weapons can you buy for the cost of a stealth strike aircraft? How long does it take to develop and manufacture them? Has there been a reputable, non-partisan investigation into this?

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: CrapAsUsual

p-51 and F-35's are like comparing oranges to microchips.

the only thing they share is they fly. F-35's have a 5:1 kill ratio on our own forces.

there are also many force multipliers and assets that even a defencive posture is easily managed and won

But who set the parameters of how they structured the tests? They could set up the skirmish to make it so that any plane would have the advantage. This is done to justify the purchase price often.

Two planes, one a russian plane and one an F35 coming into contact and each pilot using his gut instinct and training. That is how you find how things work, not by testing with pilots trained in the same strategy.

a reply to: penroc3

I idn´t compared the p51 and the f35 in the manner you imply.

You loose one mustang you can build another in a short period of time and put a pilot trained for a few dozens of hours inside and send him to fight, you loose an f35 you take months to build another one if you have access to the raw materials and highly advanced components it needs, and the pilot takes months to train.

a reply to: Orwells Ghost

Absolutely.

Unmanned or/and autonomous, many.

War machines that go to the front line must be quickly replaceable, they must be technologically advanced but can´t be impossible to fix and build, designers have to find a balance like I said above.

Ships like aircraft carriers are to be used in the context you see them being used now, to impose a presence or in wars agains incapable enemies. If a carrier is sunk, and thats not difficult at all to do, I remember a NATO wargames in the atlantic 15 years ago when a portuguese diesel sub from the 40´s or 50´s emerged at the side of the Eisehower, obviously the americans were astonished and lost, if an aircraft carrier is sunk, thousands of men and dozens of planes, and resources that could have been used to build much more efficient war machines go with it. This can happen much more easily with a modern fuel cell ultra silent submarine or a submarine drone.

a reply to: rickymouse

There is always room to conspiracy, its the mil complex, of course they conspire...

ut the point is that, yes, even is the american plans wins all the 1 to 1 fights, at some point it will, if not take a hit, malfunction and crash.

You can´t replace these planes in due time because they are too complex to build, take too scarce resources, too specialised craftsmanship, the components come from the most varied sources, everything on them is hard and difficult. In war time this is just one additional problem you´re creating to yourself.

a reply to: rickymouse

Red Flag doesn't pull punches or throw scenarios to make planes look better. The entire point of the exercise is to make it harder than real combat, to prepare pilots for being shot at.

a reply to: CrapAsUsual

It's funny how many different ways i hear how useless stealth is, but then look at how many countries are buying it, or building their own. I guess all of them are preparing to fight weak opponents.

a reply to: CrapAsUsual

Too bad unmanned doesn't give you the flexibility, or many of the other things manned does.

Exercises like Red Flag are designed to train. If they were only set up to make the F-35 look good they wouldn't have lost any.

a reply to: CrapAsUsual

So how exactly do YOU plan to solve the problem of modern defenses? Modern SAMs are capable of hitting cruise missiles, and would swat non stealthy planes and UAVs out of the sky.

And even with a P-51, pilots took months to train.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: rickymouse

Red Flag doesn't pull punches or throw scenarios to make planes look better. The entire point of the exercise is to make it harder than real combat, to prepare pilots for being shot at.

Yes, but remember, the Russians are trained to think different than us. US pilots are trained to think the same way so they work together. The Russians may think differently. I say Russians but it is not my thoughts that we will be fighting them, they are only a reference country. If Iranian pilots fly a good fighter, they will be way different in tactics and style than American pilots. This isn't like football where there are a limited amount of plays. Are these F35s being tested against Russia's newest and most advanced planes?

a reply to: rickymouse

The Aggressors are trained to fly and fight exactly as potential opponents do. They use the same tactics, down to ground controllers directing then in the days of the Soviet Union. This isn't a bunch of American pilots going out and using American tactics.

Red Flag works. Pilots have commented that actual combat,with real weapons flying at them is easier than Red Flag.

I think it's short sighted and am surprised the services aren't up n arms. If they go ASH then the carriers are pretty useless, need the F-35C to keep the carrier force potent.

Plus it's a stupid idea, as previously mentioned the F-35 can only come down in price, the actual cost of an ASH is completely unknown. Plus the cost also doesn't take into account having to replace the ASH as soon as China or Russia develop a stealth aircraft that works and goes into production, legacy fleet will be useless except for 3rd world bashing which the Marines and the F-35b will be doing because of the proliferation of advanced SAMs.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gription

Have you bothered to read any of the reports that have come out lately? Their first Red Flag they went 15:1 in the air to air arena, and successfully took on ground threats that in previous exercises would have had the Blue Force backing off and throwing cruise missiles at them, while maintaining a 90%+ mission rate.

Training against ground threats at Mountain Home they had to turn their transponder on to make the training even possible.

Training against simulated radar systems in Florida, the aircraft recognized that they weren't actual radar systems, and ignored them.

And a lot more. The F-35 is maturing into a hell of a platform, and will continue to get better as they iron the bugs out over time.

Well, as a former Red Flag participant I can tell you that the drills are often skewed to "promote" a certain platform or strategy. Of course they're going to make it look good.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey I love the F-35, I got to touch it! But realistically, I just do not see the f-35 or any aircraft pulling off a 15:1 KDR unless its done one on one, fifteen in a row. Or maybe two on one tops. Three craft at once though? Well I suppose with the advanced computers and algorithms the machine could engage multiple targets at once. But that does not mean any number of those multiple targets is not going to get their shot off.

Overall I still support procurement for this craft. I just wish it hadn't gotten so expensive. And while I do believe in its capability, how many aircraft have engaged in actual aerial combat have come close to a true 10:1 ratio in actual engagements??? Are there any records of these achievements after WW2 ???

a reply to: worldstarcountry

They didn't come in groups. That was over the course of two weeks.

There hasn't been a mass engagement, but the F-15,including the E, currently stands at 104:0:3. The F-16 stands at something like 76:3:5, in actual combat.