nhamptonSimple request…………..I asked you to back up your claim with a source. Instead you reply with sarcasm and name calling.
Typical……
Listen Scooter you are arguing over nothing here. The real knock is not in size. It is the fact that the US is now on it’s second generation fighter based AESA. They have a 15 year head start and billions of development dollars advantage on the competition. Plus its not just the hardware, its the thousands of lines of code that have been written that allow you fully realize AESAs advantages. None of which the Euros or Russians currently have and by the time they actually field a combat worthy AESA the US will have moved the goal posts yet again because rest assured they will not stop their ongoing development. That is what matters. Not who is making it and the number of modules. That is when everything is equal. Clearly that is not the case here.
nhamptonTrue.
But then again, guys with “joysticks” may get the ideas (Dr.Strangelove) and “take one, just in case” (and justify it with rapid response ability) on non-delivery flights…
All the bubbles have gone to your head soda boy. I am sure there will be plenty of fail safe built in for the boys with joysticks just as there are on boomers.
UCAVs are not the way with doomsday delivery. Too slow. Look for something hypersonic out of Groom Lake. Why do you think the black budget is so big and Gates canned the NGB.
nhamptonNo.
Seriously, how could the F/A-18E/F be a better “stop gap” to replace the F-111 than the F-15E…
No saying that there are not valid reasons for choosing the F/A-18E/F over the F-15E. But if your claimed requirement is to replace the F-111…
It costs half as much and it is much more versatile that’s how.
nhamptonYes but that’s the same for any type. If you go this way your Raptor easily costs 250 mln $+ 😉
I have to disagree here. Raptor unit cost is about $150 million and that includes every capability in the current block of AC. That includes AESA it includes the Avionics, it includes the current software code it includes AIM-120, AIM-9X, and SDB integration. While it does not include all future planned upgrades such as HOBs it does include things that Tiffie lacks. further if Raptor where built in numbers like Tiffy there should be no doubt that the price would come down even more. Only an idiot could not grasp the simple fact that having multiple assembly lines like Tiffy makes for a very expensive plane.
nhamptonYou said it all.
Is there indeed any difference? :p:p:p
Nothing like reveling in your own ignorance. There is a huge difference but I am not going to bother going in to it here since all I will get back is trollish replies.
nhamptonDue changing requirements (DASS was just ordered in 2001 for example) and the inclusion of development costs. Germany hardley paid some 9.5 bln € on tranche 1. T2 was 4.6 bln €.
No doubt upgrading Typhoon to enable it to be competent against today’s threats has added significantly to the cost. the reality is that it costs somewhere around $140 million dollars to produce a truly combat worthy Tiffy. All those contract numbers that where trotted out about by the tiffy cheerleaders as proof that it is an $80 million dollar plane do not take into account thinks like DAS, AESA, A2G development, IRST, Meteor integration, etc. In other words for$80 million you get an airshow aircraft not much more.
nhamptonYeh Swerve summed it up quite well, the money already allocated is not enough to cover the last 37 jets, but that’s not to say the money can’t be found.
I think you are all missing the interesting point of the article.
According to the terms of the contract, however, the €14.6 billion German investment will be exhausted following the purchase of 143 aircraft.
That comes to 102 Euros a pop where I come from. That’s $142 million or 87 million pounds at today’s exchange rate.
Where is Jacko at a time like this? I need him to explain to me how this could be so. How could the actual price be greater than the initial contract price?
nhamptonAustralia got the USN production slots, not their aircraft.
Other than being argumentative your point it what? The Aussies got the exact same aircraft that the Navy would have gotten.
When was the last time Australia bought any non american fighter aircraft? Saudi Arabia on the other hand operates both american and british fighters at the moment.
When was the last time South Africa, Hungary and Czechoslovakia bought US fighters? Again what is your point except for being an argumentative troll?
60 Gripens has been ordered, of which 14 is lease to buy for Hungary and that means that they will become their property when the lease is over. The Chzecks has said they want to purchase their 14 aircraft when the lease is over, which seems quite logical.
That is still 28 aircraft out of 60 that have not been bought.
Yes, SH has sold more on export than Rafale so far, hope that makes you feel good.
No, but correcting trolls does. With over 450 units delivered or on order the Super Hornet is by any measure a success. It is probably going to win in India and it has an excellent chance of winning in Brazil.
Why you ask? It does can do more things well than any of it’s competitors. It’s less expensive than Typhoon and Rafale and it is price competitive with Gripen NG which is still in development. It has a second generation fighter AESA radar and all the bells and whistles that comes with a fully developed system. It is built in large numbers so the cost to maintain it will be lower than most of it’s competitors.Lastly, it is built and operated by the United States. The one country with global reach and especially in India’s case the one country you want to have close military ties with.
nhamptonCareful now, what F-18E/F are you talking about? The domestic or the export version? Without radar blockers the RCS is probably not less than many previous generation aircraft. It is probably less than the gigantic RCS of F-15, but not much less than the vanilla Hornet.
What export version? What vanilla Hornet? The Australians got 24 planes pulled right from USN production. Both the Indian and Brazilian tenders are the exact same BLK II Supers the Navy is currently operating.
How has the Super not been an export success? Twenty four have been sold to date. How many Rafales have been exported? Of the 50 or so Gripens that have been exported about half are leased with a buy back. If you want to use the argument that Australia bought the Super because they operate F-18s already then you have to use the same argument with the Typhoon and the Saudis. They are replacing what is in effect a BAE product (Tornado) with Typhoon. Plus it doesn’t hurt that BAE has a long history of greasing Saudi palms.
USAF F-15E has X-band RAM since 1990, USAF F-16C since 1986, USN F/A-18C since 1991 and B-1B since 1984.
Much much more to stealth than RAM and shaping. Plan form alignment, internal structure, canopy treatment, and LPI AESA to name a few. The latter both passive and active. With AESA you don’t have a huge radar reflector in the nose and when you do use an LPI radar you don’t go telling everyone where you are by your RF emissions. Add to that the ability to measure and repair stealth degradation due to normal operation.
nhamptonFor those who haven’t figured it out…That brief was prepared for Congress by the Pentagon’s Joint Program Office, it isn’t an LM brief.
True, but how many on this forum will either want to or be able to grasp the difference.
nhamptonbend over ? whats that mean ? if its selected, it’ll be based on a set of flight evaluation trials..if it fairs badly, or if there are other types that fair better and have a compelling economic offer, it won’t be selected, whether the Govt. wants a US type selected or not. Of course there will be pressure from the US Administration and they will expect something in return for the Nuclear Agreement, but its not going to happen if the IAF doesn’t want any Super Hornets.
There is no use going back and forth with the trolls here.
nhamptonLots of room for basic improvements, besides computers, networks, UxV integration, cooperative engagement, &c. The electrical ship, nuclear power generation. Electrically driven shrouded screws, maybe the superconductive stuff NGCO works on. Options for hull shapes – mono, tri (swath). Sure a lot of new systems for full spectrum self defense in harbors, green and blue water.
Question what shall it be?
I agree totally. The Navy needs to define the mission before they define the ship(s).
If the Navy is confident that there will be eight or nine (or even ten) Fords built, a new nuclear escort might make sense. If not, if the whole balance of the Navy shifts (let’s see what the next QDR produces), the question of blue water setup and amphib setup has to be clarified first and only then a new generation of escorts can be started.
Here is where I disagree. Carriers have an effective service life of 50 years. The first Ford is not going to enter service until about 2015. Carriers take about (lets not quibble over exact time line, its the scale I am trying to get across) 5 years to build. You are looking at making a 75 year prediction. Who knows what will happen. What we do know is the current carrier escorts will be EOL in the next 10 -20 years. There is going to be a need to escort 10 carriers or so in that time period.
nhamptonOBVIOUSLY, he did not mean in the strictest sense. I don’t understand how you two could not interpret a simple statement, quite astonishing. Why are you even on this forum if all you do is make trouble and “rubbish” threads?
nhampton, I’m pretty sure a quote from a chap flying the plane is some evidence.
Well done guys, another awesome thread. x2 ignored.
Intepret what? That you where being disingenuous or being a gullible fool ready to swallow any whopper about your favorite plane as long as it is positive and told by a pilot? You know what they call people like that who discuss these sorts of things? FAN BOYS.
Nice you get exposed so you accuse us of trashing threads. That’s laughable. Try coming up with some real facts for your arguments and maybe you might make some headway.
Do you really thing a Typhoon with external fuel tanks can out turn a clean “F-16″……
Scooter. Reading this statement above really, truly highlights your ignorance for the Typhoon.
A quote from Wg Cdr LoI Bennet OC 3 (F) Squadron;
“The fact that I can fly throughout the full flight envelope with two tanks and eight missiles with no reduction in performance, gives us the key edge.“
Looks like you took it seriously enough pal.
Why are you asking me? I am taking tyhpoon1 at his word, and I hope he will back it up when he returns to this thread. If he is unable to do so, then I retract my argument on this comment, but until he does I will not automatically assume he is a liar.
Looks like another typhoon fan boy fell for it as well.
The RAF pilot’s statement in question was made during an interview with AFM back around august 2007,
The statement was indeed made like quoted, but it can be easily misinterpreted.
I really can’t see how it can be misinterpreted. In fact both typhoon, commanderjb, myself and scooter all thought
“The fact that I can fly throughout the full flight envelope with two tanks and eight missiles with no reduction in performance, gives us the key edge.“
Meant just that. The flight envelope of his aircraft would be the same regardless of whether he was flying clean or not. It’s simple bravado on the pilots part and bad journalism on AFM’s part for either not editing out that which is clearly false or a statement that makes no sense.
What the pilot meant is there are no specific limitations, hence no degration in performance. That means there is no specific speed or altitude the aircraft shouldn’t exceed and that the pilot can pull high g’s without care.
No, that’s not how the language works. You must have used your secret Typhoon fan boy decoder ring to interpret it that way.
BTW in the more recent airshow routines Typhoon’s were mostly carrying a centreline tank while still performing all the stunts we have seen before from empty or just AAM equipped aircraft.
Big deal the Super Hornet does it’s with two or three tanks and several missiles. I bet both planes fly better without all that stuff hanging off them.
AFAIK, F-16 is unrestricted with a centerline fuel tank and F-15 probably too.
Those tanks weigh less than the A/A missiles carried further out from the centerline so the missiles have greater impact. It depends on fuel tank limitations etc. so older tanks have limits. F-16 370gal underwing tanks f.e. are limited to 8.5Gs (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1666.html)
EF tanks are new design and if the pilot says they’re unrestricted, why not.Also, 6 AAMs on an EF are considered clean. That’s the 4 semi recessed -120s and the outboard SRAMs whose pylons are carried always as they contain the chaff launchers.
2 additional missiles plus empty tanks plus pylons is not such a big deal then.
Indeed all true, but none of those planes have nearly the same performance loaded with gas bags and missiles as they do when flying clean and that it the whole point of this thread. A combat loaded Typhoon, F-15, or (fill in your favorite fighter that normally carries stores externally here) will not have the same performance as a clean Block 50 Viper. Conversely a combat loaded block 50 viper will not have the same performance as a clean Typhoon, ergo if the F-35 has the performance of a clean viper while combat loaded then it would seem to me and I would guess any other rational person that it would do just fine in A2A even without stealth.
nhamptonWell, the debate is likely moot…………As I just don’t see the Raptor being exported. Its to late and the fat lady is already singing…………:(
I would have liked to see 60 or so more but I don;t really think it’s going to happen and I don’t really think it’s necessary. You have to remember that unlike the “debates” about one fighter vs another in this forum, the air force and the rest of the military as well fight as a system of systems. Even legacy F-16s and F-15s that have not been upgraded are a formidable force since they do not fight alone. Do you really think those bombers will stay on the tarmac during a general war? Do you think the fighter will not go in without jammers. Do you not think cruise missiles and AWACS won’t be used? Look at the force as a whole. The Raptors will be used as force multipliers for the legacy fighters.
nhamptonHence the
caveat.
Very well, I accept the point, though I do not think that it was entirely unreasonable to assume that the doubt extended onto him as well from what you said.
Why are you asking me? I am taking tyhpoon1 at his word, and I hope he will back it up when he returns to this thread. If he is unable to do so, then I retract my argument on this comment, but until he does I will not automatically assume he is a liar.
The point I am trying to make is that if you are willing to assume that a UK Wg Cdr knows nothing of his aircraft then you must also be willing to assume the same of United States pilots. If, of course, you do not believe that he was lying and rather that typhoon1 was, then I retract the argument.
You appear to have misunderstood me. Once again I will state that I do not believe that Beesley makes unreasonable comments. As such, I do not expect someone equally as professional from the RAF to do so either.
I don’t believe I have to have flown an F-35 in order to comment on whether or not I can believe an RAF pilot on his statements about his aircraft, actually.
Your point is shall we say pointless. If some fighter pilot told you his plane was capable of warp drive you would believe him? I seriously doubt the guy said what was quoted. Why? Just like warp drive on a jet fighter what he is claiming is physically impossible. The problem with fan boys like you and Typhoon1 is you believe what you want to believe no matter how unlikely it is. If someone told me Beesley said something as incredulous as what Typhoon1 are whatever that other fan boys name I would be just as skeptical.
Sign In
