sealordlawrenceYou can explain how it’s supposed to work without disclosing your supposed source, or any confidential information.
You answered your own question.:D :rolleyes:
sealordlawrence& scored very high on the bull excrement quotient.
You just cant stop can you.:rolleyes: Allow me to explain this again, someone who is involved with this told me, if you dont want to believe it dont, but leave the insults out.
sealordlawrenceI have to say, the JSF may be nice, but the Navy could get by with Rhinos and UCAVs, and a small number of Marine JSFs. I am not sure why you doubt USN confidence in the UCAV concept – they are the greatest proponents of them now, especially with the USAF having pulled funding from what was J-UCAS. The Navy are very keen to get UCAVs, and are advancing the concept despite the best efforts of the USAF…
As for hostile posts, I don’t think they really help, and there’s not really any need for them. Sealord claims to have access to a reliable, well informed source, and I see no reason to doubt this whatsoever. A lot of us have sources who we cannot reveal, it is just the simple fact of working in the industry (or around the industry). It is just something you learn to accept, and sometimes you will not be able to provide ‘proof’ to back up your points.
They certainly are great proponents but they are a long way of operating them in full service of their decks, although I would not be surprised if it happens in the next 10-15 years. However as the article briefly discussed in the below linked thread there does seem to be a way to go.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=73295&highlight=X-47B
sealordlawrenceThe older Hornet airframes wearing out isn’t really an argument against the cancellation of the F-35C (but note that I’m not arguing for the cancellation, or saying it’s likely), as the USN have the option of buying more F-18E in place of F-35C. The production line is going full swing, & will be for quite a while. It’s not a choice between F-35C or nothing.
No its a choice between the F-35C and an aircraft that is at least half a generation behind in world where the UAF has Raptors and soon JSF’s.
Its amazing the abve qouted post from you was actually rather civilised but that the one before was just aggresive and angry.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceI wouldn’t dare expose my taurine faeces meter to an appeal to an anonymous authority, as I fear it would be damaged by the overload.
f you can’t back up what you say by describing how it would work, despite the much higher cost of the C version than the A model, you’re not going to convince anyone of anything except that you’re wasting bandwidth. Put up or shut up.
You really do have some issues.:rolleyes: I was told something by someone who should know (as I said more than you). I dont have to convince you and I dont care whether your convinced or not, so like I said get over it.:p
sealordlawrenceBut thats all you need from military weapons comfortability. Easy to handle and easy to shoot (which Kalashnikoviks fullfills 110%) Rest is just cosmetics and directed more to civilian markets. If soldiers needs their weapons to feel smooth like baby’s bottom, well…..
…what a bunch of sissies :diablo: :diablo:
The more comfortable and stable a weapon is operate along with the location of the controls, does improve combat effectiveness, period.
sealordlawrenceIf anything, it could be argued that the -C version is the ‘least necessary’! The Navy have the Rhino, and seem quite happy with it, and have the UCAV program on the go, so it is arguable that they don’t really need the F-35C. This is especially true if the Marines do get the F-35B, and put one squadron on each CVN, thus still giving a single squadron of stealthy fighters, to supplement a larger batch of Rhinos.
That could certainly be argued, but the USN seems to be not yet fully convinced by the future of their UCAV program and I have no doubt that they wouldnt mind an upgrade from the Snornet. I would have thought that some of the older Hornet airframes are running out of carrier launches as well. I also happen to know that some USN officers have yet to get over the cancellation of the A-12.:D
sealordlawrenceIndeed they are complex, but you’ve made an unsabstantiated assertion, failed to back it up except by claiming an anonymous source, & when confronted with evidence that it’s wrong, retreated behind “it’s more complicated than that”, which hardly suggests you have any knowledge of the complexity of this particular issue.
If you can present some evidence for your assertion, we might be able to discuss it. So far, it’s not worth what was on the paper I flushed away this morning. You’re debating at the level of “nyaah, nyaaah”.
Calm down mate, I was told something by someone who knows far more about this than you do and you have failed to prove anything. If you dont like it its your problem but get over it.:p
Incidently there were a raft of reports not so long ago about the possibility of cancelling the A version.
sealordlawrenceNot with this case. AKs ergonomics aren’t anyway harmfull or conceptually wrong, its just plain and simple. Our Rk62 didn’t even have the luxury of wooden stocks and yet we didn’t complain that its uncomftable to shoot at it…we did complain that its uncomftable to carry it around all the time…and also carrying the other stuff around…and in fact to being in the army at first place…
…but never that it was painfull to shoot at. Not even to lefthanders like myself…
That remark actually shows the problem, it was never painful to shoot. If that is the best than can be said about the AK’s ergonomics you have just proved my point.
sealordlawrenceOfcourse ergonomics are good thing, bit in the end they don’t make much difference. I can assure you in the countary that even the most nicest feeling cottonwool guns are just as bitchy as any other when you carry it around 24/7 alongside with rest of the around 50 kg gear:dev2:
I can assure you that they make plenty of difference.
sealordlawrenceHe knows more about it that the US DoD? Because unless their figures are complete ballocks, that’s what he’s talking, as you could see if you were able to add & subtract.
BTW, I place no credence whatsoever in anonymous sources, so I’ll leave it.
Like I said take or leave it, but procurement programs are slightly more complex than your nice simple sums try and make out.:p
sealordlawrenceFor a weapons mented for military service its bit lame to ask them to be ergonomic or othervice comftable. I bet my ass that everyone carrying somesort of rifle alongside full combat gear grows to hate it to some degree regardless how “nice” it may feel to casual shooters hands.
I’m a sports-shooter so I have great appriciation towards ergonomy but its bit different if you lay still in comftable shooting-range and even too tnese breathing may ruin your competition than it is to be out in the fields where your life is dependable for the gun. I will happily sacrifice all comfortability and some marginal accuracy benefit for the fact that I can thurst 100% that the gun works in blink-of-an-eye situation.
All Kalashnikoviks are practical and it causes you no unbareble difficoulties to shoot and thats all what you need from any assault rifle. Military equipment isen’t supposed to be comftable, it supposed to do it job. In fact small irritating little “charesteristics” are just good for “driving in” new soldiers…Like the words of our battery’s commander “With this we are trying to seek some toughness”:rolleyes:
I can assure you that even the most hardened combat troops appreciate decent ergonomics, to think otherwise is just stupid. More comfortable weapons tend to increase effectivness.
sealordlawrenceChill out Garry, I said that the AK is inherently inaccurate becouse it is, from personell experience. Other organisations use it becouse it leaves behind the same brass as the people you are trying to kill and at CQB distances its good enough. Ergonomically the AR kicks the AK’s a*se everytime, and frankly the Russians have yet to solve the ergonomic problem. However I would happily go so far as to say that with the AEK-971 they have probably produced the best operating system to date.
sealordlawrence😮
Predicted F-35 costs: (Dec 2005 SAR, 2002 prices)
Total – $201729 mn
Fixed – $31636 mn (15.7%)
Variable – $170094 mn (84.3%)The A model is expected to be by far the cheapest to build, 75-80% of the price of the C – and there’s more uncertainty about the cost of the C, since it’s less developed so far.
Replacing all planned USAF A with C increases production cost by at least $18866 mn at 2002 prices (the difference in estimated “flyaway” price of A & C, at lowest estimate of C cost, multiplied by number of A planned), so unless cancelling it reduces fixed costs by 60% – which is, to say the least, implausible – your proposal will increase total costs significantly, not reduce them.
Its not my proposal Swervey.;) But I can assure you the person who suggested it to me knows far more about it than you do, take it or leave it.:p
sealordlawrenceThats not the story as I heard it Sealord!.
It was a few years back now but the Commandant of Marines at the time, one General James L Jones, was quoted as saying:
“You know, before we had Harriers, we had fixed-wing aviation for many years – I mean, the A-4s and all kinds of F-4s – and we had airplanes that didn’t go vertical,” Jones said. “We were able to develop that technology, and it’s been … on balance, a good thing to do. It’s certainly enabled the fixed-wing aviation portion of the Marine Corps to employ small deck carriers and the like…but V/STOL JSF, for us to buy it, is going to have to be something pretty good,” Jones said. “I mean, we’re not going to get into another kind of – take a chance on something that isn’t going to be very, very useful and recognized within the family of tactical aviation as being an additive. I can only tell you that we’re going to wait and see. But we’re not going to buy something that’s technologically risky.”
Even today there is still a maintained opposition from the USN to integrating USMC STOVL ops in their CATOBAR flying programme and it is easy to understand why. The USMC jets are going to demonstrate the one, over-arching, advantage of STOVL – its ease of operation. The USN will be most embarrassed if they see a full USMC F-35B strike package launched before they have the head of the ship into wind and the first -35C’s connected to the catapult!.
The story I have been told is ‘keep the B at all costs’.;) Last time I spoke to anyone DoD about this the attitude was simple, the USN needs to get over it, period.
Sign In
