hopsalotFor whom? I certainly don’t need one..
Of you can clearly make up whatever you want. I suppose you could start a whole line of fan fiction about me if you wanted to, just don’t expect to be taken seriously. (though I guess at this point, what do you have to lose?)
Except Beesley was talking about speed and acceleration back then. 🙂 Your memory has become very selective.
Beesley? Am I Beesley? I didn’t think I was, but I guess I can’t rule it out completely.
Sure.. The left hand gets the price down to $120 mil by pulling the F135 or radar or something else out to a separate deal and the right one strips them back down on “spares, support and associated equipment”. One way or another, four dozen export jets will cost over $8 bil and 70 jets will cost $12bil+ and no accounting trickery with non-recurring BS in then-year prices can change anything about it.
Sure, why rely on facts when you can just make up numbers.
Did you know that the Eurofighter and Rafale both cost $250 million a pop? Of course they won’t charge you that much, but they will get you in the end with accounting trickery and inflated maintenance costs. Don’t even ask me what a PAK FA costs, you wouldn’t believe it if I told you! (see how easy this is?)
hopsalotHopsalot,
I will grant you that as an American you are certainly patriotic and supportive of what has in real life become not such a great deal…..
I truly appreciate your backhanded complement and I want you to know that I have always been fond of Canadians, who have almost always demonstrated a great deal more tact and grace than you have thus far.
Firstly, your assertion that “All cold weather testing” is done in Florida ( like it is some major secret )
Firstly, when you put quotation marks around something, it is generally intended to be taken as a verbatim quote. In the future I hope you will take care that when you quote me you quote what I actually said.
Secondly, I posted a link to a Google search showing many pages of pictures from the McKinley Climatic Laboratory. That does not suggest to me that the Pentagon has gone to any particular effort to hide it. Maybe you have a different read on things…
…problem is this…NONE of those popsicle planes are OPERATIONAL…they are stationary, not being run, taxied or any other normal aircraft functions..they are plane popsicles….just put them in deep freeze doesn’t “Test” a plane, it tests IF seperate parts can survive the deep cold…..NOT if the systems can FUNCTION under stress and flight conditions in adverse cold….the ONLY way to do that is to actually operate the aircraft in cold adverse weather…….
I recommend you look at those pictures again. You might note that various systems are being tested. All aircraft experience extremely low temperatures in flight. The air at 40k ft is always arctic. The real question is whether the aircraft can function when you try to start it up when it is -40 on the tarmac.
The US has many long years of experience operating aircraft in the arctic… and has established procedures to verify that new designs will work.
and I will argue that a senator or congressman can over write the Strategic and Operational needs of the Pentagon and Chiefs of Staff regarding where things Go……..shear BS……..I may not be American, but as Canadians are far , far more aware of The US that Americans are of Canada, point in case the endless stream of Americans that show up at the Canadian Border in JULY and AUGUST with skis on their roofs looking to come to Canada to go skiing.
Where basing decisions are concerned, it invariably becomes political. This really has nothing to do with skiing.
Funny that you say the Cf18 is NOT an interceptor…yet strangely, Canada HAS used them as such for decades with no issue…I wonder how?…..and as to my recollection, the F35 has never flown ANY Missions operationally…so again, capabilities are pure speculation…..
I recommend you recall again my actual words, “the F/A-18 is no more an interceptor than an F-35.” Both the F/A-18 and the F-35 are fighters and are capable of performing intercept missions. Neither is a true interceptor. (of which there are few left)
If you want to wave the Red White and Blue…by all means do so……but do NOT try to BS the people of the world that are smart enough to see it coming and form opinions contrary to the “‘Merican Way”…..just because Momma June and Honey Boo Boo say so doesn;t make it right nor acurate…
Nothing I have said today has anything to do with my nationality. I have provided you with factual information to correct your misconceptions. In the future perhaps you might try asking questions rather than diving in headfirst into a debate on a topic you don’t understand.
hopsalot#1. I am sorry but I won’t. You remember exactly the Beesley’s selling ads you have been defending here on the forum for ages, along with others. You know that, I know that and you know that I know. We don’t need any quotes.
Nope, if you want to say I made an assertion, you can go dig up the quote.
Anything less than that is just you trying to invent more strawmen to argue with.
#2. That’s certainly correct. F-18 is a fine aircraft. But definitely not the performance ballpark the F-35 was originally aiming at. Two years ago you would have crucified anyone even trying to compare your pet with something as pathetic as F-18. Especially because in your wet dreams the F-35s were flying in circles around PAK-FA or J-20. Times change, so it seems..
Setting aside your lies about my previous positions… the F-18 has extremely good performance. I really don’t know how the idea got into your head that the F-18 is somehow an under performing airframe. The F-18’s low speed and high AoA performance remains among the world’s best to this day.
Well, they certainly are not buying those hundreds of F-35s, in the first place… Finally, paying $150+mil LRIP for a Block 3 which can barely fire AMRAAM and throw a GBU and will need another $30mil to get upgraded to some reasonable standard ain’t exactly a deal of the century, is it? I, too, would rather wait for those $80mil prices (which never come, BTW)..
Ahh, you’re still pushing that fantasy about Norway… Try harder..
The latest batch just ordered includes jets for Israel, Japan, UK, Italy, and yes, Norway.
I guess maybe they didn’t get the memo that they were supposed to wait. (the good news is that they are going to be quite pleased when they see that their jets don’t cost anywhere near $150 million )
hopsalotFunny, last time you’ve claimed that the F-35 was better than clean Block 50 and almost as good as F-22. :applause: These comparisons with F-18 must be humiliating.
First off, If you want to attribute something to me, quote me.
Second off, there is no shame at all in a comparison to an F-18, original or Super. Both are fine aircraft that have served with distinction.
The F-35 is still in testing phase. They are not deploying the jets to Alaska because they know it will perform well in arctic conditions. They do that because they need to find out.
Try reading before commenting. The article is talking about a permanent operational deployment of 24-48 F-35s.
If you must know, the US does its cold testing in Florida. (seriously) There is a special facility there that can generate arctic conditions on command, which is much easier than relying on old man winter.
You don’t read too often, right? That was 13 years ago.. Back in 2001, everyone and his uncle wanted to become a JSF programme member because it all looked really good on the paper. Specs, KPPs, price, numbers, schedule, everything. Since then, much of the initial enthusiasm has vanished and you can see fireworks over Maryland anytime someone places order for two dozen airframes..
Yeah, everyone is running for the doors right?… buying Eurofighters, Rafales, Gripens, you name it… anything but an F-35. 😎
Your neighbors pushed the Gripen for you guys hard, and with your oil money you could have bought anything you wanted… in this case the F-35 obviously.
hopsalotUnreal Hopslap,
Your statement is so stupid as to be laughable… “the population Density of ONE STATE, ALASKA, is LESS than the entire Country of Canada”…OBVIOUSLY…try a Province, a Northern Province say Nunavut…Population density…0.015!…for an even BIGGER landmass!….or North West Territories, .04!……and your point was WHAT?
😎
I see you have decided to change your stance to agree with mine. :highly_amused:
You are the one who originally decided to compare the US’s overall population density to that of Canada. I was the one that explained that overall population density wasn’t relevant because in the areas we are talking about they are comparable.
Now Canadian Planning factors in “Greater US resources”…REALLY?…I am sure that effects EVERY allied Nations “plans” equally
…..HOW does the F35 “help in Canada’s Overseas commitments”?……Really?……seeing as we are operating in one local ( Baltic) as Air Superiority / Intercept mode…the F35 would benefit Canada in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY….the other local is in a ZERO threat environment bombing ground targets…..and quite frankly conventional or “Dynasty” aircraft such as the CF 18 are doing fine and have no restrictions on weaponry as well as a decent load out and a much reduced operating cost…and seeing how the aircraft the USA is using are also conventional, well…..speculation…..as well, the Allies with THE most advanced planes IN SERVICE right now, France and the UK are using them just fine……where is the F35?….oh yes….sitting in the USA being “tested”…..
First off, the F/A-18 is no more an interceptor than an F-35, so you can go ahead and drop that line of reasoning.
Second off, while it is certainly possible to operate with the US without using a US-built aircraft, Canada has a choice between buying a 4th generation aircraft just as it is going out of production, or buying a 5th generation jet early in its production. Given that the F-35 will end up being by-far the most numerous aircraft in NATO inventories there will certainly be advantages in future training, logistics, weapons development, etc.
Your Document you produce to “Prove” F35 deployment to Alaska is by a US SENATOR?…someone that has NO SAY in Strategic Deployment?….also it was selected as “A PREFERED LOCATION”…yep so they can TEST it in cold and snow!….your talking about something MAYBE happening, MAYBE in two years! and AFTER a period of Environmental Impact ( at least a full year as SEASONAL IMPACTS vary)…so MAYBE F35’s get to Alaska, Operationally in three to four years…. ooopty dooo…..did any figure they wouldn;t get there eventually?……
Actually, senators have a great deal of say in such deployments. It isn’t a strength of our system of government, but it is a fact. Individual Congressmen, particularly senators, can wield great influence.
Additionally, if you had read the article you would find that it was selected as THE preferred location. There were no alternates named making this basing decision a virtual certainty.
Yes, 2016, as you may have heard the F-35 is still in development. :stupid: The fact that the F-35 is planned to arrive in Alaska that quickly, among the very first deployments, would tip a more astute reader off that arctic operations are anything but an afterthought for the F-35.
And as I said…….if the Damn USA would STOP trying to FORCE THEIR Square PEG into every other Nations Round Holes…I guess there would be alot more happy nations…sorry if it offends YOU…but Canada IS SPECIAL…..we are NOT part of the USA…just as Australia IS SPECIAL, the UK is Special and it goes on and on…..the ONLY ones that don;t see that seems to be Pro USA F35 fanatics…
Oh, the US is forcing the UK and Canada to buy the F-35? That is news to me, I must have missed the invasion. Seems like the last I read Canada, Australia, and the UK actually decided to partner with the US in developing the F-35….:highly_amused:
By the way, your “map” of the Alaskan air space is great…BUT try looking at a map that shows the ENTIRE Arctic Circle and how much each nation needs to cover…….
Again, so? It isn’t as if Canada patrols its airspace from one airfield. The point remains, the F-35 was designed from the start to operate in arctic conditions every bit as harsh as those in Canada. There is no reason at all to believe a Super Hornet or any other airframe would perform better in the arctic than an F-35.
hopsalotand that map shows a SMALLER area than what Canada patrols?…….likewise we need to patrol our border with the USA as well…..plus up to the Arctic Circle…seems pretty even if you ask me……
And here is the REAL kicker….
Canada does ALL of OUR patrolling with less than 80, EIGHTY!, yes EIGHTY Operational Fighters and a small fleet of Maritime Patrol Aircraft!
the USA uses THREE services, PLUS the Air National Guard and JUST IN FIGHTERS ( of all different types) over 2,400 planes!……..This is excluding the US Coast Guard, all the various Maritime patrol Aircraft……
There is NO WAY shape or form that the needs of Canada are LESS than the USA…where all inclusive, the area of “patrol” and coverage is substantially the same as ALL US areas inclusively…..that we manage to maintain our airspace AS WELL as respond to intercept and first contact with Intruders through NORAD, AND send aircraft and crews OVERSEAS to play with the other Nations is nothing short of incredible, yet we do…time after time, currently in Baltic AND now in Saudi Arabia for missions against ISIS, and will have planes at any NATO exercises that occur as well….and we do not shirk or commitments…..in fact it was CANADIAN CF18’s that where THE first ARMED fighters in North American skies on 9/11 and aided the USAF on request of NORAD.
Yes, the US has far greater resources, something that factors into Canadian planning to no small extent… as for Canada’s overseas operations… those also favor the F-35.
ALSO, I included the Population density simply for this reason…..WHERE THERE ARE PEOPLE, THERE ARE ROADS, AIRPORTS, all aspects that make a HUGE difference in things like Search and rescue of a downed Pilot 6,000 km from NOWHERE…..in the USA, a pilot has issues he has 25 Military Airfields within a very short distance and triple that number of civil airfields for an emergency…….almost immediate access by fire services ( crash) and Medical……
seriously if you couldn;t figure that out……….I don;’t know……..
Again, the question wasn’t of the point of population density, but of comparing that of the whole of the US to that of Canada. Scrutinize your own chart, which shows Canada as having a far lower population density than Russia. Does that mean Russia faces smaller challenges patrolling Siberia than Canada does in its far north?
The US is one of the world’s most populous countries, but the population of LA has exactly what to do with the infrastructure in northern Alaska? (Alaska BTW has a far lower population density than Canada, .5 persons/sq km, so what?)
As for density of infrastructure, take a look at the maritime territory in the map above, much of which is both over water and in the arctic.
You can drop the “we are so special” routine. Canada faces challenges, but they are hardly the only ones. Eielson AFB in Alaska will be one of the first bases to receive their F-35s.
“FAIRBANKS — The U.S. Air Force selected Eielson Air Force Base as the preferred location for the first squadrons of F-35 fighter aircraft in the Pacific, the next step in a process that could lead to a final decision next year on basing 48 aircraft in Alaska. “The decision means that in 2016, after completing an environmental impact statement process, one or two squadrons of F-35s will likely head to Eielson Air Force Base for stationing,” a statement from Sen. Mark Begich said.”]FAIRBANKS — The U.S. Air Force selected Eielson Air Force Base as the preferred location for the first squadrons of F-35 fighter aircraft in the Pacific, the next step in a process that could lead to a final decision next year on basing 48 aircraft in Alaska. “The decision means that in 2016, after completing an environmental impact statement process, one or two squadrons of F-35s will likely head to Eielson Air Force Base for stationing,” a statement from Sen. Mark Begich said.
http://www.adn.com/article/20140807/air-force-picks-eielson-preferred-alternative-f-35-jets
hopsalotTo extend upon my point:
Nations by Landmass, and Population density:
#1. Russia : 170705200 Sq. Km Pop. Density : 8.2 per Sq. Km
#2. Canada: 9984670 Sq. Km Pop Density: 3.3 per Sq. Km
#3. USA : 9629091 Sq. Km Pop Density: 31.6 per Sq. Km
#67. Norway: 324220 Sq. Km Pop Density: 14.3 per Sq. Km
#78. UK / NI : 244820 Sq. Km Pop Density: 248.9 per Sq. Km
also: The Canadian Provinces of Nunavut and the North West Territories, our two most Northernly Provinces
Nunavut: 2093190 Sq. Km Pop Density : 0.015 per Sq. Km ( note: only TWO airports capable of fighters, neither over 9,000 ft, and one is GRAVEL)
North West Territories: 1346106 Sq. Km Pop Density : 0.04 per Sq. Km ( note: has three airports over 6,000 ft, none are Military FOB’s)
Just to give you an idea of size……. Alaska is : 1477953 Sq. Km and represents 24% of US landmass
please compare apples to apples…… EVERY Nation has criteria that is totally unique to themselves, because NO two Nations are the same.
What is the possible point of comparing the overall size or population density of the US to that of Canada? The point is that the F-35 is designed to operate in regions that are every bit as cold, remote, and sparsely populated as those in the Canadian arctic. Canada has some unusual requirements but they are hardly unique.
Besides, if you want to talk about territory that needs to be patrolled…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232712[/ATTACH]
hopsalotBlah blah blah…yep right…..
Well, an absolutely CLEAN F35 has flown Mach1.6 great……and absolutely CLEAN F18 E/F can do 1.8…..POINT?…..
The point is that the clean F-35 can carry 6 internal ARMAAMs, 18,000 lbs of fuel, and an internal IRST/targeting pod. 😎
the THEORY that “Its no big deal” to carry more weapons than it can is a THEORY…until it actually happens, it is THEORY, they may PLAN it to be able to do things…but until it DOES, it;s theory…
Believing EVERY piece of info that the spin doctors at LM spew is stupid…..they are trying to SELL the thing……are “numbers / info” fudged…ABSOLUETLY, hence the Senate inquiries and issues……
The size of an AMRAAM is not in question, nor is the size of the F-35’s internal bays. If you want absolute certainty you can buy off the shelf… just don’t start talking about some future variant of the F-15, F-18, Eurofighter, Gripen, or Rafale.
Reality is always somewhere in between….do people always believe everything that a Car manufacturer says about their cars?……I hope not….you wait until tested by a third party right?…..same thing with this F35………NO ONE has ANY stats to compare or post because EVERYTHING is controlled by LM…….
Somewhere in between you say? How many AMRAAMs do YOU think will fit? 5.2? Maybe 5.3?
This is integer math here. If they say six will fit then there isn’t a whole lot of room for “somewhere in between.”
bottom line, the F18 E/F is already in SERVICE, not testing…..it can carry ANYTHING in the arsenal, it;s stats are iron clad…it is CHEAPER, it is CHEAPER to operate, has TWO tried and tested engines an airframe design for rough conditions and carrier landing / takeoff shall we continue FACT versus fiction……
You are at least partially correct this time. The F-18 is in service and has performed well. If you bought one right off the production line it would be cheaper as well.
That does not mean that the F-35 is not designed for rough conditions and carrier landing/takeoff. (because of course it is, if that is important to you) Similarly, there is nothing fictional about the F-35’s performance.
hopsalotThanks Msphere,
At least what I was saying made sense to someone. There was alot of discussion awhile ago regarding the F35 on some various Canadian Forums etc…..certainly alot of opinions and reasons…interestingly there was a fairly substantial number of people that figured Canada would do better to acquire RUSSIAN planes than American, as logistically, climatically and land mass sizewise, we have more in common with Russia than we do with the USA.
I certainly don;t advocate this at all….but I can certainly see the point: Russia does NOT make HUGE sprawling airbases with incredibly long runways, neither does Canada, do to the shear size of the Country, there are far fewer airports and further apart for emergency situations, same as in Canada, In Russia, the planes could go up in relatively clear weather and be forced to land in snow, very poor visability and slush on the runway, same as in Canada, Russians operate any number of remote Air Stations on temporary basis, same as Canada ( with short, and often snow covered runways), the Russians, without having the shear number of Airbases all over the Nation as the USA does, tends to move Fighters to areas as needed, using temp or sub standard locations and moving logistics / maintenance equipment and personnel as required, same as Canada…and the constant issue of aircraft going down in inhospitable and remote locations and the associated issues from such…..
Devils Advocate time here: IF Canada and Russia have SOME simular issues , and Russia has built decades worth of Aircraft that are designed to deal WITH just those issues, rough terrain landing / take off, cold weather, massive distances to cover, reliable multi engined aircraft, built tough to take a rough environment…would, THEORETICALLY, Canada find better value and a better aircraft for OUR situation by looking at the Russian PAK FU?…or the latest and greatest in the SU-30’s?…
You do realize that the F-35 is designed to operate in arctic conditions right? Have you heard of Alaska by any chance? What about Norway?
Check out a map sometime. You might find that Canada’s arctic concerns are not nearly so unique as you seem to believe.
When Norway’s fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35As comes online in 2015, there will be little to distinguish them from jets belonging to the United States and other programme partners.
That will change after 2017, when the Scandinavian nation will be the first to receive a modular kit to equip its jets with drag chutes that help the aircraft land on icy Arctic runways. The chute, which the Netherlands and Canada also are eyeing as a modification to their F-35s, is the first aftermarket modification to the jets through seven low-rate initial production (LRIP) lots.
Norway will take delivery of its first F-35A in 2015, but testing on the chute will not begin for another two years. Until then, the Norwegians will train in the United States with “clean,” unmodified aircraft, Suku Kurien, Lockheed’s F-35 drag chute programme manager, tells Flightglobal.
Norway’s first jets – included in LRIPs 7 and 8 ‑ will be equipped with Lockheed’s Block 2B software configuration, which does not include the capability to deploy an arresting chute. Norwegian pilots still will train with the aircraft at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona.
The necessary hardware modifications, including airframe reinforcements, are being performed on planes in the current LRIP 7 and 8, which Lockheed and the US government are negotiating. The Block 3F software that will allow for chute deployment, will be the standard configuration for all aircraft in LRIP lots 9 and beyond, Kurien says.
Chute testing will begin in 2017 when the aircraft designated AF-2 – currently performing load testing for the US air force’s conventional takeoff and landing F-35 variant – will be outfitted in 2017 with a pod containing the arresting chute. It will then undertake wet-dry performance and flight manoeuvring testing through November 2017, Kurien says.
Within a month of the completion of flight testing at Edwards Air Force Base in California, the aircraft will begin two to three months of testing in an arctic environment, likely at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. There the jet will land with and without the chute and test ground taxiing to gauge its manoeuvrability over wet, icy runways like those the Norwegian air force routinely operates from in winter months.
YET, due to political ties, Canada has been almost forced into the F35, a plane that is tempermental, designed with warm weather and massive support always available, selling points like “interoperability” and such are PROVEN false hoods, as any type of airframe can be “linked” as is proven in the EF, Rafale and Gripen NG……so how did this happen?…….POLITICS
:stupid:
hopsalotI don;t get it, your posting KNOWN stats from the OPERATIONAL F-18 E/F, and that is great…BUT remembering that the F18 E/F has no “stealth”, and does carry all it;s ordnance on EXTERNAL pylons…it being armed with ANY variety of missiles up to and including the new AIM 9X or METEOR , it sure doesn;t do to baddly….where as you post TOTALLY UNKNOWN stats for the F35…no actual facts to back up your claim at all….the “IF they manage” for the F35 or the “IF they find a way” doesn’t cut the mustard…speculation and “plans” mean nothing..it is not indesputable FACT, it remains speculation..there for, in reality, NOTHING about the F35 is “better” than any existing aircraft, not because it doesn;t have the POTENTIAL, but it cannot be measured on what it has NOT accomplished…therefore anything relating to it is speculated, not fact based. Someday, I am sure that the F35 will be spectacular, will that make it the right choice for every Country?…no, will it be great plane capable of living up to it;s EXPECTED / POTENTIAL capabilities, I am sure it will…but until measurable ability is met, it remains in the realm of estimated / expected potential, not fact.
The F-35 has already been flown to Mach 1.6 and 9Gs (and 50 degrees AoA).
These are not theoretical numbers. They have been demonstrated in flight by actual production aircraft.
The question of whether 6 AMRAAMs could be held within the F-35’s internal bays has also been studied with the result being that it can be done and is essentially no big deal.
“”Our spiral development program includes the ability to carry up to six internal AMRAAMs”, G. Richard Cathers, senior manager of Lockheed Martin’s strategic studies group, told the IQPC Fighter Conference in London on Wednesday. “It’s a capability second only to the F-22.”” (from Aviation Week)
I’m sorry ,but that is how my mind works, I cannot look at promises and expectations on paper and take that as fact…..it;s like saying a teenager has the POTENTIAL to get high 90’s for marks in all subjects at school, however, in reality his performance is much different, gaining 50’s and 60’s. So he still retains the POTENTIAL, but FACTUAL PERFORMANCE is markedly less. So what is the end result for the student?…..does he graduate on POTENTIAL or Factually graded ability and effort….was the discrepancy between the POTENTIAL and the Factual Ability caused by over assessment of the Potential initially, where all the factors accounted for? or was it that the student simply didn;t try because he found teenage girls more interesting…
blah blah blah
hopsalotAFAIK there’s no legal basis for such an action, & if the vulture fund* concerned thought such a ploy was usable it’d have tried it already with other stuff. Argentina is still importing from the USA.
*It never lent any money to Argentina. It bought debts from other firms at huge discounts, hoping to make a profit. IIRC it’s refused offers from Argentina which would have made it money, but is suing for the full amount.
That is how debt works…
It isn’t a question of whether the company holding the debt would make a profit, they generally do, what matters is only whether the debtor is paying what they agreed to. (which of course they aren’t in this case)
This does raise the money issue though. All this talk about export licenses and whatnot is relevant, but the biggest single hurdle is that even a Gripen is an expensive aircraft and Argentina is quite frankly an economic basket case.
THOSE baffled by the Argentine economy could do worse than listen to Puff Daddy. Ask what ails the country and the answer will echo the rapper’s ode to the 100-dollar bill, “It’s all about the Benjamins”. Had the Argentine government resolved its row with “holdout” investors, rather than defaulting in July, it might now be able to tap international markets for hard currency. Instead it is struggling to manage its meagre reserves, which hover at around $28 billion. The economy is stagnant, the peso is falling in unofficial markets, and inflation is rising.
The chances of a happy outcome to this situation worsened on October 1st, when Juan Carlos Fábrega, the governor of the central bank, resigned after less than a year on the job. Mr Fábrega had long butted heads with Axel Kicillof, the country’s economy minister. Battling an inflation rate that is expected to reach 40% this year and seeking to conserve the country’s reserves, Mr Fábrega had supported moves earlier this year to raise interest rates and devalue the peso. Mr Kicillof complained these decisions froze economic activity.
In this sectionOn September 30th President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner intervened decisively, by in effect accusing Mr Fábrega of having released inside information to the country’s banks so they could weaken the peso. Mr Fábrega’s resignation soon followed. His successor is Alejandro Vanoli, a Fernández loyalist who was previously head of the National Securities Commission. Although he will enjoy a more genial relationship with the executive than Mr Fábrega did, his task will be no easier.
hopsalotthere is no evidence yet that the price is going to drop to realistic levels. The whole logic is flawed. It relies on USA buying more than 2000 of these to drive the prices down. What if approval is never given and say the US only buys 600.. what then?
Not to go breaking up the pity party with facts again… but here I go:
The unit cost of the F-35 for the LRIP 7 contract was $98 million, $104 million and $116 million for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy versions, respectively, according to information from Lockheed. “An F-35A purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will be $85 million, which is the equivalent of $75 million in today’s dollars,” company information said. But none of those figures include the price of the engine, which is negotiated independently between the U.S. government and Pratt & Whitney.
Lockheed has committed to cutting the cost of its F-35s to between $80 million and $85 million by the end of the decade as it spars with rival producers such as Boeing Co. for lucrative defense contracts in other countries such as Denmark and Canada.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304049904579518801802832362
Speaking to reporters in Canberra on 12 March, Gen Bogdan cited a price of USD80-85 million per aircraft in 2019 dollars, inclusive of engine, manufacturer’s profit and inflation.
“We’re pretty confident we are going to get there”, he said, noting that this figure could fall should further orders be received but could also rise if any existing customers cancelled or deferred planned acquisitions.
http://www.janes.com/article/35212/pentagon-f-35-chief-suggests-unit-cost-of-80-85-million
So no, we aren’t talking about the price of an F-35 after 2000+ have been built. We are talking about the price of F-35s ordered in the 2018-2019 timeframe, which is to say ordered a little over 3 years from today…. hardly the distant future.
hopsalotPotato Head
Is there a particular reason why you are unable to remain civil here?
hopsalotSo somebody is introducing some new body armor.
Which of course is stupid because it won’t do a thing to protect soldiers against landmines.
If someone tried to wear that new body armor in combat they would just step on a mine and blow their legs off.
If they were lucky enough to make it home they would likely die a legless beggar in Tijuana.
So obviously the new body armor is useless.
This seems to be the brilliant line of reasoning employed by some here.
An LHA with F-35Bs might operate just offshore in one scenario, or it might operate hundreds of miles offshore in another. It might operate in conjunction with a big-deck carrier… or it might operate with only other amphibs and surface combatants. It might have one or more submarines and/or land or ship based ASW to protect it from subs… or that might be completely unnecessary. It might operate with the support of land based tankers and AWACS, as is often the case for larger carriers… or that might not be necessary. Is this really all that complicated?
Yes, there are scenarios where an America class LHA with F-35s would be a poor solution… on the other hand there are plenty of scenarios where it would be a very good solution and/or a useful part of the solution.
You won’t find one ship/plane/sub/missile or anything else in the USN or USMC that magically solves every possible threat all by itself.
hopsalotAs big a fan as I am of the “confused idiot” approach to trolling… perhaps people would be interested in some actual information to work with.
ABOARD USS BATAAN, At Sea (NNS) — USS Bataan (LHD 5) reached a historic milestone on their 108th day out to sea.
Operating as one of two forward-deployed Harrier carriers in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Bataan became the Harrier carrier, embarking the most Harriers on a large deck amphibious ship ever.
“When we came into theater, we had 26 Harriers and the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) had 22,” said Lt. Larry Young, Bataan’s aircraft handling officer. “One of our squadrons, VMA-542, transferred custody of two Harriers to Bonhomme Richard, so both ships would have equal numbers.” Now that we are getting ready to depart, we now have those two Harriers back onboard.”
Bataan’s flight deck and hangar bay can get a little crowded with 26 Harriers.
“Real estate is a premium on the flight deck, and this ship was never designed to carry so many Harriers, but we’ve been able to accommodate them, get the mission accomplished,” said Young.
Young said the flight deck crew rewrote the book on how to move and arrange aircraft to meet operational commitments.
“We developed a plan and made it work,” said Young. “The key was to make the flight deck a ‘ready deck’ through use of the night move crew. If it weren’t for them moving the aircraft around at night to set up for the day crew, we wouldn’t have had a ready deck first thing in the morning and be ready for the mission. We have moved aircraft 24 hours a day since we came into theater.”
Splitting the crew into a day shift and a night shift was the answer.
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=7336
So two LHAs were able to carry and operate 48 Harriers during Operation Iraqi Freedom. This was actually the second time this approach has been employed by the USMC, with the first having been in 1991.
For some detail on what they were able to accomplish/learn from these operations here is an in-depth article:
The Harrier carrier concept is intriguing, but is it an option for providing more fire power for the Navy?
The numbers speak for themselves. The Bataan ‘r Harrier squadrons dropped more than 122 tons of ordnance,
most of which was laser guided. More than 470 targets were eliminated, helping to defeat three Republican
Guard divisions. Together, the Bataan and the Bonhomme Richard’s squadrons expended more than 250 tons
of ordnance, damaging, destroying, or removing from the fight some 1,200 targets.Another advantage of the LHD is her inherent flexibility and adaptability to meet evolving missions.
Before launching Harriers into battle, the Bataan carried major combat elements of Regimental Combat Team
II from the East Coast to the fight, including 1,900 Marines, 175 vehicles, 270 tons of cargo and equipment,
and hundreds of pallets of ground ammunition. She proved an LHD can deliver a Marine expeditionary unit,
then rapidly reconfigure into a Harrier carrier for added strike capability. Both missions were done successfully
in a wartime environment without loss of life, aircraft, or equipment.
So what is the bottom line for our inquisitive friends? Two amphibs equipped with Harriers made a major contribution to the overall effort, a real world effort, not some hypothetical scenario.
An LHA or two won’t replace a big deck carrier in the scenarios that truly require a full carrier, but they can still contribute, and there are many scenarios where a smaller force is more than sufficient.
Anyone who can’t understand that 20 F-35Bs and 2 MH-60s on an America class LHA would be an intimidating force to almost any potential adversary short of Russia or China doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about. There are only a handful of navies in the world that could claim to have a capability even roughly comparable.
Sign In
