Very sorry to hear Geoff…..Penny looks lovely and it’s always sad to lose a much loved pet who brings so much pleasure and comfort….humans could learn a lot from them!

She had a good innings for a dog and at least she’s not suffering…..in time I am sure you’ll get another rescue dog.

Best wishes,
Tony

mig-31bm this is tiresome because you will selectively chose to answer only what suits you in a classic shill troll mode.

I don’t usually bother because I know it will lead nowhere but what the hell….by the way it’s not you mig-31bm because I know someone else has written the recent answers for you ;D because you can’t or chose not to read what others have written because it doesn’t help your cause (you know whose!), have poor comprehension skills (to give you credit English is not your first language and you must be cheap to do rough and ready trolling (quantity and not quality in lots of “cut and paste” jobs that most people can’t usually be bothered to take to pieces!), and these recent answers are too fluent for you compared to your usual posts…..so my answer is to the remedial team that “helped with the “right” answers.

Quick note to LM people helping mig-31bm with his answers…..why not let bring_it_on answer as he is infinitely more knowledgeable and Mr Brar is a true gentleman as well!

Where do I begin? I know: first stop lying and then repeating the same lie every few sentences….saying something over and over does not make it true!

you keep bring up that 1.5 trillions number without understand what it is :sleeping:
it not the cost of the development state , it is the cost of the whole fleet , including operating sustaining , operating , maintaining over 55 years period ( inflation included )

In my earlier post I spelt out it was part development cost and part lifetime operating cost.

You have not answered the question of the high cost of the F-35 program not justifying the money spent for what is produced (part development capital cost and part lifetime operating cost).

you have make it clear that you dont actually understand the number.

Sorry, it’s you that doesn’t understand the numbers and haven’t (or can’t) answer questions posed after you cut and pasted a lot of complicated looking (but not complicated in reality) tables and graphs and had no reply to the fact the operating costs for the F-35 have been pulled out of the air t in three year’s time (mid-2018) because they aren’t real figures but just projections and guesstimates that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on…..on a small number of operational F-35s there is simply not enough data to give meaningful hourly cost rates….the data for the F-16C/D was culled over several years (2008-2010) and that won’t be possible for many years for the F-35.

Secondly, the assumptions for some components of the hourly cost, such as maintenance may be understated by a wide margin….what if they are closer to $20,000 an hour instead of the $10,000 a hour figure? That will send the total program cost well north of $1.5 trillion won’t it!

Perhaps Spudman can do the honours and do a costing where maintenance is $20,000 an hour and continued system improvement costs are many times (say $5000) the $1000 per hour used in the projection for mid 2018?

And you know that how ? what is the evidence you provided to show that F-35 cant do the job ? or it not worth it ?

Just read the past few pages….the basic flaw is the constraint in using a single airframe to accommodate the Marines’ vertical take-off model F-35B, which is incompatible with Air Force and Navy requirements…..you get a short stubby fat pig that can fit on mini Marine carriers and this gives it the short legs that require massive tanker support to long range sustain operations….a senator might understand the analogy with Fatty Arbuckle or Oliver Hardy….both are surprisingly quick for fat men! ;D

And yes , better radar will be developed in future , better jammer will also be developed in future , better missiles will also be developed in the future
however all of that affected all aircraft rather than just F-35
better radar in future can see VLO from long distance will be able to see none stealth fighter from even further
better jammer in future will help reduce radar tracking range will benefit stealth platform significantly more than a non stealthy platform ( reason have already been explained in previous pages )
better missiles with longer range , better agility will benefit stealth fighter alot more since they can have first look , first shoot advantage

The point I was making was that countermeasures will be developed over time that will lessen any advantages due to LO, and furthermore the developing of countermeasures will be relatively cheap compare to the total program cost of the F-35….that is why questioning the value for money….in plain English ‘is it worth it for what you’re getting?’, is a perfectly reasonable question.

this is actual F-35 KPP

Like the good little troll you are you just posted the KPP (chopping off the UK requirement at the end of the table!)

What is the point of posting this? We know what they are, but the point that you have avoided answering is that key performance parameters were relaxed so the F-35 could meet the required criteria! That was the whole point but a good troll just ignores it!

no aircraft is invisible to IRST , however IRST doesnt work well unless the weather condition is good or there is no cloud , for targeting IRST have to rely on LRF which have range of a little over 20-30 km
To detect target at long range ,optical sensor like IRST have to focused ( reduce their FoV ) thus reduce SA significantly
Last but not least, while F-135 is big , it have much higher bypass ratio than Snecma M88 , EJ200 ,or F119 , thus it will likely have lower exhaust temperature , leading to lower IR signature

I’ll answer this really important point later as I have to go off for a while!

I’ll remind you of the factoids you have ignored.

The JSF program was defined by the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s. Like George HW Bush before him, Clinton wanted to “cash in on the ‘Peace Dividend'” and divert defense monies to extravagant social spending to buy votes for the next election.

Clinton had effectively zeroed out weapons systems acquisitions. This meant many defense contractors didn’t have money coming in.

He sent Secretary of Defense Les Aspen to inform industry leaders they must consolidate or liquidate (Google “The Last Supper”). Within a few years, the defense sector shrank by 75%.

Clinton also slashed the F-22 development budget on five different occasions.

Under this backdrop, the Clinton administration said it would only approve starting an aircraft development program if it met the joint needs of the major services. USMC has a lot of political clout in Washington DC, so their inclusion in the joint program was necessary to obtain approval. Unfortunately, USMC requirements for a small airplane which would fit on an LHD’s elevator drove the design. USAF, USN and contractors were screwed.

The choice was to develop and build a stubby little jet or have no jets at all once the F-16s and F/A-18s wore out. From the USAF/USN perspective, even a stubby jet would keep squadrons from being deactivated until a better replacement would come along in 30 years.

The biggest losers were those in the USAF and USN who needed replacements for long range F-111s, F-15Es and A-6s. They were left with no options.

Then there is the factoid that F-35 flight test has been transformed into a jobs program for .gov bureaucrats. F-15, F-16 and F-117 flight testing was completed in 2 years before IOC was declared. Continually changing .gov test requirements extended F-35 flight test by a factor of four, to 8+ years from 1st flight to USMC IOC.

Thanks for the reminder djcross, I actually agree with you.

In real life, we learn that business decisions are not always made for the optimum business reasons: as you say the USMC had to justify its empire somehow which has screwed everything else up….once the wrong decision has been made you’re not going to find many people admitting there was a mistake made and as a result you get the ridiculous lengths people go to justify what a great plane the flying pig is!

Politicians vote for expenditure when they think it’ll mean people will vote to keep them in power and we see it in every country….as it happened the economy grew in the Clinton years (not that it had anything to do with him and nor can he can take any credit….it’s just where the economic boom-bust cycle fell when he was in office).

I am sure we all agree curtailing the F-22 to only 187 was a big mistake and I believe there are only about 130 that can be used operationally and they are spread quite thin to reduce their effectiveness…..there is no way the “one-size fits all” stubby little F-35 will effectively and cheaply replace all the planes it is meant to replace.

Congrats you just posted gibberish! What is a source code? What would it have to do with CPFH? Again quick answer…. Anyone ever realize that those who are most opposed to the F-35 program are the least educated in basic comprehension fighter aircraft and procurement? Run along Tony, I’m sure MSNBC or War is Boring will have a new “junk food for the brain” article for you to quote.

Edit- oops, thought your post said source code, not source cost. typing from airport. Seriously though, look up how CPFH are calculated. CPFH tend to be high at the start of a program, then dip as maintenance procedures, spares, operating procedures are developed, then rise again as an airframe ages. Basically, the cost projections are based on the current trends, trends that all show the F-35 CPFH going down. The actual number may be slightly high/low but based on the projections, the F-35 will fit between the F-16C and the F-15E (closer to the F-15).

Wrong! if you really knew how to calculate costs you would have understood I was taking about source costs….what the fcuk has computer source code got to do with working out how expensive the F-35 is to fly per hour? You really need to take Prozac because you are the one talking gibberish.

Don’t think people are idiots….we know how to work out hourly operating costs….only trouble is people use different components for their costing….and this might not even be comparable from air base to air base depending on their role or mission and differs from country to country for the same aircraft…..that’s why we need to know the source data costs.

The meat of your comment is that you think based on projections that F-35 hourly cost will be close to the F-15E… well that remains to be seen….you have not really addressed the projected (mid 2018) maintenance cost of $10000 and the continued system improvement projected cost of $1000 per hour that is likely to be considerably understated…..again it remains to be seen and we can only confirm with actual figures many years down the line.

:sleeping: another Rafale bot, funny how you guys are all the same,

Always say official statement of LM is just advertising or lie

funny how you actually believed that 1.5 trillions USD number

It’s quite obvious where (or who) you coming from! 😀

I’ve kept all of mine. Of the one’s pictured, I still have the BP exploration truck

I had that BP truck…a favourite for some reason….didn’t keep any of them! (wish I had)

mig-31bm,

First, you ignore the salient points that you can’t answer and then selectively bring in irrelevant points to cloud the issue.

Your non-sequiturs and red herrings are designed to avoid answering the difficult questions and answering them removes the spotlight on the fundamental flaws.

How big is the F-35 fleet, 130? It’s not big enough to get a handle on actual operational cost yet and when the fleet is big enough we can discuss this at the end of the current fiscal year.

I’ll remind you of the main points that congress needs to know:

He has always tried to blind with science but is starting to lose it like the other F-35 bots….

The flaw in the F-35 is one air frame has to do different jobs for marines, navy and air force. The cost of $1.5 trillion isn’t worth it for what it does.

If Lockheed Martin had to start again it would have a separate airframe for the vertical take-off version for the marines F-35B, and better performing versions for the Air Force and Navy.

Lockheed Martin cannot admit this…..a bit like the banks that said they were too big to fail….we’re stuck with it and the tax payer as always will pay….but the F-35 is too expensive for what it is and for tax payers that is what matters.

Forget trying to overcome S-400 and S-500 area denial missile systems, counter-measures to any new system as always will be adopted in iterative improvements to counter at a much lower cost…..the point being it won’t cost as much as $1.5 trillion to do that!

Have I spelt out clear enough that it won’t cost $1.5 trillion to counter the F-35? (no degree needed to understand this fundamental flaw 😉

Because they cannot talk about its performance because key performance parameters were relaxed to make it meet the required criteria, they talk about the situational awareness, rubbish like it can see a rocket flare from 800 miles away, but so can mark 1 eyeballs!

Its low visibility does not make it invisible to IRST and its huge F135 engine can be tracked….

Sorry this is where I should have posted instead of the official LM thread! 😀

😀

He has always tried to blind with science but is starting to lose it like the other F-35 bots….Lukos after finishing your degree I hope you have got a proper first job by now ;- )

Shame Lukos has changed his moniker again because now you can’t post his degree qualifications!

(BTW, what the fcuk has his degree got do with anything?….as if it makes his claims more worthy! :D)

The flaw in the F-35 is one air frame has to do different jobs for marines, navy and air force. The cost of $1.5 trillion isn’t worth it for what it does.

If Lockheed Martin has to start again it would have a separate airframe for the vertical take-off version for the marine F-35B, and better performing versions for the Air Force and Navy.

Lockheed Martin cannot admit this…..a bit like the banks that said they were too big to fail….we’re stuck with it and the tax payer as always will pay….but the F-35 is too expensive for what it is and for tax payers that is what matters.

Forget trying to overcome S-400 and S-500 air denial missile systems, counter-measures to any new system as always will be adopted in iterative improvements to counter at a much lower cost…..the point being it won’t cost as much as $1.5 trillion to do that!

Have I spelt out clear enough that it won’t cost $1.5 trillion to counter the F-35? (no degree needed to understand this fundamental flaw 😉

Because they cannot talk about its performance because key parameters were relaxed to make it meet the required criteria, they talk about the situational awareness, rubbish like it can see a rocket flare from 800 miles away, but so can mark 1 eyeballs!

And what will a F-35 do if it sees a rocket flare 800 miles away, pass on info to someone 800 miles? My answer is there is sufficient radar and satellite tracking that already does this and you don’t need to spend $1.5 trillion to achieve this non-achievement ;- ) which has no practical purpose other than another PR puff to showcase the F-35’s amazing ability to see a rocket flare from 800 miles away, which anyone case see with the naked eye!

Its low visibility does not make it invisible to IRST and its huge F135 engine can be tracked….so when they say all aspect low visibility air frame I would say, what have you found a way to hide 43,000 pounds of thrust? 😀