dark light

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,491 through 2,505 (of 4,849 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Your favorite Super Hornet Block III Upgrade. #2237371
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    All.

    I hope all US F-18s get the upgrade.

    The Growler could really use the new engines due to the draggy pods and the F-22/35 would also benefit from the SWP (Stealth Weapons Pods) development.

    in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2237394
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    What exactly was that advanced red air, what was the exact scenario that those numbers represent, what supporting assets did both red and blue field? You don’t know.

    My quotes paraphrased the sworn testimony given in front of the Australian Parliament. There are two PDFs available with all the testimony that would be advantageous for you to read.

    I actual listened live to the testimony and was quite impressed by the testimony given by the MoD and their experience in testing the F-35 and its capabilities. Their “matter of fact” attitude basically made fun of RepSim/APA and basically said they were full of it and that their sim had no basis in fact.

    16 March 2012

    20 March 2012

    Parroting ambiguious, probably advantageous set-ups do not do the F35 cause any good and frankly i for one am tired of your incessent pointless and factless cheerleading.

    Being outnumbered 4:8 does not sound like “advantageous set-up” to me 

    Did you see the RepSim “setup”…. Talk about unrealistically advantageous :rolleyes:

    BTW, I am quoting direct, official, and sworn testimony… not “factless cheerleading”.

    simply parroting propoganda.

    Again, see above

    Anybody with an ounce of interest in military aircraft can see the F35 is not an air to air optimised platform

    Just because it’s not A2A “optimized” like the F-22 does not mean that it will not do a good job at it. (Again, see the above sworn testimony)

    btw, Using your logic “Factless Cheerleading” covers anyone talking about the Gripen NG, F-15SE, F-18SE, Pak-Fa, or J-20 as they either exist only on paper or little or no public info has been released.

    More is known and publicly released about the F-35 than all those programs combined (in addition to the 10,000+ sheets of data delivered to the JSF Partners EVERY MONTH).

    in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2237407
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Boeing’s offering Silent Hornets to Hornet/Super Hornet operators Australia and Canada.

    Canada flying the Hornet will not help them fly the Super Hornet. Infrastructure is different, engines are different, avionics, radar, handling, etc are different.

    Australia would rather not buy more SH are they were only interested in them as a stopgap measure and not as a replacement or “instead of” purchase for the F-35.

    Countries that buy Silent Hornet will get a significant industrial participation package; ie India’s producing Super Hornet airframe parts when it bought none.

    The benefit that Korea has that nobody else has is that the production lines for those parts already exist. Anyone else who gets offset production contracts would have to PAY to create those production lines.

    Who would say no to tech transfer if offered?

    Korea has specific ToT needs that leads to its own fighter program. No other JSF partner has that level of need with a specific goal of a domestic fighter program.

    It’s a round-robin system, where the newest becomes the 1st line fighters.

    The JSF Partners (for the most part) are not doing a round-robin. Their 1st line fighters are being replaced with 1st line fighters. They have nothing to fall back on.

    The F-35 carries too few munitions to suit Korea’s needs.
    The F-35 also is the worst A2A fighter for JSF partner nations.

    Purely your opinion and disputed by….. well, everyone who knows better and had seen the data.

    To the contrary, the outcome will heavily be publicized and affect the decisions of JSF partner nations sitting on the fence.

    Sure they will see it and note (as outlined above) how it does not apply to them. With the latest news of the F-35 only having a 10% bump over the F-16 in CPFH, this puts it well below the F-15 in CPFH and will likely play a major part in the cost analysis (as lifetime costs are larger than procurement costs).

    [/quote]So Canada is interested in skipping the F-35 and jump straight to the F/A-XX?[/QUOTE]Um, no. That was a blog post from a private citizen and not from any official Canadian government official. Given that you could not tell the difference, that speaks volumes 😎

    in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2237477
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Other partners need more a2a oriented platform (something the F-35 is way less good at) yet, he expects them to stick to the F-35 unlike Korea…

    is it me or something isn’t very logical in that way of thinking?

    “Way less good” than what?

    The DoD still states that the F-35 is second to only the F-22 in A2A.

    “Better than 6:1 against Advanced Red Air when out-numbered 4:8 and both sides are piloted by experienced fighter pilots using all tactics available”.

    Sounds pretty good to me 🙂

    in reply to: F35 News only thread for 2013 #2237820
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The Rafale, Eurofighter, and F-22 took longer to go IOC with multi-role capabilities.

    For example, Rafale took 24 years to go from tech demonstrator “ACX” in 1982 to IOC with the French Air Force in 2006 (not the M version which was a quickie-to-the-fleet emergency to replace the A-7s that could only do A2A).

    Eurofighter took 20+ years (1983 EAP to 2003ish).

    F-22 was 19 years from YF-22 contract to F-22 IOC.

    The biggest difference you will see with the F-35 at IOC is that it will have Full Multirole capabilities (which some of the above still lack) and will go IOC with a dozens of squadrons available and not just one or two. These will include fully staffed training bases, OT&E facilities, and front-line units (thank you Concurrency). There is also a funded Post-SDD development program already in place.

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2237825
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    A-100 size looks ok to me. Here is another view.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]215585[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2237834
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Korean Contest is Unique

    The benefits that Boeing enjoys in the Korean Contest and the items that might swing the contest towards Boeing do not exist anywhere else.

    1. Korea already fly’s F-15Ks (no JSF Partner does)

    2. Korea Co-Produces F-15Ks (no JSF Partner does)

    3. Korea wants a large ToT deal to bolster its upcoming indigenous 5th gen program (no JSF Partner wants ToT to this level)

    4. Korea is replacing 3rd line fighters (the F-4) while F-35 Partners are replacing 1st line fighters.

    5. Korea is mainly concerned with A2G missions while the JSF Partners have more of an eye towards A2A.

    As you can see the F-15 offers Korea many things that have nothing to do with any other JSF Partner.

    The Korean Contest is no bellwether moment, more like an interesting sideshow.

    in reply to: Trouble with the New forum layout ? #2237939
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    No img with Chrome

    W7 & Chrome look okay as do W7 & IE 10.0.9200…. for me anyhow 🙂

    in reply to: Trouble with the New forum layout ? #2237950
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Quote Test

    W7 Firefox 20.0.1

    IMG from Icon
    http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/Misc/hum234_zpsb50e7ccf.gif

    IMG test
    http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/Misc/hum234_zpsb50e7ccf.gif

    ——————-
    OK, I can edit.

    Remember when using the insert picture icon that if you select the “Retrieve remote file and reference locally” option when referencing a pic on the web that it will “attach” it rather than using [ IMG ] tags.


    I am able to delete attachments in the “Manage Attachment” area of “Go Advanced”

    in reply to: Future of USAF F-15C/D and their replacement #2238592
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Maybe retiring the F-15C/D sqdns first (with new F-35s) will save the most money as they are more expensive to upgrade & operate than F-16s.

    That would not begin to happen till the 2016/17 timeframe anyways.

    in reply to: Future of USAF F-15C/D and their replacement #2238827
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    We are still buying brand new “Legacy” systems today, namely F-18E/F/Gs.

    They will easily last until the 2040s.

    in reply to: Future of USAF F-15C/D and their replacement #2238907
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Edumicate yourself 🙂

    http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/Annual%20Aviation%20Inventory%20and%20Funding%20Plan%202013-2042.pdf

    Year-to-year spending is pretty even in Then Year Dollars, (actually a lowering of buying power) so retirements will happen as new planes come online to replace them.

    It does not make sense to retire them early because that will leave a capability gap.

    in reply to: F35 News only thread for 2013 #2241749
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    what does ECO stand for in that list?

    ECO = Engineering Change Order…

    in reply to: F35 News only thread for 2013 #2242200
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Unknown jump in airframe cost of $3.8 million. The other components followed the same price rates.

    in reply to: F35 News only thread for 2013 #2242291
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Rafale, Eurofighter, & the F-22 all took 15+ years to come to full multirole config.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,491 through 2,505 (of 4,849 total)