dark light

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,481 through 3,495 (of 4,849 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35A for Japan #2302584
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    One thing to keep in mind is that concurrency was a DoD plan put in place to save time and money. While there will always be increased “upgrade” costs associated with early LRIP fighters, the overall cost is kept down.

    Here are the costs to keep in mind.

    On one side you have increased upgrade cost of concurrency fighters. On the other is the cost to keep EVERY fighter in the US inventory flying for 8-10 more years (above what is already planned). That 2nd number is HUGE and is the main driver behind the need for concurrency.

    As to the 2016 delivery date, here is the timeline.

    Timeline—
    Contract signed 2012
    Long Lead items started in 2013
    Production started 2014
    Deliveries started in 2016

    This timeline applies to ANY fighter ordered, not just the F-35.

    in reply to: F-35A for Japan #2302609
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    That will depend on what happens with the f35 the idea of con currency may be scraped and too a few lsp aircraft. which will put the cost up.

    That’s not going to happen. To scrap concurrency they would have to stop all production until after SDD and that will not happen.

    in reply to: wanted this aircraft but could not get thread #2302801
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Japan: Wanted the F-22, got the F-35 🙂

    in reply to: MMRCA news thread 10 #2303364
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    “will likely be”, better?

    Actually, the F-35 has been produced for less than SAR predictions so far (LRIP1-4).

    in reply to: MMRCA news thread 10 #2303488
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    F-35 is not going to be cheaper than F-22 unless more than 150 a year are produced.

    The F-35’s cost is already (Per LRIP4 contracts) $25 million cheaper than FY2009 F-22s at 30 a year pricing. When it reaches 150 a year it will be South of $80 mil.

    in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2304483
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Even the leaked QLR backs those numbers up and that aint no pro LM PDF by any stretch of the imagination.

    So as of now (even according to the very critical QLR) LRIP8 jets are due to be delivered at Blk3.

    in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2305343
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Capping LRIP does not affect SDD completion which intends to finish with Blk3C in 2016. Capping LRIP at 30 for a while will only open more LRIP slots for FMS. The attached are from an Oct 2011 PDF showing both LRIP8 (delivery in 2016) as Blk3 and LRIP & SDD timelines.

    So to put this BS to rest: 2016 delivered jets will be full Blk3C F-35s, not training, Blk2, or unfinished in any way. They only thing they will not be is done with the USAF IOT&E.

    in reply to: USAF F-15s Armed with Patriots? #2305873
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    It’s not that far fetched. The Patriot is only 50% longer than an AMRAAM (17ft vs 12ft).

    in reply to: Military Aviation News 2011 June – #2306225
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    That’s what I meant, export “as is” was a problem. My bad.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News 2011 June – #2306415
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    7 Did go to museums.

    http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?205001-F-111-s-buried-in-landfill

    As to why they buried them, one of its toxins is asbestos, by itself (and left alone) it’s fine. Try to remove it (eg cleaning it before smelting) and it requires a lot of money (more than the smelting value) to do so.

    They could not be exported out of Australia for disposal due to tech transfer laws.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News 2011 June – #2306423
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Too toxic and not cost effective to remove the toxins before smelting.

    in reply to: Boeing looking at extending F-15C/D life x 2, F-15E x 4 #2306589
    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Considering that Raytheon radars (APG-79 in Japan & APG-82 in SK) are in DIRECT competition with the F-35 & it’s Northrup Grumman APG-81 and Raytheon has made ZERO claim of radar parity, it’s a safe bet.

    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    Better yet, it can carry 32 and could carry up to 44. Better? 🙂

    Btw, it can carry 10xCBUs (8 on the wings and 2 internal) 🙂

    On that note, am I the only one surprised that they did away with the TER?

    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    The inboard wing pylon is capable of 5k lbs and the outboard 2.5k lbs. The new BRU-69A (pictured below is its predecessor the BRU-55/57) is slated to carry two BRU-61s (for a total of 8 SDB per pylon).

    So with 8 internal, 16 on the inboard pylons, and 8 on the outboard pylons gives us 32. The speculative 44 comes from if the outboard pylon can also carry two BRU-61s (as it is a “2500 lb class” pylon) for an additional 8.

    Now comes the stretch, if the belly hardpoint can carry a BRU-61 which would enable another 4 SDB. Before you say “it can only carry a gun”, not so. The centerline hardpoint (station 6) is fully wired for smart munitions. I have even seen (in videos of the simulator) it mounted with an AMRAAM. I’m not saying it will carry SDBs, only “If” it did, the potential total could reach 44.

    That being said, there is no way we will ever see a F-35 carrying this many SDBs in combat, even if it could. This was only meant as an exercise in “what if”.

    Here is a BRU-55 with JDAMS. The BRU-69A is derived from the BRU-55 series.

    http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/Misc/gbu54tn6.png

    SpudmanWP
    Participant

    I could see a form of adaptation of systems like Trophy, Quick Kill, etc. This type of protection would require the fighter to turn away from the incoming missile most of the time.

Viewing 15 posts - 3,481 through 3,495 (of 4,849 total)