Page 315 – Key Publishing

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 4,711 through 4,725 (of 4,849 total)

← 1 2 3 … 314 315 316 … 322 323 324 →

Author

Posts
September 25, 2009 at 5:03 am in reply to: USAF adds IRST pod for F-15C #2438811

SpudmanWP
Participant

I am willing to bet that they could teamwork the sensors already built into their existing gcu/electronic eyes – mavericks, sidewinders, have nap, aaq-26, asq-228, etc. – with some AI and today’s computer chips into some very powerful ground and air scanning tools.

This is one of the benefits of the F-35 system… EVERYTHING is integrated in one system, sans weapons of course.

September 25, 2009 at 2:36 am in reply to: hover time of the Harrier and F-35B #2438864

SpudmanWP
Participant

No, the demo’d hover thrust was 41500.

September 25, 2009 at 1:55 am in reply to: Lockheed Martin Expects Unit Cost of F-35 to Reduce #2438879

SpudmanWP
Participant

No matter what system you buy you will always add the cost of infrastructure, training, etc.

That is why people use the flyaway cost as it is the only way to show the financial cost of one fighter over another.

September 25, 2009 at 1:23 am in reply to: hover time of the Harrier and F-35B #2438899

SpudmanWP
Participant

What data is inaccurate???

September 24, 2009 at 11:45 pm in reply to: Lockheed Martin Expects Unit Cost of F-35 to Reduce #2438926

SpudmanWP
Participant

The Full Rate Production jets were always to start at Block3. That and LM as stated that a rolling ~2 year Block upgrade plan is still on track. In other words, ~2 years after FRP Blk4 jets start to appear, ~2 years later Blk5 jets appear, ~2 years later Blk6 jets appear, etc.

Sens, what do you mean by ” system-price 50% has to be added.”

September 24, 2009 at 9:08 pm in reply to: hover time of the Harrier and F-35B #2439017

SpudmanWP
Participant

Its either external carriage or a shorter takeoff space requiring less fuel (note the 515/442 STOVL performance metric in the graph).

Take a look at the 20081226 KPPs as it labels the graphs accordingly.

September 24, 2009 at 8:47 pm in reply to: hover time of the Harrier and F-35B #2439039

SpudmanWP
Participant

HHH = no external stores.

Not sure what HMMH is as it was not used on the Harrier (US).

It may mean external ASRAAMs?

Where do you see 5k internal? The F-35B is still limited to 1k internal on the A2G station.

As far as No HLH for the F-35B, we do not know what HHH entails for the F-35B. The Av-8B had to go low in order to drop it’s bombs where the F-35B can bomb from any altitude it likes.

September 24, 2009 at 7:38 pm in reply to: Lockheed Martin Expects Unit Cost of F-35 to Reduce #2439085

SpudmanWP
Participant

The LRIP aircraft will be built with Blk1-3 with all the Blk1&2 upgraded to 3.

Blks 4-7 are scheduled on ~two year increments after the MYB contracts are signed.

September 24, 2009 at 7:32 pm in reply to: hover time of the Harrier and F-35B #2439093

SpudmanWP
Participant

Look at the graph. The USMC numbers are based of a HHH profile while the UK is based of a HMMH profile.

btw, it’s only a 34 nm difference.

The bringback of the F-35 in hover is listed at 5k.

As for Scooter, he must have pissed someone off because he got banned.

September 24, 2009 at 7:05 pm in reply to: Lockheed Martin Expects Unit Cost of F-35 to Reduce #2439111

SpudmanWP
Participant

Volume reductions have already been seen.

In the last 3 LRIP the cost has gone from $196Mil to $155Mil for the F-35C ($15-$20 more than the F-35A).

All I am saying is that LM is starting to show that it’s cost analysis numbers are on the right track to backup it’s MYB cost calculations.

September 24, 2009 at 6:35 pm in reply to: Lockheed Martin Expects Unit Cost of F-35 to Reduce #2439129

SpudmanWP
Participant

I think you are fundementally misunderstanding the process.

The LRIP 2 flyaway cost was 3.3% lower than prediceted and LRIP 3 was 5%.

The 2010 Navy budjet clearly shows the breakdown of the flyaway cost (airframe, avionics, and engine).

These same predicetions are used to come to the “upper $40 million (2002 dollars) flyaway average” over the life of the program.

While there are other costs involved in fighter aquision, those costs are reletively the same no matter what fighter is chosen.

September 24, 2009 at 6:29 pm in reply to: USAF adds IRST pod for F-15C #2439132

SpudmanWP
Participant

No, the wavelengths are different and the Sniper ATP is a FLIR with limited IRST functions.

September 24, 2009 at 5:41 pm in reply to: USAF adds IRST pod for F-15C #2439164

SpudmanWP
Participant

Every F-35C will have an internally mounted IRST capability for A2A from Block 3 onwards and full A2A and A2G IRST capability from Block 5 onwards, so the USN will be getting the capability you seem to think they should have eventually.

It’s better than you think.

In a recent article, it was confirmed that Blk 3 will have full A2A IRST and EODAS integration. The Blk5 IRST reference is an A2G mode, not A2A.

September 24, 2009 at 6:15 am in reply to: Lockheed Martin Expects Unit Cost of F-35 to Reduce #2439420

SpudmanWP
Participant

Your missing the point.

The price was LOWER than what they thought it would be. For many years, people have made wild claims on how the F-35 would cost as much, or more, than a F-22.

When you look at the latest LM numbers:

Average Unit Recurring Flyaway Cost (in FY 2002 dollars – the most recent comprehensive estimate)
• F-35A upper-$40 million
• F-35B mid-$60 million
• F-35C mid-$60 million

The FACT that the last two LRIP numbers have come in BELOW the cost estimate give credence to their long-term cost estimates above.

September 24, 2009 at 4:56 am in reply to: hover time of the Harrier and F-35B #2439456

SpudmanWP
Participant

I have the answer to why the F-35 preformed better at the hover pit and why it will likely exceed KPP.

Daniel J. Crowley, Lockheed Martin’s vice president and F-35 program manager:

“All of our predictions for performance
are based on an end-of-life,
worst-case” scenario relative to the
F135 engine’s power capacity, “so the
true performance of the jet, throughout
its life, will be much better.”

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/July%202009/0709Fighter.aspx

–EDIT–

I dug up a Navy League Briefing from 2007 that shows the typical KPP bar graphs and they INCLUDE the actual numbers.

As you can see, while the KPP for the USMC profile mission Combat Radius is 450 nm, it exceeded this by a healthy margin at 498 nm.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 4,711 through 4,725 (of 4,849 total)

← 1 2 3 … 314 315 316 … 322 323 324 →