pfcemIsn’t the APU suppose to be mounted on the underside???
No it is ‘mounted’ inside. The intake is on the top & the exhaust is on the bottom.
There is a thread on f16.net about this very thing with a pic showing the underside as well.
pfcemAdditional cooler or APU?
APU.
In service aircraft will, however, have a ‘cleaner’ integration into the airframe.
pfcemYip, predictions are hard to make, especially if they concern the future …
What I see/think is that the air services are driven by flighter pilots who will do **** to endanger their cool toys. But we are talking about game change here, and 2020/30 timeframe, and culture will follow necessity. There are of course a number of challenges still ahead, but they are not of principal technical/technological nature.
The reality is that already today attacking stationary targets with manned platforms is a joke, and under persistent stand-off ISR no tech/mech unit can hide any more. The better the quality of the picture, the lower the need to use a manned strike platform. And that is not even depending on the development of some fancy artificial intelligence. Things that are known can be fought by a robot. It’s only the unknowns and the unexpected things that still require a human on-site presence.
Sorry but you are still failing to separate science fiction from reality. Unknowns and the unexpected are guaranteed in warfare. It is because of unknowns and the unexpected that races are run, games are played & wars/battles are fought. If not for the unknowns and the unexpected the outcome(s) could/would be repeatedly accurately predicted to the point that the race would not need to be run, the game would not need to be played & the wars/battles would not need to be fought.
Again, the US DOD, which knows a lot more about the relative merits of unmanned vs manned platforms than you think you do, is only expecting to begin including true UCAVs as part of USN CAWs in 2025 & even then only one out of five combat squadrons are to be unmanned.
And the challenges still ahead are very much technical/technological in nature.
pfcemIsn’t it strange how the F-15C is now 14.4 tons, which is exactly the original F-15E empty weight, and the F-15E is now ~17 tons, which is the original F-15E weight with CFTs.
Coincidence or what?
The linked factsheet is not an F-15C factsheet, but a general F-15 factsheet. Why else would they discuss F-15E features there. The weight is the F-15E empty weight.
You are confusing tons & tonnes…
14.4 tons is 28,800 lbs just 200 lbs more than ‘originally’.
The operational empty weight of the F-15E includes the CFTs.
And while F-15C ‘gaining’ 200 lbs is no big deal I don’t see how the F-15E has gained 2,300 lbs…I have not seen any source that indicates that there is such a weight increase or that any of the F-15E derivatives (F-15K, F-15SG, F-15I) are significantly heavier.
pfcemF-15A
operational empty weight: 28,000 lbs (12,700kg).
max take-off weight: 56,000 lbs (25,401kg).
F-15C
operational empty weight: 28,600 lbs (12,973kg).
max take-off weight: 68,000 lbs (30,845kg).
F-15E
operational empty weight: 31,700 lbs (14,379kg).
max take-off weight: 81,000 lbs (36,741kg).
pfcemI would separate the political decisions from the military decisions.
You need to separate science fiction from reality.
The US DOD which knows more about the realities of UCAVs than you think you do has a much more realistic view of UCAVs vs manned platforms.
Best demonstrated by its envisioned/planned “2025 CAW” which includes four squadrons of manned combat aircraft & only one squadron of unmanned combat aircraft. And with the N-UCAS IOC envisioned/planned to be 2025, that is when the switch to the “2025 CAW” begins. It will be a decade later before every CAW has that one squadron of unmanned combat aircraft.
It will take the outright cancellation of F/A-XX & all USN combat aircraft procurement to be UCAVs from 2025 (with the last planned F-35C) for you to see CAWs with more unmanned combat aircraft than manned combat aircraft by even 2050.
pfcemYou don’t even need to continue after this nonsense… Nobody except few nations thought it was the right thing…. and even those few nations only expressed stances of their respective governments, not the population.
BS.
Prety much EVERY intelligence agency in the world knew Iraq had WMDs. More than a dozen UN resolutions (voted on & passed BY THE UN) ‘tried’ to do something about it. Nobody except few nations had the will to actually DO anything about it. And as was later to be discovered, those who were most ‘against’ DOING something about it were so because THEY were supplying arms & other materials to Iraq in direct violation of numberous UN resolutions.
***
Pardon me, but exactly what is there beneficial to the rest of the world, by Israel having weapons like that?
Israel has not PROMISSED to USE WMDs against another nation. Nor is it a state sponsor of terrorists that uses said terrorist to fight proxy wars so as to ‘claim’ to be a peaceful nation…
***
And what would exactly Iran have to gain by selling nukes to “unstable” regime..
It’s proxies would then USE said nukes against Iran’s stated enemies & ignorant people such as yourself would be fooled into thinking that Iran had nothing to do with it.
where or to whom could they possibly sell it ??
Its proxies.
Only reasons Iran wants Nuke are
A) They need assurance should US once again contemplate “Regime change”… you know like they did in the 50s when they removed a legitimate DEMOCRACY, and replaced it with a brutal dictator.
B) Because Israel has one.
Both of those seem pretty legitimate to me.
NEITHER of those are the reason Iran has openly stated numberous times why it wants a nuclear weapon.
***
The point here is that he is very much right.
No, the point is he is intellectually dishonest &/or truly clueless.
The price of the F-35 in ~5 years when production ramps up to full rate vs what the 1st year of LRIP is INFINATELY more like what the price of the F-22 would be today if we suddenly decided to procure 100 a year [5x the ‘existing’ rate] for the next 20 years vs what it cost during its 1st year of LRIP than some BS comparrison of a F-16 Block 60 produced today vs an F-16 Block 1 produced ~30 years ago. And guess what, THAT price for the F-22 would be on the order of 1/3 the price of 1st year of LRIP.
He is just making the parallel between the two which points out what will probably happen in the future.
No he isn’t.
It will hardly happen that such a complex warfighting machine scheduled for not that cheap and simple upgrades during its lifespan will be cheaper as the time goes by. The LM claims that the price will be X in 2015 and will be falling down as the production line becomes very busy in the forthcoming years.
THAT is what happens. It happened with the F-14, the F-15, the F-16, the F/A-18 & the F-22. The price during the 1st year of production was MUCH higher than it was ~5 years later once production had ramped up.
What if by then the Raytheon or other subcontractors appear with some new goodies that are worth some more and all of a sudden those gadgets become an integral part of your beloved machine. Do you think that those goodies will come free of charge? Or the LM has already accounted all the upgrade costs in their estimates?
YES LM has accounted all pre-planned upgrade costs in their estimates.
And how can you predict inflation in this economic turmoil?
You use past inflation rates as a guide & make an ‘best educated guess’.
***
Iraq had no WMDs. It was more than clear to everyone from the very start. Even to the bunch of losers from Bush’s government..
Quite the opposite. And continued attempts to rewrite history by the like of you will NOT change that fact.
***
Nope. No apples and oranges, just crystal clear logic. I have clearly disagreed with the raised point here that future F-35s shall cost less than the LRP. I can assure you that they will not.
Whatever price the F-35 starts at, it will only get higher. Now whether that higher price will be in fact few % lower compared to GDP of that particular fiscal year or whether those future F-35s will have few gizmos newer or more advanced than LRPs is completely irrelevant to me, that was never the topic.
The price history of every ‘recent’ (aka 4th generation – & even the th generation F-22) proves quite the opposite.
***
To my knowledge Iran is yet to invade or attack any of its neighbours.. or any other country. They might support some groups in conflict zones indirectly.. but name me one significant military power that does not do the same???
that is because Iran has paid its proxies to do it for them.
The question I ask you again is.. if iran got a nuke.. Who would they sell technollogy or the device to??
They probably would not SELL it to anyone. It would MUCH more likely GIVE it to its proxies…
Name one group or regime they would actually consider that option with..
Hezballa. I can name more if you like.
What would they benefit to gain except assured destruction.
You don’t realize THAT is what they want? They are promised 72 virgins in heaven if & when they do.
Do you really think they would even consider first strike against israel, who have enough nukes to oblitarate them 10x over. You must be totally potty.
ABSOLUTELY! That is HOW they believe they bring forth the 12 Imam & the end of the world & the paridice they are promised afterwords (which is WHAT THEY WANT).
If a nuclear device ever gets into wrong hands it will be either from Pakistan, or some of those missing devices still un accounted from Soviet era.
ONLY if state sponsors of terror like Iran don’t get one 1st…
pfcemYou don’t even need to continue after this nonsense… Nobody except few nations thought it was the right thing…. and even those few nations only expressed stances of their respective governments, not the population.
BS.
Prety much EVERY intelligence agency in the world knew Iraq had WMDs. More than a dozen UN resolutions (voted on & passed BY THE UN) ‘tried’ to do something about it. Nobody except few nations had the will to actually DO anything about it. And as was later to be discovered, those who were most ‘against’ DOING something about it were so because THEY were supplying arms & other materials to Iraq in direct violation of numberous UN resolutions.
***
Pardon me, but exactly what is there beneficial to the rest of the world, by Israel having weapons like that?
Israel has not PROMISSED to USE WMDs against another nation. Nor is it a state sponsor of terrorists that uses said terrorist to fight proxy wars so as to ‘claim’ to be a peaceful nation…
***
And what would exactly Iran have to gain by selling nukes to “unstable” regime..
It’s proxies would then USE said nukes against Iran’s stated enemies & ignorant people such as yourself would be fooled into thinking that Iran had nothing to do with it.
where or to whom could they possibly sell it ??
Its proxies.
Only reasons Iran wants Nuke are
A) They need assurance should US once again contemplate “Regime change”… you know like they did in the 50s when they removed a legitimate DEMOCRACY, and replaced it with a brutal dictator.
B) Because Israel has one.
Both of those seem pretty legitimate to me.
NEITHER of those are the reason Iran has openly stated numberous times why it wants a nuclear weapon.
***
The point here is that he is very much right.
No, the point is he is intellectually dishonest &/or truly clueless.
The price of the F-35 in ~5 years when production ramps up to full rate vs what the 1st year of LRIP is INFINATELY more like what the price of the F-22 would be today if we suddenly decided to procure 100 a year [5x the ‘existing’ rate] for the next 20 years vs what it cost during its 1st year of LRIP than some BS comparrison of a F-16 Block 60 produced today vs an F-16 Block 1 produced ~30 years ago. And guess what, THAT price for the F-22 would be on the order of 1/3 the price of 1st year of LRIP.
He is just making the parallel between the two which points out what will probably happen in the future.
No he isn’t.
It will hardly happen that such a complex warfighting machine scheduled for not that cheap and simple upgrades during its lifespan will be cheaper as the time goes by. The LM claims that the price will be X in 2015 and will be falling down as the production line becomes very busy in the forthcoming years.
THAT is what happens. It happened with the F-14, the F-15, the F-16, the F/A-18 & the F-22. The price during the 1st year of production was MUCH higher than it was ~5 years later once production had ramped up.
What if by then the Raytheon or other subcontractors appear with some new goodies that are worth some more and all of a sudden those gadgets become an integral part of your beloved machine. Do you think that those goodies will come free of charge? Or the LM has already accounted all the upgrade costs in their estimates?
YES LM has accounted all pre-planned upgrade costs in their estimates.
And how can you predict inflation in this economic turmoil?
You use past inflation rates as a guide & make an ‘best educated guess’.
***
Iraq had no WMDs. It was more than clear to everyone from the very start. Even to the bunch of losers from Bush’s government..
Quite the opposite. And continued attempts to rewrite history by the like of you will NOT change that fact.
***
Nope. No apples and oranges, just crystal clear logic. I have clearly disagreed with the raised point here that future F-35s shall cost less than the LRP. I can assure you that they will not.
Whatever price the F-35 starts at, it will only get higher. Now whether that higher price will be in fact few % lower compared to GDP of that particular fiscal year or whether those future F-35s will have few gizmos newer or more advanced than LRPs is completely irrelevant to me, that was never the topic.
The price history of every ‘recent’ (aka 4th generation – & even the th generation F-22) proves quite the opposite.
***
To my knowledge Iran is yet to invade or attack any of its neighbours.. or any other country. They might support some groups in conflict zones indirectly.. but name me one significant military power that does not do the same???
that is because Iran has paid its proxies to do it for them.
The question I ask you again is.. if iran got a nuke.. Who would they sell technollogy or the device to??
They probably would not SELL it to anyone. It would MUCH more likely GIVE it to its proxies…
Name one group or regime they would actually consider that option with..
Hezballa. I can name more if you like.
What would they benefit to gain except assured destruction.
You don’t realize THAT is what they want? They are promised 72 virgins in heaven if & when they do.
Do you really think they would even consider first strike against israel, who have enough nukes to oblitarate them 10x over. You must be totally potty.
ABSOLUTELY! That is HOW they believe they bring forth the 12 Imam & the end of the world & the paridice they are promised afterwords (which is WHAT THEY WANT).
If a nuclear device ever gets into wrong hands it will be either from Pakistan, or some of those missing devices still un accounted from Soviet era.
ONLY if state sponsors of terror like Iran don’t get one 1st…
pfcemI don’t know. At this point there has to be a transparent decision and a solid requirement. If NG/Airbus have the best design for that requirement they’ll have to pick it now. Same goes for the Boeing design.
What transparent decision? The one prior to 9/11/01 which then was rushed & screwed up during implementation? 😉 As for the later decision in 2008, yeah the GAO saw right through that BS & issued one of the strongest worded decisions in its history.
Rafale would damn well not be considered an option as a major US fighter aircraft. It has nothing to do with the aircraft, it has to do with the supplier’s penchant for selling weapons to anybody with cash, i.e. potential adversaries. Who wants their enemy to have full access to the technology they’re relying on?
[note this is not directed at you SOC]
Which is why Israel wants to install its own systems on its F-35s. NOT because they believe they can do better but because they do not want their potential adversaries to know EXACTLY what they have.
***
Typhoon – $80-100mil, Rafale $70-90mil, Super Hornet $70-90mil. These would be typical prices for average customers buying two-three squadrons.
BINGO! (or at least close enough)
And the F-35A is (for partner nations) $58.7 million in FY2008 dollars, which just so happens to translate quite nicely to $70-75 million in FY2014 dollars.
So just as I said, the F-35A is LESS expensive.
Yes, it does not and that is a fair comparison.
No it doesn’t. Israel is not one of the 8 partner nations & Israel is unable/unwilling to wait for full rate production.
I, too, don’t include EF prices for partner nations here…
You don’t include LRIP prices either…
I see you still buy the marketing gig about F-35 getting cheaper with time. LOL, care to explain why today’s F-16s cost 3,5x as much as LRP?
Because today is 2009 & F-16 LPR was in the mid-1970’s. :p
PLUS today’s F-16s are VERY different birds than the mid-1970’s LPR F-16s…
And have you noticed the F-16 production rate lately. 😉
Yes, exactly that is what Europe should do. Boycott the F-35, aside from few VTOL squadrons it cannot replace with own stuff. In worst case buy few squadrons as supplement to the primary force of European aircraft (UK, Italy).
European designs will be every bit as capable (with the exception of stealth – we will easily survive this) and definitely cheaper on the long run. It is important to strengthen the strategic capability to design own fighter aircraft in Europe and not just boost LM with big ticket purchases.
Thanks for showing us all your aggenda vs the F-35. 🙂
***
Frankly, if LockMart came out tomorrow and announced a fixed unit price, I’d laugh at them. With the current economy there is no way in hell they can set a stable price for something to be bought and delivered more than a few years down the line.
It already did (for partner nations). It is $58.7 million (FY2008 dollars) flyaway for the F-35A & it has been PUBLIC since Mar/Apr 2008.
Note that the economic situation is not limitted to the US so it is not only the US that could see cost increases…
pfcemI don’t know. At this point there has to be a transparent decision and a solid requirement. If NG/Airbus have the best design for that requirement they’ll have to pick it now. Same goes for the Boeing design.
What transparent decision? The one prior to 9/11/01 which then was rushed & screwed up during implementation? 😉 As for the later decision in 2008, yeah the GAO saw right through that BS & issued one of the strongest worded decisions in its history.
Rafale would damn well not be considered an option as a major US fighter aircraft. It has nothing to do with the aircraft, it has to do with the supplier’s penchant for selling weapons to anybody with cash, i.e. potential adversaries. Who wants their enemy to have full access to the technology they’re relying on?
[note this is not directed at you SOC]
Which is why Israel wants to install its own systems on its F-35s. NOT because they believe they can do better but because they do not want their potential adversaries to know EXACTLY what they have.
***
Typhoon – $80-100mil, Rafale $70-90mil, Super Hornet $70-90mil. These would be typical prices for average customers buying two-three squadrons.
BINGO! (or at least close enough)
And the F-35A is (for partner nations) $58.7 million in FY2008 dollars, which just so happens to translate quite nicely to $70-75 million in FY2014 dollars.
So just as I said, the F-35A is LESS expensive.
Yes, it does not and that is a fair comparison.
No it doesn’t. Israel is not one of the 8 partner nations & Israel is unable/unwilling to wait for full rate production.
I, too, don’t include EF prices for partner nations here…
You don’t include LRIP prices either…
I see you still buy the marketing gig about F-35 getting cheaper with time. LOL, care to explain why today’s F-16s cost 3,5x as much as LRP?
Because today is 2009 & F-16 LPR was in the mid-1970’s. :p
PLUS today’s F-16s are VERY different birds than the mid-1970’s LPR F-16s…
And have you noticed the F-16 production rate lately. 😉
Yes, exactly that is what Europe should do. Boycott the F-35, aside from few VTOL squadrons it cannot replace with own stuff. In worst case buy few squadrons as supplement to the primary force of European aircraft (UK, Italy).
European designs will be every bit as capable (with the exception of stealth – we will easily survive this) and definitely cheaper on the long run. It is important to strengthen the strategic capability to design own fighter aircraft in Europe and not just boost LM with big ticket purchases.
Thanks for showing us all your aggenda vs the F-35. 🙂
***
Frankly, if LockMart came out tomorrow and announced a fixed unit price, I’d laugh at them. With the current economy there is no way in hell they can set a stable price for something to be bought and delivered more than a few years down the line.
It already did (for partner nations). It is $58.7 million (FY2008 dollars) flyaway for the F-35A & it has been PUBLIC since Mar/Apr 2008.
Note that the economic situation is not limitted to the US so it is not only the US that could see cost increases…
pfcemActually USA has in contrast to the rest of the world kept the same military spending at the same level as it was at the end of the cold war.
No it hasn’t. Even INCLUDING the Bush administration spending increases since 9/11/01 & WOT supplemental spending, US defense spending over the past decade has only been on par with the Carter administration in terms of the amount of defense spending in relation to the GDP.
***
As I said, the price discution was just a cheap diversion. The subject was that Sweetman and Kopp questioned the F 35 qualities, before all. Or, up to now, neither LM or NorthropGrumman failed in producing excelent fighters. Why on earth would they now, on the biggest military contract ever?
You are right. I apologize for having responded to such nonsense as much as I did. I THINK I have proven my point on how intellectually dishonest the diversion is.
***
I don’t think that is what Sweetman did. In my assessment he rather proposed to think about whether a well-developed 4.5th gen fleet would make more fiscal and strategic sense.
Kopp is another matter (or mad-hatter).
Where has Sweetman done any such thing?
pfcemActually USA has in contrast to the rest of the world kept the same military spending at the same level as it was at the end of the cold war.
No it hasn’t. Even INCLUDING the Bush administration spending increases since 9/11/01 & WOT supplemental spending, US defense spending over the past decade has only been on par with the Carter administration in terms of the amount of defense spending in relation to the GDP.
***
As I said, the price discution was just a cheap diversion. The subject was that Sweetman and Kopp questioned the F 35 qualities, before all. Or, up to now, neither LM or NorthropGrumman failed in producing excelent fighters. Why on earth would they now, on the biggest military contract ever?
You are right. I apologize for having responded to such nonsense as much as I did. I THINK I have proven my point on how intellectually dishonest the diversion is.
***
I don’t think that is what Sweetman did. In my assessment he rather proposed to think about whether a well-developed 4.5th gen fleet would make more fiscal and strategic sense.
Kopp is another matter (or mad-hatter).
Where has Sweetman done any such thing?
pfcemLOL
OK 3 simple questions..
A. How much did LM originally say the program was to cost in $$$?
B. In terms of funding how much was cut from the above figure in $$$$?
C. whats A Minus B??? :diablo:
Cheers
1991: 648 for $86.6 billion.
1993: 442 for $71.6 billion.
Eventually (~2001) production was capped at $37.6 billion ($69.7 billion total program).
pfcemLOL
OK 3 simple questions..
A. How much did LM originally say the program was to cost in $$$?
B. In terms of funding how much was cut from the above figure in $$$$?
C. whats A Minus B??? :diablo:
Cheers
1991: 648 for $86.6 billion.
1993: 442 for $71.6 billion.
Eventually (~2001) production was capped at $37.6 billion ($69.7 billion total program).
pfcemNice thread scoots, don’t have nightmares.
Israel should have joined the JSF earlier if it expected to get LRIP aircraft at the same price as partner nations are getting ($58.7 million in FY 2008 dollars each flyaway for the F-35A). Basically by helping to pay for developement, partner nations have in effect put up a ‘down payment’ on early production slots thus they are (I believe) getting the full rate production price for LRIP aircraft.
Note at an average inflation rate or 3% $58.7 million becomes $72.2 million in 2014…coincidentally right in the range of the expected 2014 cost (2.5% being ~$69.8 million & 3.5% being ~$74.7 million). 😉
***
Get a grip with reality.
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=48072
Nice try. Appearantly you have no clue as to the cost of the Typhoon, or Rafale or Super Hornet…&/or why Israel is having to pay a higher price for the F-35.
And again, Israel’s cost for the F-35 does not represent its cost to partner nations or to an nation willing to wait for full rate production…
Personally I think Israel should ‘bite the bullet’ & get its initial oder of 25 (knowing full well that it is paying a higher price for them) & wait for lower full rate production prices for its remaining 50. And if Israel comits to the additional 50 (rather than as just an option to buy more) it is more likely to get a better price for its initial 25.
Irrelevant.
So Belgium being interrested in the F-35 again is irrelavent…
American fighters should be banned as an option for European air forces, except cases where European don’t have an equivalent (VTOL F-35 comes into my mind)
Sounds like somebody is SO worried that the F-35 is going to DOMINATE the western fighter market for the next 1/4 century that they need to come up with some artificial way removing it as a possibility so other MORE EXPENSIVE yet LESS CAPABLE fighters stand a chance. :p
Sign In
