dark light

FBW

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 2,935 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: USAF not F-35 thread #2108699
    FBW
    Participant

    FBW, the “belief” is an exact description of the numbers in the budget documents. And the “Gross/Weapon Unit Cost” are not similar.

    F-35A Gross/Weapon System Unit Cost
    2020 – 101.096 million US$ (48 Airframes)
    2021 – 104.486 million US$ (48 Airframes)
    2022 – 101.739 million US$ (48 Airframes)
    2023 – 99.918 million US$ (48 Airframes)
    2024 – 98.916 million US$ (48 Airframes)
    “To Complete” – 137.332 million US$ (1186 Airframes)

    F-15EX Gross/Weapon System Unit Cost
    2020 – 131.250 million US$ (8 Airframes)
    2021 – 91.778 million US$ (18 Airframes)
    2022 – 93.611 million US$ (18 Airframes)
    2023 – 96.660 million US$ (18 Airframes)
    2024 – 97.389 million US$ (18 Airframes)
    “To Complete” – 0 million US$ (0 Airframes)

    I supose the cost of ramping up production by Boeing and changing the “QA” into the USAF “EX” standard are thrown into the first batch.

    Exactly what I said, the gross weapon system costs were are similar through 2024. That measurement does not favor the procurement of the F-15EX. That means, even thought the F-15EX can leverage the 90% commonality of the spares and existing equipment of the F-15E (and “c”) to a lesser extent,
    it is scarcely “cheaper” than a new aircraft that is still developing a spares/maintenance pipeline. An aircraft for which support equipment, software, procedures are still being purchased and developed.

    in reply to: USAF not F-35 thread #2108750
    FBW
    Participant

    Wrong Spud, the INITIAL batch of eight F-15X is indeed thirty millions more expensive, all the follow on batches are less expensive…

    Where are you getting this belief from? The airframe cost alone is 80 million, the gross wepaon system unit costs are similar to the F-35 through FY 2024. Considering the F-15EX is based on the QA with EPAWSS that is hardly an attractive comparison.

    in reply to: USAF not F-35 thread #2108782
    FBW
    Participant

    Ok, but a watchdog group complaining do not mean that there was any fraud at all. Which is what some here imply. (how couldit be different? F-35 is SOOOOO superior to F-15)

    Did the USAF ask for or include any F-15EX in their initial requests or plans? Where did the addition come from?

    OSD, headed by the acticting SecDef. That same acting SecDef was with Boeing for 30 years. That is where the ethics complaint is coming from. I don’t think it’s in the US best interest for Boeing to be out of the fighter business when F-18 production ends, but this whole process has been irregular.

    There is is no requirement for more legacy aircraft, and since the announcement, there has been considerable attempts to justify the inclusion of the F-15EX. The USAF stated the preference for more F-35, this is in the hands of Congress now. Boeing has had a rather bad two weeks, I for one don’t like the odds of any F-15EX getting funded.

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2108795
    FBW
    Participant

    That is completely delusional.
    Turkey isn’t planning on moving those two aircraft from Luke anytime soon, nor could they without the US facilitation. The US isn’t moving to seize them or to outright state that the two aircraft will not be able to leave. Neither nation is looking to force this issue to a very public confrontation right now.

    However, should Turkey be permanently be suspended from the F-35 program, those two aircraft would be orphaned. They will not leave before the issue is resolved, one way or the other.

    Should November roll around and Turkey has followed through with the purchase of the S-400, those aircraft at Luke will be stranded because Congress will block Turkish participation in the F-35, most likely add the weapons export ban that was considered last summer. Turkey would likely be added to ITAR restricted countries.

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2108853
    FBW
    Participant

    Bayar bring these over to the “rainbow and unicorn” Turkish thread. Your not up on the current news and situation:

    Trump signed a bill blocking the F-35 transfer in February. Unlike Erdogan, Trump cannot rule by decree even IF he wanted to bypass Congress. Bottom line, short of Turkey abandoning the S-400, they aren’t getting the F-35. The Turkish media and government can write and makes statements otherwise, but that’s the current position based on the signed spending bill. The next report isn’t due until Nov. 2019.

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2108878
    FBW
    Participant

    Replied in Turkish aerospace

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2109178
    FBW
    Participant

    [USER=”41059″]halloweene[/USER]
    the Italian payment issue is more of an internal funding issue than a deliberate act toward Italy’s participation in the program.

    As far as competitions. I’d agree on the Swiss. Disagree on Finland. I think the F-35 has a better than even chance. Considering all factors, including foreign policy, I’d say the Gripen and F-35 are the two most likely. Dassault’s biggest hurtles are Finland’s stockpile of US ordinance.

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2109295
    FBW
    Participant

    It is now safe to say that but for the 2 F-35’s that have already been delivered to Turkey- Turkey will not be a partner in the JSF consortium in the near future.

    Couldnt be happier with that outcome. Good luck to Turkey in all their future aerospace endeavors, and to finding and training an entirely new cadre of pilots to replace the hundreds purged. The S-400 is probably a better choice since no one is left to fly the F-35’s ordered.

    All that’s left now is funding the repurchase of those two Turkish F-35 as they will never be able to leave US soil.

    in reply to: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!- #2109378
    FBW
    Participant

    [USER=”77174″]panzerfeist1[/USER] – are you so sure on the thrust to weight ratio of the Su-57? Has the official empty weigh ever been confirmed or are you using Wikipedia to extrapolate the thrust to weight ratio of the aircraft? I’m guessing the later.

    in reply to: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!- #2109381
    FBW
    Participant

    Yes, he is comparing T/W of the engines not the jets.

    Also, i think information that F135 weight 1700 kg is not accurate. It’s 65cm longer (about 13%) and 16cm wider in diameter (about 17%) than AL-41F1S, so it’s about 30% bigger but only 6% heavier? Quite doubtful.

    Interesting theory, maybe you should contact the maintainers who work on the engine because the weight was listed twice in articles referring to them. I posted one. The other was scrubbed of weight data, after the fact. The OEM has never released the weight of the F119 or the F135, nor has the gov.

    Sources like Wikipedia extrapolated the weight based on engine thrust to weight of other contemporary engines…. they were wrong. We run into this type of denial all the time, opinion vs. data. Data says your wrong.

    in reply to: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!- #2109462
    FBW
    Participant

    That article was from 2011. In light of what we know eight years later, the service was not satisfied with the -117 for production variants. It was (is) very much an interim engine until the izdeliye 30 is complete. Not sure why Austin reposted that.

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2109761
    FBW
    Participant

    Do not shoot the messener.

    Cost of F-35 Block 4 Upgrade Quadruples But May Not Suffice
    (Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; posted March 09, 2018)

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art…t-suffice.html

    Different topic

    http://airforcemag.com/MagazineArchi…-Bad-Guys.aspx

    That will take some digging, but of one thing I’m sure…. when De Briganti writes, he lies. No idea why people post his articles. Defense-aerospace would be a more reliable site if it was just a news aggregator. Every piece written for the site is flawed (unless it’s about French aerospace)… even then

    Just recently, he posted on twitter that F-35 costs rose on a per unit basis, apparently he doesn’t know, care, or understand the difference between unit costs and program costs.

    in reply to: USAF not F-35 thread #2110006
    FBW
    Participant

    Overall, the good:
    increased airmen and pilots (very much needed with retention problems)
    NGAD budget triples
    B-21 funding hits 3 billion

    The Bad (unfortunately considerably more points in my opinion):

    Cutting KC-46 to 12 (even with current issues)

    Still no clarity on E-8 replacement

    48 F-35A- budgets aren’t going to get any bigger post-2020 and there is an upcoming bow wave in the 2020’s with: B-21, T-X, PCA (whatever this ends up as). The USAF is literally facing a cliff. Either continue investment in F-16 upgrades and SLEP (with added risk whether airframe life can be expanded safely and cheaply), and F-15C will likely be gone sooner than later. Without buying upward of 70 aircraft per year, the USAF is going to have to throw billions into the legacy fleet and still face a precipitous drop in “shooters” by the mid-2020’s
    They should be buying the max of 72 F-35A per year. Capping buys till block 4 is going to backfire.

    Hypersonic investment is disappointing, the funding level remaining steady suggests TRL isn’t particularly mature.

    in reply to: 2019 F-35 News and Discussion #2110211
    FBW
    Participant

    https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/…-gen-fighters/

    Great series of podcasts, they are just starting on highlighting particular aircraft. Worth listening and supporting.

    note-From about halfway point in this episode there are some interesting anecdotes about the F-35 displays and systems. These are more nuts and bolts of military aviation, not statistics and metrics, and (to me) far more interesting. The actual experiences of flying (mostly naval aviation) from a practical standpoint.

    Some particulary interesting episodes were Carrier I&II, and the F-18 episode.

    in reply to: Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!- #2110510
    FBW
    Participant

    Some interesting notes :

    1.Development target of T/W of 10:1 has not change.
    2.Internal Weapon Bay capacity of Su-57 is about 4200 Kg.
    3.Still hasn’t give up on flat nozzle eh.

    Looking over at Secretprojects, Flateric made a good point

    The parts in the quotes are the statements from the designer, the rest is Journalist’s comments. In other words, flat nozzle not mentioned by Marchukov. Other thing, type 30 appears to be incorporate VCE (which would explain long development time), at least I think that’s being confirmed by Marchukov. It’s unclear if he’s making a general statement or referring to product 30.

    That and Russia is looking at developing “third stream” engine similar to AETP.

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 2,935 total)