FBWGuys,
There appears to be less and less goodwill here towards me and perhaps the time for this Gentleman Amateur has passed.It has been fun Sintra, Swerve and many others but I no longer feel I am contributing or being included in a fun conversation.
Good luck with it all guys.
Ben
Fair winds and following seas, mr. Malaya. Definitely a less convivial place on here these days.
Enjoy.
FBWYes, there are no hard numbers which would provide an apple-to-apple comparison, but all air forces on this planet going for the F-35 are unisono claiming it is extremely expensive. There is no single exception from this rule.. This Canadian pick of 18 Superbugs on the cost grounds clearly confirms it – I don’t know what is there to argue about..
Well, in Brazil, the Rafale has been more expensive than the Superbug.. I don’t know about India since the F-18 was kicked out rather early in the game, maybe on technical grounds? Anyway, the price difference between these two is rather marginal, I would say.. At the same time, the difference to the F-35 must be rather immense, other way this Canadian move would not make any sense..
Msphere, this is your usual suppositions without documentation.
Please kindly point out the Canadian gov costing the F-35 vis a vis the F-18 E/F. You can’t because they’ve not researched just how much this deal is going to cost.
The immense difference is in the political winds blowing through Ottawa.
Btw, I do recall you and others claiming that foreign airforces could buy 2 Rafale for every one F-35. A bigger line of B.S. never uttered on this forum. India laid bare the costs….they are not pretty.
FBWThere will be no short term impact to Canadian industry and maybe none long term, unless they back out of the program all together. The F 35 is not combat ready. This was a major slap in the face for a program looking for revenue from early adopters. Very happy we did not commit to the F35 at this point.
If you really believe that, reality is going to be unpleasant. Short term, existing contracts are in place. Long term-just as the farce of Canadian participation in the F-35 is continued to avoid a legal challenge, the farce of Canadian firms bidding on F-35 contracts will continue as to avoid legal challenges.
US just elected a protectionist president with a Republican congress. Any leverage Canada might have had went out the window Nov 8..
FBWNext few days will be interesting: Canadian aerospace & defense firms are going to fight this. They know this will impact their bidding on F-35 contracts (even though Canada is technically staying in the program by making payments). Interim buy pushes fighter competition out past 2020.
Trudeau et al. saving face with an expensive half measure, one that will hurt Canadian companies.
Stick with the F-35, or don’t at least get some industrial participation. This is double stupid.
FBWTrudeau’s government-we protest the single source procurement of the F-35, we therefore will hold an open competition. No wait, we will single source an interim solution.
Bets on if this actually goes through?
FBWWoW !!!
Is there anything this magical plane cannot do? Can it cook? Can it walk the dog? Can it make coffee?
I think everyone -including Russia- should give up and order some of them planes now!
Again, not what the pilot said. GarryA/Haavarla language barrier? The pilot is talking about nose pointing:
At its maximum angle of attack, the F-35 reacts more quickly to the pilot’s “pedal inputs,” which command the nose of the plane from side to side, than does the F-16, according to Hanche.
“This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent,” Hanche wrote. “This ‘pedal turn’ yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds
or from Heritage foundation study:
Even pre-IOC,[26] this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turns[27] are incredible and deliver a constant 28 degrees/second.
FBWsince the computer was frozen on gripen E after F-35, its rather possible it out-perform F-35,
whats the esm pixie dust USA uses that none else is allowed btw ?
Because you want it to be so? Let’s look at the Gripen E/F TMC and the F-35 ICP systems
Gripen TMC
AMC-141x = 6 PowerPC modules (no indication of what microprocessor), connected with the ubiquitous MIL-STD-1553B databus design (1 mb/s, newer 10 mb/s available-120 mb/s have been tested)
Edit- Highest theoretical speed for MIL-STD-1553 standard databus is in the hundreds of mb/s. The newer IEEE 1394 standard allows for theoretical gb/s transfer rates)
System architecture:
http://www.gripenblogs.com/AnalyticsReports/2.jpg
F-35-
Original ICP components-PowerPC with AltiVec microprocessor, IEEE 1394 databus (400 mb/s)
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-14/issue-5/features/special-report/f-35-jet-fighters-to-take-integrated-avionics-to-a-whole-new-level.html
The new Saab TMC were flying in the Gripen C/D in 2010. The New ICP components for the F-35 (TR-2) already flying (2015-16), new hardware components for technology refresh 3 contracts are to be awarded in 2017. The Gripen E/F system architecture is limited by the amount and speed of data shared between sensors, mission computers via dated databus standard.
The F-35 ICP will be upgraded 3 times before the Gripen E IOC
FBW. And what’s with the 28 deg sust rate??
It’s not a 28 deg sustained rate of turn, read the quote from the pilot. He is talking about a pedal turn- nose pointing.
FBWHow about the most obvious one, what can the F-117 possible give the F-22 pilots in term of training in a knife-fight?
Which was InFact written in that article. And what would it cost to start producing spare parts for them again..?
The problem is realistic training for US 5th gen fleet. Doesn’t do them any good to train against adversaries they can detect and target before they themselves are vulnerable. “Knife fight”? 5 T-38 v F-22 would be sufficient training for that scenario, overkill really. The F-117 would provide a low RCS, low IR, non-emitting adversary to test NCTR, combat ID, Detection range, everything that will actually matter to extend engagement zone outside of the mutual kill NEZ of modern IIR missiles within .1-8 miles.
FBWConservative leaning Heritage Foundation index of US military strength 2017. Has caused a bit of an uproar.
Highlights:
Wants to restore US ability to successfully fight two MRC’s at the same time
Army: 50 brigade combat teams (BCTs);
• Navy: 346 surface combatants and 624
strike aircraft;
• Air Force: 1,200 fighter/ground-attack
aircraft; and
• Marine Corps: 36 battalions
Rates US Army as “weak” relative to criteria
USAF as “Marginal”
Navy “Marginal”
Marines “Marginal”
Obviously read the criteria as this is a relative score to thier stated requirements.
whole document can be downloaded here:
http://index.heritage.org/military/2017/?_ga=1.83863509.210074539.1479484800
Personally- I think they overstate the threat posed by certain nations mentioned. Readiness is biggest concern, 10+ years of deployments damaged Army readiness, maintenance, training. Considering personnel costs, 50 BCT is unrealistic (who are we going to be using 15-17 deployed BCT against at any one time?, they want 21 per MRC, assuming a need for 42 active BCT = 20% strategic reserve). Airforce Recap most critical factor, least dominant of the three major branches compared to potential adversaries. Completely disagree on Navy status, other than SSN shortfall next decade, the USN overmatch in any potential theater is perhaps greater than at any time since WWII.
Opinions?
FBWThe request for 72 F-15 is two years old… USA took their time to answer. Too late? Btw, more expensive package than Raale in India package (i admit there is no real comparison possible)
FMS package:
http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/qatar_16-58.pdf
I wouldn’t say that the Rafale package is less expensive as FMS proposal estimates are often high. The FMS proposal does not stipulate total value of the weapons package, extent of support, or costs of fighter lead-in training. The latest F-15E variants approach 100 million, so I doubt there is much difference in the acquisition costs associated with the aircraft themselves.
FBWEeeh, was’t Trump suppose to be the magic morgul wizard whom gonna fix US economy and trade deficits?
Lol, how is all this gonna work with increased defence budget?
That would depend of if one agrees with the notion that the U.S. economy needs fixing (not to make this political). Of course, one has to buy into his promise to restore rust belt manufacturing too. Recently had this discussion with students in a history of American economics class; working in steel, textile, or heavy industry is not a particularly desireable or financially secure outcome for the majority of Americans in the 21st century.
FBWDOT&E Memo: F-35 Still Challenged
Never seen worse communication on a weapons program. DOT&E will report an issue that JPO has already addressed. Even as these DOT&E reports are issued, the deficencies and recommendations are obsolete. The same concerns DOT&E is raising with 3FR6 was raised with 2B, 3i. Not to mention it has already been reported that the program was unlikely to complete SDD test points by the planned date (as well as funding shortfall).
Gilmore seems determined to get his “restructuring” as the dogfight between JPO and DOT&E continues. If McCain gets his way, killing off JPO (and creating a new undersecretary for R&D), and strengthening DOT&E, woe to future defense programs. There are always going to be bugs and deficiencies in a new weapon system. The question is operational impact. In the case of the F-35, IMHO JPO and JOTT have demonstrated agility in finding, implementing, and testing fixes. DOT&E proposals will draw out development, impact production and deployment, and that will ultimately be more costly in the end.
FBWSo, the Su-33. It had two R-77, two IR short R missile, two FAB 500, Two KNIRTI jammer pods and an unknown amount of fuel.
The Su-33 weight some 19000kg. So what is the Take-off weight?
Max take-off weight? That would depend on max run out ( waist tie down/defector), WoD.
Before some moron posted over on naval thread (about trolls because I dared point out that Carrier had to be moving to launch loaded aircraft), I pointed out that simulations on F-18E/F off a ski jump only needed moderate (16 knot I believe) WoD for a Super to launch at loaded weight.
Su-33 most likely has lower stall speed (even at loaded weight), similar thrust to weight as a F-18 E/F. As the air wing fully works up, the loads will likely increase. Kuznetsov steaming into a moderate wind should be able to launch the Su-33 with a fairly heavy load.
FBWOne of the strategies I see the defense hawks favor is to move the entire nuclear enterprise outside of the USAF budget and funding it through a separate annual increase in defense spending
-They would find an unlikely bedfellow in the Navy strongly advocating a national deterrence fund (special sea-based deterrent fund for Ohio replacement/Colombia class isnt funded as of yet). That would help the overall USAF budget by divesting the costs of the ICBM moderization/sustainment/recap. The B-21 is not expected to be nuclear capable initially, so that will stay in the combat aircraft budget.
Solely focusing on the combat aircraft procurement budget (forget overall procurement budget which has to accomodate the FRP KC-46A, T-X, JSTARS recap, CRH replacement, Minuteman moderization/sustainment and eventual GBSD replacement, am I missing anything?), the F-35A program procurement is projected to be 11.2 billion (TY) by 2020. Obviously, the budget needs to grow to accomodate the bow wave that was anticipated between 2020-28.
These proposals are more akin to a budget tsunami. Everyone would love more air superiority squadrons to meet the needs of the 10 AEF (something that Gates ignored), but (personally) don’t think rationale for resurrecting the F-22 is cogent in light of budget realities, F-22 system architecture, the PCA requirements.
Sign In
