- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: First F-35 Thread of 2017
Posted on 1/1/17 at 9:56 am to biohzrd
Posted on 1/1/17 at 9:56 am to biohzrd
quote:
Problem that a lot of people don't realize is that airframes have life exspcectancy to them. To "rebuild" the airframes while at the same time modernize them may be cost prohibitive. Why put 30-40 million into something that is still old, still not stealth? While yes it is cheaper it is still a used plane. If Trump can get the price down to 75-80 million on a brand new, fully stealth F35 it's a no brainier to go with the F35.
Look up the H1 program Bell did. It's crazy how much money was spent on upgrading the aircraft and how many issues they still have today.
0
Posted on 1/1/17 at 10:01 am to LSUSUPERSTAR
quote:
You have almost 2000 posts in two months.
Who's alter are you?
My posts will slow down after the 20th.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 10:26 am to jcaz
quote:
No matter what people think or want the F-35 is turning the corner and it's here to stay. Maybe not in the kind of numbers of F-16's and F-18's in the inventories but the capabilities of the F-35 are needed.
It's easy to say it's turning the corner when that corner gets easier and easier by re-writing the performance goals.
As for its capabilities, there is zero evidence it has any. The USAF tells us a squadron is combat ready. It's 'certification' entailed going to another base and doing 8 sorties.
If they want to prove it's ready, they need to show a pilot taking a selfie while buzzing Beijing or something. Otherwise, it's just hollow words.
The F-22 was another boondoggle. It's telling that the F-22 came online in the middle of the GWOT and did nothing at all in Iraq or AFG.
If you look at the expected lifetime of the F-22 and F-35, and their costs, you could pay ALL of the DoD personnel costs over that length of time, using the highest levels of manning during the GWOT, by eliminating those two platforms, neither of which has done anything in combat.
The contractors and manufacturers of the F-22 and F-35 have put a knife in the back of service members by holding the govt hostage on these boondoggles, to the point where troop cuts became the only way to cut costs. Of course, the top civilians at DoD and the GOs are to blame for this as well.
These two programs are net losses for the American people, for over 20 years now and are major contributors to the upending of thousands and thousands of military families, the gutting of combat experience, as well as putting off necessary refurb of items that actually go to war.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 10:45 am to UF
Although the F-35 program is questionable, isn't it a better overall aircraft than the F-18 in terms of attack and defense?
Posted on 1/1/17 at 10:47 am to lsuroadie
quote:The OT takes the F-35 program seriously.
I opened this thread b/c thought for sure is was a joke or sarcasm... but damn, y'all are serious up in here
This post was edited on 1/1/17 at 10:48 am
Posted on 1/1/17 at 10:50 am to soccerfüt
things would have been a lot simpler if three different airframes were built....
the F-111 should have been the lesson of not trying to get a single airframe to perform too many missions....
the F-111 should have been the lesson of not trying to get a single airframe to perform too many missions....
Posted on 1/1/17 at 11:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well the premise was faulty initially, "forcing" the proposed plane on all the branches
There never has, nor will be, a 'one-size-fits-all' fighter aircraft.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 11:23 am to vl100butch
quote:
the F-111 should have been the lesson of not trying to get a single airframe to perform too many missions....
My man!
I have used the Aardvark example several times in this subject area.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 11:30 am to UF
quote:
It's telling that the F-22 came online in the middle of the GWOT and did nothing at all in Iraq or AFG
There was no mission for the F-22 in Iraq or AFG. Not a great example of the boondoggle.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 11:44 am to tigerpawl
quote:
Although the F-35 program is questionable, isn't it a better overall aircraft than the F-18 in terms of attack and defense?
According to Lockheed it can do time travel and will cure cancer with its chemtrail device.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 11:46 am to vl100butch
quote:
he F-111 should have been the lesson of not trying to get a single airframe to perform too many missions....
good point, f-111 was another odd program
Posted on 1/1/17 at 11:58 am to UF
Can the president even "refuse delivery" of a load of airplanes?
It's not some dude with brown shorts knocks on 1600 PA looking for someone to sign for a package.
"Nope, send it back... don't want it"
It's not some dude with brown shorts knocks on 1600 PA looking for someone to sign for a package.
"Nope, send it back... don't want it"
Posted on 1/1/17 at 12:01 pm to slacker130
quote:
There was no mission for the F-22 in Iraq or AFG. Not a great example of the boondoggle.
But there was a mission for the F-16 and its 3 minute loiter time?
Could it be worse than this:
Raider 6 this is Rhino 2 7, check in, 2 F16.
RGR Rhino 2 7. Troops in contact, my location is xyz, marking with green smoke and VS17. Enemy is squad size, small arms, 500m due north of my trace, break
Request you pass east to west.
Raider 6 this is Rhino 2 7, low on fuel, we're gonna gas up and be back in 15. Rhino 2 7 out.
This post was edited on 1/1/17 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 1/1/17 at 12:07 pm to Fatty Magoo
quote:
Can the president even "refuse delivery" of a load of airplanes?
It's not some dude with brown shorts knocks on 1600 PA looking for someone to sign for a package.
"Nope, send it back... don't want it"
Yes. The govt has reasonable powers to say 'hey you're not delivering what you promised' but in acquisitions they conveniently just don't do this.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 1:02 pm to UF
Bring the Tomcat out of retirement!
Posted on 1/1/17 at 2:07 pm to UF
quote:
Is the Growler a step up from the EA-6B?
Yes, they are a complete generational jump ahead of the EA-6B.
My friend flies Growlers and he says the EW and ECM capabilities of the Growlers are simply astounding. He can't say much more due it being Classified
This post was edited on 1/1/17 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 1/1/17 at 3:17 pm to UF
the big mistake from day one was trying to accommodate the Marines.
You can make many planes that the Navy can use (stronger landing gear, tail hooks, etc) the air force can use anything with wings. The Marines though wanted a stealth harrier that was easier to fly and faster.
They should have just designed a separate plane for that role solely.
I don't get how back in the day planes went from drawing board to service in five years, and now it takes 20-25.
You can make many planes that the Navy can use (stronger landing gear, tail hooks, etc) the air force can use anything with wings. The Marines though wanted a stealth harrier that was easier to fly and faster.
They should have just designed a separate plane for that role solely.
I don't get how back in the day planes went from drawing board to service in five years, and now it takes 20-25.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 3:21 pm to UF
My biggest deal with the f-35 is that it basically wiped out the funding to keep up the A-10s. Living in Shreveport I've seen A-10s flyover throughout the years, and the air strikes have saved so many lives while scareing the shite out of bad guys.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 4:34 pm to UF
I'm not going to try to go through and quote every thing I'm responding to, but here are several points where some of you have missed the mark in your criticism of the F-35 and other incorrect statements in this thread.
1. The F-35 and F-22 have much different missions, so producing more F-22s is NOT a good answer to cutting the F-35.
2. The recent award of $400M to Lockheed was not an increase in cost of the F-35 program. That was the execution of a lot in the contract for purchasing aircraft.
3. Electronic Attack (aka jamming) is not enough to allow legacy (i.e. non-low observable) aircraft to penetrate modern IADS. So it is incorrect to say that we can just use the Growlers to jam so we don't need the F-35.
4. Low Observable aircraft (aka stealth aircraft) are not invisible, so yes there are means to track them. The idea of low observable aircraft is to greatly decrease the range that a radar can track the aircraft. This allows the attacking aircraft to get close enough to employ weapons before the radar can track the attacking aircraft.
5. If you aren't read-in to all the Special Access Programs (SAPs) involved with the F-35, then you have no clue what the aircraft is capable of. I'm not read-in to them either, but I'm sure they exist.
6. The F-22 was prematurely cancelled because of all the same grumblings the F-35 is getting now (it costs too much, it is behind schedule, it doesn't work, etc). The aircraft isn't even to its Initial Operational Capability (IOC) yet. Cancellation of the F-22 should show us that we have to be patient.
7. The AF didn't cancel the F-22. Congress terminated it.
8. The F-22 was not used in the GWOT fight in Iraq and Afghanistan because its capabilities (air superiority fighter) were not needed. Much like ICBMs, we have F-22s for a fight we hope to never get into (a fight with a "near-peer" competitor such as Russia or China). However, if that fight ever arises we'll definitely need them.
9. As someone else stated, the Marine Corps "need" for VTOL capability greatly hurt the F-35 program.
1. The F-35 and F-22 have much different missions, so producing more F-22s is NOT a good answer to cutting the F-35.
2. The recent award of $400M to Lockheed was not an increase in cost of the F-35 program. That was the execution of a lot in the contract for purchasing aircraft.
3. Electronic Attack (aka jamming) is not enough to allow legacy (i.e. non-low observable) aircraft to penetrate modern IADS. So it is incorrect to say that we can just use the Growlers to jam so we don't need the F-35.
4. Low Observable aircraft (aka stealth aircraft) are not invisible, so yes there are means to track them. The idea of low observable aircraft is to greatly decrease the range that a radar can track the aircraft. This allows the attacking aircraft to get close enough to employ weapons before the radar can track the attacking aircraft.
5. If you aren't read-in to all the Special Access Programs (SAPs) involved with the F-35, then you have no clue what the aircraft is capable of. I'm not read-in to them either, but I'm sure they exist.
6. The F-22 was prematurely cancelled because of all the same grumblings the F-35 is getting now (it costs too much, it is behind schedule, it doesn't work, etc). The aircraft isn't even to its Initial Operational Capability (IOC) yet. Cancellation of the F-22 should show us that we have to be patient.
7. The AF didn't cancel the F-22. Congress terminated it.
8. The F-22 was not used in the GWOT fight in Iraq and Afghanistan because its capabilities (air superiority fighter) were not needed. Much like ICBMs, we have F-22s for a fight we hope to never get into (a fight with a "near-peer" competitor such as Russia or China). However, if that fight ever arises we'll definitely need them.
9. As someone else stated, the Marine Corps "need" for VTOL capability greatly hurt the F-35 program.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 5:04 pm to FlyingTiger06
Oh look a factual and intelligent post...
This post was edited on 1/1/17 at 5:08 pm
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News