- 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
0
Posted on 1/1/17 at 6:22 pm to Drew Orleans
quote:
Oh look a factual and intelligent post...
No worries. I RA'd.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 7:41 pm to ElwoodBlues
quote:
Bring the Tomcat out of retirement!
That one should be at the bone yard and on display at Pima, but I think it's time has passed.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 7:44 pm to Napoleon
quote:
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.
That book Skunk Works gives some insight into it. Like the Saturn V and Apollo program, there are some stunning engineering stories from back in the day. Somehow the process got corrupted.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 7:58 pm to GEAUXmedic
quote:
Trump already has Boeing pricing out F-18s. I
The new F-18s cost more per plane than F-35s currently do. That doesnt include the costs previously put into development of either plane, but moving forward the F-18s would cost more per plane.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 8:11 pm to FlyingTiger06
quote:
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.
Maybe that's part of the problem. Perhaps neither platform has enough versatility.
quote:
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.
I've grown cynical in listening to the USAF over the years tell us what it needs. This may be 100% correct but I have a hard time believing the USAF is going to Congress and delivering faithful assessments any longer. I think that if this statement was true we'd have seen them working a lot harder and a lot smarter to get this F35 and its allegedly magical capabilities out there sooner.
quote:
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.
That carries the same amount of credibility then, as statements asserting it doesn't have any capability. As long as they keep the F35 shrouded in mystery, none of us will know.
quote:
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.
This type of message has become irritatingly predictable from the USAF: "We need more money that we promised you we'd need, we need more time than we promised you we'd need, we can't deliver capability we promised we'd provide."
quote:
The F-22 was not used in the GWOT fight in Iraq and Afghanistan because its capabilities (air superiority fighter) were not needed.
That's exactly the same mission that was sold to the American people for the F16 and F15.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 8:14 pm to Drew Orleans
quote:
Oh look a factual and intelligent post...
It reads more like the same befuddled and confused budget statements the USAF sends to Congress each year.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 8:25 pm to VaBamaMan
quote:
The new F-18s cost more per plane than F-35s currently do. That doesnt include the costs previously put into development of either plane, but moving forward the F-18s would cost more per plane.
The cost for the F-18 means you can get in it and fly it away. The cost for all variants of the F-35 is 1) higher than the cost for the F-18, and 2) does not include an engine.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 9:20 pm to UF
Wrong board, move to political board
Posted on 1/1/17 at 9:51 pm to UF
Screw all this:
Bring back the F-4 Phantom
Old Smokie
Bring back the F-4 Phantom
Old Smokie
Posted on 1/1/17 at 10:34 pm to UF
says the guy who clearly doesn't know very much about the 22, 35 or fighters in general.
Posted on 1/1/17 at 10:44 pm to UF
Versatility is what has made the 35 year arse pain it is. Too many stupid requirements and trying to fill too many roles.
What do you mean here? That is was a lie and that the 15 and 16 weren't needed, or that they are already filling that role and therefore we don't need the 22 or 35?
quote:
That's exactly the same mission that was sold to the American people for the F16 and F15.
What do you mean here? That is was a lie and that the 15 and 16 weren't needed, or that they are already filling that role and therefore we don't need the 22 or 35?
This post was edited on 1/1/17 at 10:50 pm
Posted on 1/2/17 at 9:33 am to GEAUXmedic
These people have no idea what the hell they are talking about.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 8:10 am to UF
Mattis Backs F-35 Stealth Fighter Criticized by Trump
quote:
Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis — Donald Trump’s choice for defense secretary — backed the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet program recently criticized by the president-elect, according to a senator who met with Mattis on Tuesday.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the Hartford Courant newspaper that Mattis gave a “clear commitment” to the continuation of the F-35 program despite Trump’s repeated criticism of its huge costs and questionable performance thus far.
In an earlier statement, Blumenthal said of his meeting with Mattis, “I was encouraged by his clear commitment to American air superiority and the important role of the F-35 program in sustaining and enhancing it.”
Lockheed Chief Executive Officer Marillyn Hewson met with Trump before Christmas and pledged to revamp the program.
“I’ve heard his message loud and clear about reducing the cost of the F-35,” she said in a statement. “I gave him my personal commitment to drive the cost down aggressively.”
Mattis has a reputation for independence and his backing of the F-35 would not be the first time that his judgment has been at odds with Trump’s.
In lavishing praise on Mattis during the announcement of his choice of defense secretary, Trump said it was a revelation to him when Mattis rejected the use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” on suspected terrorists.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 8:11 am to UF
How is this even an issue?
The F-35 is here. We already have squadrons using it. It's not like we are going to give back the billions in planes that have been fielded and use the F-18...
This is a hot topic that seeks to do nothing more than divide people on the issue.
The F-35 is going nowhere.
The F-35 is here. We already have squadrons using it. It's not like we are going to give back the billions in planes that have been fielded and use the F-18...
This is a hot topic that seeks to do nothing more than divide people on the issue.
The F-35 is going nowhere.
This post was edited on 1/5/17 at 8:12 am
Posted on 1/5/17 at 8:14 am to GEAUXmedic
quote:
Agreed, although I think he isn't looking to rebuild old airframes, as he is modernizing a new F-18 design and ordering new planes from Boeing, rather than the F-35s.
This will not happen. This would require billions of dollars of development to field a sizable fleet of 5th generation fighters. Trump is not trying to set new directions in military procurement. He's trying to implement current policy at a fraction of the price. It's the Art of the Deal folks, and major procurements generally left to the Pentagon will have Trump involved. He's a new kind of POTUS that will interject himself into said procurements in order to decrease the bottom line as he has in his business endeavors.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 8:19 am to King Teal
quote:
How is this even an issue?
The F-35 is the OT's personal whipping boy. The program has its warts, but over the last 7 years when the program was under threat of being cancelled, DOD and Lockheed have made great strides in reducing cost overruns and significant delays by flattening production, replacing program management on both sides, and rebaselining the contract. It's shown improvement.
It's the most advanced aircraft in the world, other countries are buying them, Marines and airmen are consistently awed by its capabilities, and it's here to stay.
This post was edited on 1/5/17 at 8:20 am
Posted on 1/5/17 at 8:26 am to King Teal
quote:
The F-35 is here. We already have squadrons using it.
"Using it" is really a misnomer. Having a few flying around is far different than having squadrons being combat ready...
Posted on 1/5/17 at 8:28 am to UF
quote:
it will end up changing the nature of that process forever.
I sure hope so. It's one of the most corrupt and wasteful areas of government spending.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:08 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:Well then in that case, it's just semantics, anyway.
"Using it" is really a misnomer. Having a few flying around is far different than having squadrons being combat ready...
Anyone who knows how long it takes to research, produce, and assimilate planes into the US arsenal knows that if we are at the point where regular US pilots are flying these, as opposed to test pilots, then we are 95% of the way complete. The other 5% comes with continued support and refining small particulars of the program.
So, as I said, the F-35 is nothing more than Twitter fodder to distract or drum up support for some other political interest. This program is not going anywhere.
Besides, Trump thinks the Super Hornet will replace the F-35
Two completely different planes with different capabilities.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News