tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:59 pm

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ng%20Finds%20Additional%20Problems

Before 2020, doesn't look likely for the US forces, especially the Navy. The British are worried that their new aircraft carrier will be ready before then and will have no planes and an empty deck. They are thinking about the F-18 or others as a solution, especially if there is no easy and quick solution to the B's arrestor hook problem. If the British do order something else due to the delays, do they cancel their F-35B orders?

Canada has publicly stated, their F-35 IOC not before 2020.

I wonder if the partner countries are also on the hook for cost over runs?

Has there ever been such a long development period for an aircraft? From the 1990s to 2020s it's going to be about 25 years to IOC. These early LRIP tranches are just test planes that will likely never see action. How long did it take for the F-22?
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:45 am

from the above Aviationweek report:
"Meanwhile, changes continue inside the JSF program office, where Director of Engineering Doug Ebersole has been overseeing a transition from an office that that “reviews and reports” to one that “engages and influences,” according to an August 2011 briefing. Also, and apparently for the first time, the office is establishing a strong engineering presence in Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth production center."

Engineering that is remote from the manufacturing floor is always late, incomplete, and second guessing the problems. The releases of revised engineering frequently take twice to three times as long to reach the production floor.. So these engineering staffing changes should produce more timely results.

[Edited 2012-02-04 18:39:31 by srbmod]
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:32 am

FYI, 2020 is the IOC for Block 3 F-35's. The USMC intends to IOC the F-35B using Block 2B software sometime in 2016.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:45 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Thread starter):
They are thinking about the F-18 or others as a solution, especially if there is no easy and quick solution to the B's arrestor hook problem. If the British do order something else due to the delays, do they cancel their F-35B orders?

The British cancelled their 'B' orders awhile ago. The 'C' model is the one having arresting hook problems. The British changed their order to the 'C' model.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:44 am

My understanding is that Lockheed Martin has a solution to the arrestor hook problem and the problem isn't as huge as some have suggested.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 2):
FYI, 2020 is the IOC for Block 3 F-35's. The USMC intends to IOC the F-35B using Block 2B software sometime in 2016.

Sounds like the title of this thread is based on information taken out of context. But then, the media and avid F-35 bashers would commend someone for doing that, whether intentionally or accidentally.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:58 am

There is definitely a large contingent of anti-f35 people here.

It sort of reminds me of all the numnutz that where and still do dog the 787 as a waste of money and a failure
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:43 pm

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 4):
Sounds like the title of this thread is based on information taken out of context. But then, the media and avid F-35 bashers would commend someone for doing that, whether intentionally or accidentally.

The title is taken from official IOC date estimates and discussions by two Non US F-35 program participants. Stated clear as day.

State side, neither Lockheed, the US DoD nor any US forces have released an IOC date for the F-35 or given any official estimates. I am just stating the facts.

And I really can't fault the US DoD for not putting out an IOC date, IMHO it seems too premature with all the issues outstanding, which only indicates to me that IOC will probably be later rather than sooner.

Let me ask again, how many years did it take for the F-22 to reach IOC from program start?
 
redflyer
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:14 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 5):
There is definitely a large contingent of anti-f35 people here.

It sort of reminds me of all the numnutz that where and still do dog the 787 as a waste of money and a failure

Not to go off-topic, but I think if Boeing had a crystal ball and could see into the future back in 2004, they would probably have held off on launching the 787 program and, even if they did launch it, the plane would be something quite different than what we see today. So those "numnutz" you refer to aren't really devoid of common sense as the label would otherwise imply.

Having said that, while I'm not necessarily an anti-F35'er, I sure do think this program was over-promised. Anytime you try to make something appease a multitude of competing interests then no one ends up happy.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:13 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
The title is taken from official IOC date estimates and discussions by two Non US F-35 program participants. Stated clear as day.

Someone better tell that to Japan, as they plan on introducing the F-35 in 2016.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
State side, neither Lockheed, the US DoD nor any US forces have released an IOC date for the F-35 or given any official estimates. I am just stating the facts.

April 2016 for the USAF and USN was the last estimate by the DoD.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:33 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Thread starter):
especially if there is no easy and quick solution to the B's arrestor hook problem

lol, other than the revised design they already have... F-35C will have to be canceled because of a little hook.

I really dont understand how people think every minor problem is a game ender? Most complicated aircraft ever built, everything doesnt work perfect first try, it is a failure.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:02 am

Quoting Oroka (Reply 9):
F-35C will have to be canceled because of a little hook.

Tell that to the British who may very well do that over that little hook, unless that little hook can be fixed to do it's job fairly quickly. The Brits will have a tough time commissioning a brand new aircraft carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales - and then mothball it awaiting aircraft.

It's not that everything must be perfect, there has been plenty of time built in to the program to iron things out - the problem is that the program is just no going anywhere near to plan - costs are already 50% overboard. There has to be a limit and the ultimate safeguard is pulling the plug.

[Edited 2012-02-06 21:05:26]
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:24 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 10):

Tell that to the British who may very well do that over that little hook, unless that little hook can be fixed to do it's job fairly quickly. The Brits will have a tough time commissioning a brand new aircraft carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales - and then mothball it awaiting aircraft.

So you are calling a mis-profiled tail hook causing the tail hook to skip a catastrophic disaster?

The whole business of getting arresting hooks to work is actually highly complex and difficult. The USN make it look easy because they are extremely good at it. Remember the USN and NAVAIR signed off on the initial F-35C tail hook.

I'll tell you what is a catastrophic disaster for a tail hook; how about the one that was on the RA-5 Vigilante? The RA-5's tail hook was known for separating from the aircraft entirely, and the handling characteristics of the RA-5 didn't help at all. The RA-5 had a high landing speed angle of attack and a tail hook design that if it slapped back into the airframe it could cause enough damage to cause the aircraft to be written off. This issue was never resolved during the service life of the RA-5, BTW.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 10):

It's not that everything must be perfect, there has been plenty of time built in to the program to iron things out - the problem is that the program is just no going anywhere near to plan - costs are already 50% overboard. There has to be a limit and the ultimate safeguard is pulling the plug.

So pulling the plug and restarting from scratch is your idea? And if we run into technical difficulties with the replacement, should we pull the plug again and start all over? And if that design encounters issues, pull the plug again?

See how utterly insane that idea is right now? Almost every fighter since World War II has encountered technical issues that were potentially major show stoppers. Turn back the clock 20, 30 or 40 years, the same types of criticisms leveled against the F-35 could have leveled against the then newest fighter under development. Unless you want to soldier on with obsolete gen 4 aircraft against foes with increasingly more capable aircraft, we would lose our technological edge against our opponents.

[Edited 2012-02-06 23:26:13]
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:29 am

 
Oroka
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:30 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 10):
There has to be a limit and the ultimate safeguard is pulling the plug.

Government: Hey guys, F-35 is taking longer than expected and over cost (though that is industry norm right now), so, we are exercising the ultimate safeguard and canceling the F-35. Yeah, we know, we spent $66 000 000 000, and already built 63 of them, but no biggie, we have lots of money. So, we are going to spend another obscene amount of money to design a new fighter, which will take 10-15 years, probably $30b, and be pretty much the same in capacity as the F-35... just not the F-35, cause the F-35 is bad. Bad bad bad. We could just buy 40 year old fighter designs that have been upgraded, but the world will see us as sissies, and the Chinese and Russians would have better fighters than us. Yeah... we have to F-22, but only 187 of them, but those were behind schedule and over budget too.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:22 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
So you are calling a mis-profiled tail hook causing the tail hook to skip a catastrophic disaster?
OK, let's wait a few months and see how fast and cheap this little problem is fixed. The results will speak for themselves.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
Unless you want to soldier on with obsolete gen 4 aircraft against foes with increasingly more capable aircraft, we would lose our technological edge against our opponents.

No, our F-22, B-2 and stealth UAVs are already in service and more in flight testing. Advanced radar and missile technologies as well. Let the others try and stop a blizzard of stealth attack UAVs coming in from various directions at once. I don't care how advanced the enemy fighters are, there will never be enough of them.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 13):
and the Chinese and Russians would have better fighters than us. Yeah... we have to F-22, but only 187 of them, but those were behind schedule and over budget too.

You do know, that in the air, the F-35 is inferior to the F-22, do you not? Everybody knows this.

Point is, many aircraft programs have been cancelled in the past. So where is the limit when things go way off the planned course? I only hear a "there-is-no-limit" argument, and that for me is not an option and not acceptable. That is irresponsible, IMHO.

[Edited 2012-02-07 13:37:21]
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:16 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 14):
You do know, that in the air, the F-35 is inferior to the F-22, do you not? Everybody knows this.

You do know, that in the air, the F-35 has superior avionics than the F-22, do you not? Other than A2A and airshows, the Raptor is otherwise useless ATM.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:15 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 14):
You do know, that in the air, the F-35 is inferior to the F-22, do you not? Everybody knows this.

I find it amusing that the superiority of the F-22 is the only thing in all that you defended against.


Yeah, I do know, but as stated... only 187, and they are turning into another B-2, too expensive to risk in combat. With BVR systems today, you can be flying a stealth tugboat, you still win. The F-35 has a stealth advantage with an air to air load, and with the right tactics, just about any opponent will discover there is a F-35 in the area when his missile warning starts screaming. The F-22 is the silver bullet, and the F-35 is the work horse. Legacy fighters, even the gen 4.5 ones, can just hold their own against a well trained crew in a modern Russian gen 4.5, the advantage is gone.

Killing the F-35 would doom the USAF and USN to being simply on par with the world, if that. There are superior F-15s and F-16s flying around than the USAF has.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:31 am

Quoting Oroka (Reply 16):
Yeah, I do know, but as stated... only 187, and they are turning into another B-2, too expensive to risk in combat.

Actually, less than 100 F-22's are operational or even considered combat ready due to ongoing technical and software issues...
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:20 am

Quoting Oroka (Reply 16):
I find it amusing that the superiority of the F-22 is the only thing in all that you defended against.

I am not the one defending anything. But glad you are amused regardless.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 15):
You do know, that in the air, the F-35 has superior avionics than the F-22, do you not?

No and neither do you, since both have important electronic capabilities (F-22) or planned capabilities (F-35) that are mostly classified. The F-35 helmet mounted avionics does not even operate yet and won't for years. Comparing future planned paper capabilities with current F-22 capabilities is apples and oranges, since future F-22 capabilities will improve by as well.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 16):
Killing the F-35 would doom the USAF and USN to being simply on par with the world, if that.

I think you vastly underestimate the USAF and USN. Tally up everything they already have, and it is mind boggling. Nobody else comes close. even if the F-35 is cancelled, there is plenty other stuff going on in development and the F-22 and B-2/B-52 will remain in service for many more decades.

I find it amusing that F-35 defenders think it is OK to tolerate program mismanagement without limit and just keep going no matter what. Wasting resources only makes our enemies happy and is exaclty what Osama Bin Laden said he wanted the Americans to do. We'll wind up with only a small number of very expensive planes, like the B-2 and F-22 programs before it. That's not bad in and of itself, but for the amount of money spent, it's far from optimal, that's what I'm criticizing.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 15):
Other than A2A and airshows, the Raptor is otherwise useless ATM.

You do know that the F-22 can deliver A2G munitions, do you not?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:29 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):

No and neither do you, since both have important electronic capabilities (F-22) or planned capabilities (F-35) that are mostly classified. The F-35 helmet mounted avionics does not even operate yet and won't for years. Comparing future planned paper capabilities with current F-22 capabilities is apples and oranges, since future F-22 capabilities will improve by as well.

The publicly known information is that the F-35's electronic systems are superior to the F-22 in both capabilities and expandability. The F-22's avionics system is at a technical dead end in terms of expandability; to add more capabilities would require significant development. There is talk of future F-22 upgrades revolving around taking systems from the F-35 and transplanting them into the F-22 because the F-35's systems are more easily upgradable and supportable.

And the helmet display is not a show stopper in any ways; they have 4 years to work out the latency issues.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
I think you vastly underestimate the USAF and USN. Tally up everything they already have, and it is mind boggling. Nobody else comes close. even if the F-35 is cancelled, there is plenty other stuff going on in development and the F-22 and B-2/B-52 will remain in service for many more decades.

Name one program that isn't just a technology demonstrator or a paper project.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
You do know that the F-22 can deliver A2G munitions, do you not?

Very limited A2G capabilities that was tacked on after the fact. It can't carry anything other than JDAM's or SDB's. F-35 will be cleared to use a more extensive list of weapons, including JSOW, JSM, Brimstone, Paveway, and various cluster and dumb bombs.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:11 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
The publicly known information is that the F-35's electronic systems are superior to the F-22

The publicly known information as to the F-35 capabilities is that it is a non existent weapon. It only exists on paper..........grrrrrrrrr scary! The F-22 does exist today, this very second. So please.....

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
Name one program that isn't just a technology demonstrator or a paper project.

I said, tally up everything they have, as in RIGHT NOW. Nobody comes close. Who comes close?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
And the helmet display is not a show stopper

Ok. let us see the F-35 fly a mission without it, if it is not a show stopper.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
"...(F-22) It can't carry anything other than JDAM's or SDB's. ..

Thanks for admitting you statement re the F-22 was 100% wrong. You discredit yourself by making such clearly false statements. You are seeing what you want to see, rather than the truth.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
F-35 will be cleared to use a more extensive list of weapons,

On paper......just like the list price, schedule, etc.....come on, is there no limit?

[Edited 2012-02-09 01:16:19]

[Edited 2012-02-09 01:18:58]
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:27 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
Name one program that isn't just a technology demonstrator or a paper project.

You do know what the definition of "in development" means, do you not? The F-35 for example fits that definition, its capabilities are on paper only and in the future, reliant on other future paper technologies, etc.... Unless it is operational, it is probably "in development".

Name one capability the F-35 has right now, this very second, that the F-22 doesn't right now?



[Edited 2012-02-09 01:31:38]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:12 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
Let me ask again, how many years did it take for the F-22 to reach IOC from program start?

After the fly-off in the late 1980s between the UF-22 and the YF-23, the intial contract was signed for the F-22 in 1991, the first production airplane began construction in 1997 and delivered in 1998 as a flight test airplane, finally delivered to the USAF in 2002. IOC was late in 2005.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:43 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
Name one capability the F-35 has right now, this very second, that the F-22 doesn't right now?

How about a capacity the F-22 doesnt have right now, and the F-15 / F-16 / F/A-18 does? The ability to fill more than 13 squadrons!

Oh come on, you know that is a lame argument. Yes, the F-35 is not currently operational, that does not mean that all the things it is designed to do wont happen. The F-35 does not have its full capabilities AT THIS SECOND, seeing how it is in development... it will be completed and fully capable.

The F-35 has hard points, now it just comes down to software, no different than the F-22 being rated to carry JDAMs and SDBs. Maybe if they claimed there would be a laser cannon installed... that may be a bit of a stretch. Strapping bombs on an attack aircraft may just be plausible.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:17 pm

Whether or not the F-35 lives up to it's billing, a main concern is spending millions building aircraft that will need either extensive mod work to be operational or at least will sit on a runway somewhere waiting for software design, test, rework and finally in 4-5 years installation. Cutting the initial "production" rate substantially will lessen the costs without affecting the end game. In the end only a portion of the projected planes will be built because we will just plain run out of funds.

Before the first become fully operational, we will be parking these early test and training planes in the desert. Does it make sense to build so many substandard planes?
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:33 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
After the fly-off in the late 1980s between the UF-22 and the YF-23, the intial contract was signed for the F-22 in 1991, the first production airplane began construction in 1997 and delivered in 1998 as a flight test airplane, finally delivered to the USAF in 2002. IOC was late in 2005.

Thank you. From first flight (1997) to IOC (2005) in 8 years. That was wildly cutting edge program too.

Compare F-35
First flight in 2006 and IOC officially estimated as 2020 by two partner nations. 14 years. And estimates given in the F-35 program have shown a pattern of being wildly inaccurate to date. So fingers crossed that this time is different.

This program will provide a very small punch for the money spent on it, because we'll wind up with so few of them. Our time and resources will have been allocated in a very inefficient way.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:50 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
Thank you. From first flight (1997) to IOC (2005) in 8 years. That was wildly cutting edge program too.

Now it's filled with all sorts of serviceability issues because they didn't spend the time to shake out all the bugs. I'm glad the F35 program is taking the time it is, it will reduce the amount of problems it will have in service, when it is needed the most.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 25):
Our time and resources will have been allocated in a very inefficient way.

Pretty much the moto for the entire US government.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:26 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 26):
when it is needed the most.

nobody has proved a need.. there is a desire, there is a fantasy, there is the testosterone based bigger, faster, more capable, there is this fear of being second best to the nightmares of paranoid minds. But there is no proven need, other than we're wearing out what we have chasing ghosts. Military might is an endless hollow game.

if this project sat idle for 15 years it would really be no big deal.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:33 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 27):
nobody has proved a need.. there is a desire, there is a fantasy, there is the testosterone based bigger, faster, more capable, there is this fear of being second best to the nightmares of paranoid minds. But there is no proven need, other than we're wearing out what we have chasing ghosts. Military might is an endless hollow game.

You either have the biggest edge on your opponent you can or you just disband the military all together. There is no in between. Doing it half-assed like the anti-JSF fanbois want to happen with old-aged airframes stretched to their design limit doesn't do any good. Every fighter program had its critics, but they were quickly put in their place when it reached service. Thankfully, all the general public can do is whine.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:01 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
The publicly known information as to the F-35 capabilities is that it is a non existent weapon. It only exists on paper..........grrrrrrrrr scary! The F-22 does exist today, this very second. So please.....

It flies right now. Progression of flight testing is on going.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
I said, tally up everything they have, as in RIGHT NOW. Nobody comes close. Who comes close?

You mean all of those fighters that are suffering from structural issues right now? I've listed the issues with the USAF, USN, and USMC fleets before; not going to rehash them all. If no replacement is bought soon, the entire US tactical air force fleet is set to implode.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
Ok. let us see the F-35 fly a mission without it, if it is not a show stopper.

It's flying right now. They are using an alternative helmet right now for flight testing, and it is working fine.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
Thanks for admitting you statement re the F-22 was 100% wrong. You discredit yourself by making such clearly false statements. You are seeing what you want to see, rather than the truth.

State where I said the F-22 could not drop bombs.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
On paper......just like the list price, schedule, etc.....come on, is there no limit?

JSOW already had a check fit down a few months back, and so has JDAM and SDB.

Quoting kanban (Reply 27):
if this project sat idle for 15 years it would really be no big deal.

If this project sat idle, the USAF's tactical air force fleet would implode due to airframes timing out. The fleet implosion is already starting, with high hour F-15's and F-16's being sent to the desert. In the past decade, there has been a major grounding that lasted more than a month of almost 1/3 of the USAF's tactical fighter force due to age-related issues.
http://cdn.govexec.com/interstitial....ley-transcript-part-one%2F25643%2F

Quote:
“The F-15s and F-16s were designed and built in the late ‘60s and ‘70s. Some of them were produced up until the early ‘80s. But they’ve led a pretty hard life of 17 years of combat. So you have to replace them with something, because we were continuing to restrict the airplanes. In the F-15 case, we’ve got the airplane restricted to 1.5 Mach. It was designed to be a 2.5 Mach airplane. We’ve got it limited on maneuvering restrictions because we’ve had tail cracks, fuselage cracks, cracks in the wings. The problem with that is – and Mike Wynne uses this analogy – it’s almost like going to the Indy 500 race practicing all the way up until Memorial Day at 60 miles an hour, and then on game day, accelerating the car out to 200 miles an hour. It’s not the time to be doing that on game day.

So in our training models and in our scenarios, we’re limiting these airplanes because they’re restricted and getting old. So there’s two parts to the recapitalization of the fighter inventory. The first part is the existing stuff is old and it’s getting broke, and it’s getting harder to get it out of depot on time. And our availability rates and our in-commission rates are going down. The ability to generate the sorties on those old airplanes is in the wrong direction.”

The USN and USMC is no better; The USMC already has some USMC Hornets are reaching service life limits, which have risen to 9,000 – 10,000 flight hours after the full Service Life Extension Program. Naval Air Systems Command is adamant that the USN and USMC legacy Hornet fleet should not exceed that limit because of fatigue issues. The USN is also burning through the airframe hours on the Super Hornet as well; a number of Super Hornets have already it 3,000 hours, half the airframe design life expectancy.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:48 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):
You mean all of those fighters that are suffering from structural issues right now? I've listed the issues with the USAF, USN, and USMC fleets before; not going to rehash them all. If no replacement is bought soon, the entire US tactical air force fleet is set to implode.

I sure hope the few hundred F-35s we'll get can carry the entire load, because that's all we're going to get. You are continuously under the erroneous notion that there is no new aircraft or new alternative to the F-35, as if that were the thing in existence. It's only true if you want it to be true, not because it is.

And you forget everything the DoD has right now and will have through 2030. Instead you look at what it will not have. You do not guage the needs nor the strength on what you will not have.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 29):
State where I said the F-22 could not drop bombs.
Quoting powerslide (Reply 15):
Other than A2A and airshows, the Raptor is otherwise useless ATM.

I meant Powerslide, my apologies. He made that statement.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:46 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
You are continuously under the erroneous notion that there is no new aircraft or new alternative to the F-35, as if that were the thing in existence. It's only true if you want it to be true, not because it is.

What other new aircraft is currently being developed as an alternative to the F35?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
I meant Powerslide, my apologies. He made that statement.

Putting words in my mouth I see. I didn't say it can't, I said it's not designed to or will not be the first choice. That is what the F-35 is for, coming in to destroy ground installations after the F-22 clears the airspace.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:24 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 28):
You either have the biggest edge on your opponent you can or you just disband the military all together.


Of course you have to have an opponent.. even if it's dust balls under your bed... The US has been proving since it invaded Iraq and Afghanistan that the "biggest edge" theory is bogus when it comes to long term results. A neighbor (who served in both countries) commented that building schools and medical facilities proved more stabilizing than sending 10 fighters into blow up one Toyota with 'alleged' hostiles and 20 noncombatants..
It's also interesting that the Canadians (well two anyway) seem to have more passion for this than many of the US citizens who are paying for it.

The quote above also seems typical of youth in that everything is all or nothing. In reality there are many shades between. Now if the US military is so worried about wearing aircraft out playing war games and doing airshows, maybe they need to stop. Secondly why is the service life so small? Reminds me of a prototype tank that could only go 60 miles between major overhauls...
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:44 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
I sure hope the few hundred F-35s we'll get can carry the entire load, because that's all we're going to get.

Retiring older, more maintenance intensive fighters will save money in the operations and maintenance budget, which will help pay for F-35's.

Also, F-35 is a major US DoD and Pentagon budgetary item, one that has significant budgetary priority. The US government will sacrifice other defense items before even touching the F-35 programme. The White House, the Senate, and Congress all understand that the US tactical fighter force is rapidly becoming unserviceable

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
You are continuously under the erroneous notion that there is no new aircraft or new alternative to the F-35, as if that were the thing in existence.

Name one alternative fighter program that can fulfill the needs of all three services, either in production or under development. Name one.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
And you forget everything the DoD has right now and will have through 2030. Instead you look at what it will not have. You do not guage the needs nor the strength on what you will not have.

It's pretty clear to me; either F-35's or the size of the US tactical air force shrinks to roughly a hundred serviceable and combat ready F-22's, and maybe some USN Super Hornets, or nothing else because everything else is too obsolete and worn out.

Quoting kanban (Reply 32):
Now if the US military is so worried about wearing aircraft out playing war games and doing airshows, maybe they need to stop

We've been over this before and you have clearly not listened, so I will repeat myself AGAIN; the major driver of Western air superiority has been the extensive emphasis on training of our pilots compared to our opponents.
If The F35 Gets The Axe What Are The Options? (by Eagleboy Sep 22 2011 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

In situations where hardware-wise, both opponents are equal, if one pilot has better honed skills, they will dominate the fight. The various Arab-Israeli wars, and practically every war in which airplanes have taken part have shown that the pilot that is the winner in a fight in large part is predicted by how one trained one's pilots are, when the equipment and technology are fairly equal. Better trained pilots are better in combat as they can fly more aggressively, and maximize the performance of their equipment. In war, it is not about being fair or equal, you want every single advantage, be it technology or training to win.

The bottom line is that you can't keep an effective airforce without real life training. At the very minimum your training level has to match that of your closest rival.

Quoting kanban (Reply 32):
Secondly why is the service life so small? Reminds me of a prototype tank that could only go 60 miles between major overhauls...

Gee, trying to design a fighter that can pull 9G's, carry tons of weapons and fuel, while being highly maneuverable and fast all in as light as package as possible puts a damper on design service life. Sure, you can beef up components, but you have to compromise somewhere else. It's all about design compromises, and fighter aircraft designers place less emphasis on service life to focus on other factors. Other Western and non-Western fighters likewise have fairly short design service lives.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:36 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
The bottom line is that you can't keep an effective airforce without real life training. At the very minimum your training level has to match that of your closest rival.

The paranoia of a boogie man out there is what keeps this BS escalating. If there is no boogie man, there isn't a need for a massive military and a whole lot of war mongers would be out of business. The cold war ended. Most hostilities today are tribal affairs that go back centuries.

Wars have been fought for material resources, land, religion, spite over alleged slurs, but who wants Canada or the US? Do we need to be the policeman of the world? NO. This will sound harsh, however if a couple small countries want to wipe themselves out ... have at it. They've got the equipment to do it without us interfering.

When we speak of rivals, there are none militarily... there may be rival equipment, but the point is other equipment doesn't equate to a territorial threat. It may mean that some little country with Russian technology goes head to head with another using Chinese technology, and possibly involves a third using US technology... Do we have to play our technology must win even though the winner is a despot. Now if you're saying all this preparation is to protect our friends.. maybe it's time our friends stopped being bullies while relying on us to back them unconditionally.

So in my mind a 50% US reduction of "military might" would be a good start.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:17 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 34):
The cold war ended. Most hostilities today are tribal affairs that go back centuries.

In many aspects the Cold War made things simpler as solidified who was the enemy and one can design their force plan to counter.

Training as mentioned is EXTREMELY important to pilots. Many times, fighter pilots are training just for proficiency, to make sure that they can still fly the airplane and be comfortable flying a certain aircraft.

The NATO minimum standard is 180-200 hours of flight time per year. Even then, that's barely enough to maintain currency, not for competency. Tthe fatal crash of a RAF Tornado F3 in Glen Kinglas in 2009 was determined to be pilot's error, which was caused by a lack of recent flying hours in the type. I can point to a number of other crashes where pilot proficiency was an issue.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:31 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 34):
So in my mind a 50% US reduction of "military might" would be a good start.

You are voting for Ron Paul, aren't you.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:09 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 34):
Most hostilities today are tribal affairs that go back centuries.
Quoting kanban (Reply 34):
When we speak of rivals, there are none militarily

That is the truth.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
The US government will sacrifice other defense items before even touching the F-35 programme.

Yes, there would be no alternative if they want to get the number projected.


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
Name one alternative fighter program that can fulfill the needs of all three services, either in production or under development. Name one.

Not one but several and cheaper (like rewinged A-10s, starting in 2011): The following will either be in service for many decades to come or can be bought new: Rafale, JSF, F-15SE, Superhornet, UAVs, Cruise Missiles, AWACS, Jstar, B-2 (till 2050 at least), B-52 (till 2040, imagine if re engined), F-22, A-10 (till 2030), submarines with cruise missiles...and I am sure there are many attack weapons I forgot or that will be available by 2020. It's already mind boggling what we have.

But yeah, we'll be defenseless to the world without the F-35 - it's an illusion. Actually we'll be less effective and threatening with it, because it is so expensive, even to operate, and will cause compromises due to these costs. Wanna strike stealthy, a few B-2s can do what a fleet of F-35s can't and they're flying today. Once the air is clear, even B-52's can operate safely. And one B-52 or B-2 can unload several times what one F-35 can, with many times more range to boot.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:22 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
Rafale

With a per unit cost approaching $100 million dollars, and with various systems at a technical dead end, yeah right.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
Superhornet,

GAO says $106.1 million dollars a copy, excluding any proposed upgrades. The Navy is already eating away at airframe hours to the point where a good chunk of the fleet has already reached 50% of designed life expectancy.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
F-15SE,

Boeing says $100 million dollars, excluding developmental costs. The Navy and USMC can't use F-15's as they are not carrier capable. Last time I checked that is a 4 year "buy-to-delivery" timeline. The current F-15E line has a max production capacity capped at somewhere around 12-14 units a year, without a massive upgrade in facilities and infrastructure. How many F-15Es would be available by 2018? Given the Slam Eagle's current price and production-rate, I'd just as soon restart F-22 production as an alternative.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
UAVs

With a accident rate 10 times that of normal airplanes, and there has never been a single UAV capable of air to air interceptions.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
Cruise Missile

So you are willing to expend a million dollar cruise missile that is one time use and have limited stocks of compared a $5000 guided bomb that can be carried by a fighter, and that fighter is reusable. See the issue here?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
AWACS

Not a fighter, and the platform is reaching 30 years of service.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
Jstar

Not a fighter, and the base airframe (the Boeing 707) has been kicking around for almost 50 years. The airframes, BTW were bought used from commercial sources or from foreign militaries.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
B-2 (till 2050 at least)

We only got 21 in existence. Also known for being maintenance intensive, and can't defend itself.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
B-52 (till 2040, imagine if re engined

They are slowly retiring B-52's one by one because the airframes are getting too old to maintain. Metal fatigue and corrosion are eating away at them.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
F-22,

Less than 100 are serviceable or combat ready due to various technical issues.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
A-10 (till 2030)

We will see how long the USAF decides to actually keep them. They are cutting A-10 squadrons right now.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
submarines with cruise missiles

Each submarine costs billions of dollars, and their cruise missiles costs millions of dollars. They are one time use weapons, and once a submarine is out of missiles, they can't do anything. Not good for a sustained campaign.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
But yeah, we'll be defenseless to the world without the F-35 - it's an illusion

The USAF will be down to less than 100 serviceable F-22's and the USN will be down to 500 Super Hornets that are getting up there in wear and tear.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
Once the air is clear, even B-52's can operate safely.

In today's environment of more integrated and networked air defence systems, don't think so.


Any fighter with a new capability (eg F-15E+) itself would have to go through some kind of IOT&E. Given that first delivery of F-15E+s for the USAF if we ordered today would be in FY2017 and add a year of mini-IOT&E, not many would be ready before 2018.

Add on top to that the issue of F-35A's IOC. The main driver of the IOC date is not development, but the OT&E community causing issues. Just like we saw with the timeline to start pilot training (where the OT&E community wanted to introduce a 6-8 month delay of pilot training due to them not liking the current ejection seat), the testing community swung the timeline-pendulum to the far right (from being a best-case timeline to a worst-case). Given that the F-35 has done well in the last 18 month of test flights and is currently about 10% ahead of schedule (in flights and check points), I think we will see that date brought back down to 2017 or even 2016 in the next few years.

I hate to say that the OT&E community is causing unnecessary delays, but there is a precedence with past programs with the testing team causing major delays.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:20 pm

ThePointblank, you see what you want to see. You fool nobody. Sure, everything we have is junk, incapable and falling apart and our sole salvation rests on the F-35 - sure.

A miracle we were able to carry out all the strike missions to date. ANd keep striking in Pakistan with our UAVs.

Using your logic, the F-35 is crap because it doesn't have a cigar holder, will wear out, needs to be rearmed between missions and needs to be maintained, good Lord.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:30 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 38):
In today's environment of more integrated and networked air defence systems, don't think so.


However that's not who we choose to pick on... if they don't ride donkeys, Toyota pickups, have a habit of celebrating by shooting into the air or have already been over run by people wanting a change of regime, they are deemed too advanced for our attention. So we let secondaries do the dirty work when they can muster public opinion. We spend bilions "protecting" allies who have no aggressors at their gates with huge bases.. We are tired of it. Germany, Japan, Korea, NATO should stand on their own with their own defense budget.
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2104
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:55 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 38):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
B-2 (till 2050 at least)

We only got 21 in existence. Also known for being maintenance intensive, and can't defend itself.

After the loss of one in Guam, we are down to 20.
Here Here for Severe Clear!
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:36 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 40):
However that's not who we choose to pick on... if they don't ride donkeys, Toyota pickups, have a habit of celebrating by shooting into the air or have already been over run by people wanting a change of regime, they are deemed too advanced for our attention. So we let secondaries do the dirty work when they can muster public opinion. We spend bilions "protecting" allies who have no aggressors at their gates with huge bases.. We are tired of it. Germany, Japan, Korea, NATO should stand on their own with their own defense budget.

Nice rant, but stay on topic, this isn't the place to discuss US foreign policy.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 39):
Sure, everything we have is junk, incapable and falling apart and our sole salvation rests on the F-35 - sure.

I don't care what the US does with the F-35, but multiple other partner nations have chosen it to replace their ageing fighter fleet. For them, there are no real alternatives, you can only upgrade what you have for so long until the airframe starts to break apart.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:59 pm

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 41):
After the loss of one in Guam, we are down to 20.

Even 1 B-2 can level multiple small towns in one mission, like the B-52 can - and we have a bunch of those as well. Despite what Thepointblank says, the weapons below will all stay in service to at least 2030 and beyond. That's plenty of firepower:

B-52s will remain till 2030 or 2040
A-10s are being rewinged right now and will remain till 2030, at least
B-2s will remain till at least 2040/50
F-22s for decades
UAVs will continuously get better and are invaluable in places like Pakistan right now
Jstar and AWACS will remain till at least 2030
KC-135/KC-10 (till at least 2030) to support the above in long range missions
Submarines with cruise missiles - we already bought and paid for those and used them in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan
NATO forces - we need to act like in Libya, with others sharing the burden - you leave all those capabilities out

All of the above are paid for with operating costs well known. We're good for the next 20 years - at least, even if we absolutely nothing for the next 10 years. To replace Navy jet's the Rafale or Superhornets would be available at half the acquisition and operating costs of the F-35 and could be bought at slow paces, only as needed. That would save a ton of money.

We could also slowly reduce the number of carriers, delaying the need to replace the current Navy fighters for many more decades.

Better yet, we should eventually scarp the aircraft carriers altogether. That concept is obsolete, they can not hide and are too vulnerable now. The Iranians fly right over them with small UAVs, imagine if they were hostile, like Kamikaze UAVs or dropped something? F-35's wouldn't help there, they'd be toast. Let the Indians and Chinese waster their resources on those. We could easily sink any carrier before it gets halfway to Hawaii, from land based sources, if we wanted to.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran...ft_Carrier_On_Gulf_Patrol_999.html

Any campaign in a far away land can be accomplished by the above weapons with air tankers. No problem and far cheaper than operating carriers and their aircraft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJwaqrTW3Y
Not mentioned is that air to air refueling capabilities are planned, meaning they would not need carriers to operate from.

[Edited 2012-02-12 13:06:29]
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:23 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):

Your entire argument revolves around cost. What you fail to realize is that it costs more to operate older fleets of ageing fighters. Your entire belief is clouded around the whole anti-jsf media propaganda.


Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):
Better yet, we should eventually scarp the aircraft carriers altogether. That concept is obsolete, they can not hide and are too vulnerable now.

Yes, battle groups are sinking around the world, they are extremely easy targets.   I love it when civies think they have the slightest idea when it comes to military anything.  
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
What you fail to realize is that it costs more to operate older fleets of ageing fighters

Total nonsense. Operating costs of the F-35 will be much higher than the legacy fighters, before even counting the acquisition costs. It is far cheaper to maintain and operate aging fighter than acquire and operate new ones, especially new ones with even higher operating costs from day 1, than those being replaced. B-2 and F-22 also have higher actual operating costs than anyone predicted.

Resources are limited and must be allocated wisely, not recklessly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ng-costs-may-reach-1-trillion.html
Once upon a time, the estimate for the same costs was $420 Billion.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
Yes, battle groups are sinking around the world

None are sinking, because we are not at war with any country with those capabilities, not because they are unsinkable. Come down to reality.

[Edited 2012-02-12 13:46:25]

[Edited 2012-02-12 13:53:56]

[Edited 2012-02-12 13:55:12]
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:07 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 39):
ThePointblank, you see what you want to see. You fool nobody. Sure, everything we have is junk, incapable and falling apart and our sole salvation rests on the F-35 - sure.

Um, where the heck have you been? The entire US Tactical air force fleet is going to implode in the next few years due to age issues.
The only 5th generation fighter jet under development or production is the F-35. There is no other alternative

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):
All of the above are paid for with operating costs well known. We're good for the next 20 years - at least, even if we absolutely nothing for the next 10 years. To replace Navy jet's the Rafale or Superhornets would be available at half the acquisition and operating costs of the F-35 and could be bought at slow paces, only as needed. That would save a ton of money.

No, we are not because, the airframes for some of the other systems are wearing out, or many of the components are obsolete. You know there are only so many 707's that are compatible left in the boneyards that the US Military can pick over for spare parts, right?

I will remind you that the JSTARS airframes were purchased used; in fact, a couple of them are ex-Canadian Air Force aircraft that served for 30 years prior to the disposal. I think the USAF has a bird that suffered a landing gear collapse prior to us selling the fleet off.

I will repeat what I said about Super Hornet: 106.1 million dollars, per aircraft, according to the GAO, excluding any additional planned upgrades. I will also mention that the Super Hornet has limited future growth potential; for example, do you know where they are placing the planned IRST sensor on the Super Hornet? They are putting it on the center-line external fuel tank because there's no room elsewhere.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):
Submarines with cruise missiles - we already bought and paid for those and used them in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan

So you plan on using a million dollar missile from a multi-billion dollar submarine, thousands of miles away, that once fired, cannot be recalled or aborted? Not to mention that once your submarine has shot all of its missiles, it can't do much else for land attack. Cruise missiles are fine for the first strike; its sustaining the attack that's the problem.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):
e could also slowly reduce the number of carriers, delaying the need to replace the current Navy fighters for many more decades.

Ain't happening, the Pentagon and the White House are focused on maintaining the current carrier fleet numbers, other programs (excluding F-35) be damned. There is only 1 yard building super carriers in the US, and that's Northrop Grumman's Newport News Shipbuilding facility. If that yard is idled or is closed for extended periods, there goes the ability to build and repair the USN carrier fleet due to lost institutional memory.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):
Better yet, we should eventually scarp the aircraft carriers altogether. That concept is obsolete, they can not hide and are too vulnerable now. The Iranians fly right over them with small UAVs, imagine if they were hostile, like Kamikaze UAVs or dropped something? F-35's wouldn't help there, they'd be toast. Let the Indians and Chinese waster their resources on those. We could easily sink any carrier before it gets halfway to Hawaii, from land based sources, if we wanted to.

I'm glad you are not a military planner, because you do realize how much you sound like a troll here? You don't even know half the story, and yet you outright declare carrier aviation is dead.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 45):
It is far cheaper to maintain and operate aging fighter than acquire and operate new ones, especially new ones with even higher operating costs from day 1, than those being replaced.

Yes, spend millions of dollars on SLEP's for aging and increasingly obsolete aircraft for only very small increases in service lives... your line of thinking is like owning a car. You are the owner who is willing to sink hundreds of dollars into a old car that needs a new exhaust system, new engine and transmission, and yet the body is rusting out. Time to bite the bullet and replace the car with a new one because any more investment is just wasted for a very small increase in service life.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:29 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 42):
For them, there are no real alternatives


so they and we go buy these state of the art fighters our "enemies" supposed have that are invincible to everything but the F-35. I know ... Hey Russia, (or China) we need a temp truce so you can send us spare parts...   
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:26 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 46):
You know there are only so many 707's that are compatible left in the boneyards that the US Military can pick over for spare parts, right?

I will remind you that the JSTARS airframes were purchased used; in fact, a couple of them are ex-Canadian Air Force aircraft that served for 30 years prior to the disposal.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The question is are they airworthy till 2030 or not? And secondly is it economical to keep them that way? The USAF says yes to both and so does the GOA reports I've read. You are wrong and they are right, sorry. I know it does not compute for you.

If it weren't way way more economical to keep old frames flying and do SLEP like programs, they wouldn't be done and would be replaced with new aircraft instead every single time. Simple as that. But you simply continue to believe the falsehood that it's cheaper to replace old with new frames, when the opposite is true by a very wide margin. Read some of the GOA reports on this subject to enlighten yourself on this subject.

Just think. Why do you think this has been done with so many different frames? C-141/B-52/C-5/A-10/F-18/F-16 etc............the list goes on. Do you really think the DoD is that stupid? By your logic all these programs should not be going on and the frames just replaces with new ones. If money were not object, yes, But it is far cheaper to keep the old birds flying.

Regarding the 707 based weapons, the result is that the 1950's frames have had the highest fleet availability rating out of all aircraft in the USAF fleet, per GOA reports I've read. It's not what you believe and want to "see", it's what the truth is.

Your statements and beliefs (including those of Italian government mystery loans), are counter to reality.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 46):
So you plan on using a million dollar missile from a multi-billion dollar submarine, thousands of miles away, that once fired, cannot be recalled or aborted? Not to mention that once your submarine has shot all of its missiles, it can't do much else for land attack. Cruise missiles are fine for the first strike; its sustaining the attack that's the problem.

Allow me:

1. Submarines are already acquired, are operational, so have no acquisition costs
2. Cruise missiles, same already acquired
3. Once an F-35 drops a bomb, it can not be recalled, a cruise missile can (look it up)
4. F-35 needs to be reloaded, just like a sub - but a sub carries as much firepower as a fleet of F-35s
5. A sub can always be reloaded at sea or at the closest base, not necessarily in the USA
6. For sustaining an attack we already have better weapons than the F-35 (B-2, B-52, UAVs, A-10, etc..)
7. This is without even counting a single old fighter F-15/16/18, which we do have around for a decade or two
8. This is all without counting the F-22, which can drop JDAMS and a few more A2G weapons - in full stealth

- But you maintain the USA would be helpless without the F-35?

As to carriers, do you really think carriers are unsinkable these days, much less in the years to come? Do you not know about the sophisticated mini subs (20 people or so) and torpedoes that are either operational or coming, developed by several countries, not in NATO? These coming subs will be much harder to detect, going as far as creating a false magnetic field to blend in with the background magnetic field, whatever it may be, like a fish changing colors. They also do not run on nuclear, but on Fuel Cells, fueled by Diesel or Gas, were they can operate 2-3 weeks underwater at full speed and quieter than nuclear, as there is no heat, steam or turbine or large bearings involved, just an electric engine, without a shaft or bearings to the prop. It's much cheaper and quieter. Basically no moving parts for propulsion. They will also have more stealthy Sonar signature and shape and be smaller in general.

With radar, satellite, UAV, sub and other technology, it is simply not possible to hide a carrier or it's movements anymore.

And the torpedoes are getting bigger ranges, faster and more explosive. Perhaps you want to continue building battle ships.....I am glad you are not a military planner as well.



[Edited 2012-02-14 00:43:52]
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 IOC Date, 2020

Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:56 am

http://www.usni.org/magazines/procee...s-sea-carrier-invulnerability-myth

Some more about carrier vulnerability here. Where would the F-35 land?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 747classic and 9 guests