Page 115 of 115 FirstFirst ... 106107108109110111112113114115
Results 1,711 to 1,716 of 1716

Thread: What is up with the F-35? Part II

  1. #1711
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    15,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Joe and AR, thank you.

    Steve, the capabilities of the F-35, as you mentioned are awesome.

    Two short questions;

    #1. From time to time I read about how billions have been spent on the F-35 and that it is a white elephant. Your views.

    #2. Do destroyers carry BVR missiles, for the F-35 to take over it's guidance systems and shoot down an enemy aircraft? Won't range be an issue then? Or you mean, cruise missiles from the destroyer will be used to shoot down hostile aircraft? In this case, too expensive don't you think?

    Some more years down the line, I'm waiting for India to become a non-NATO ally and get this bird. The problem here lies with India, with a significant percentage of bureaucrats still holding onto the cold war memory.
    You're very welcome Oracle

    My opinion on #1, The U.S. has built another super fighter along the lines of the F-15 Eagle. When the Eagle was being developed, it was derided as an expensive boondoggle that the U.S. couldn't afford, a costly overreaction to mistaken notions about the MiG-25 Foxbat. The truth is, it was extremely expensive. It did have a protracted and difficult development.

    One example: It was supposed to have a brand new super-duper cannon to replace the 1950's-era M61 Vulcan. The result? A cancelled super-duper gun program with a huge expenditure of time and money wasted on an utter failure, causing the new super fighter to be equipped with the old Vulcan.

    Yet, when one looks back at the F-15, it's a legend without peer in fighter history. In service for over 40 years, never once shot down in air-to-air combat, and over 100 kills.

    And we haven't even talked about the Strike Eagle variant!

    I have a feeling that the F-35 will, in its own way, be as much of a legend.

    Is it worth the many billions of dollars? Well, as the saying goes "To win a war takes billions...to lose a war takes all you've got"
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  2. #1712
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    #1. From time to time I read about how billions have been spent on the F-35 and that it is a white elephant. Your views.
    The F-35 program is expensive, no doubt about it. Building a top of the line fighter is a very expensive undertaking, but the best way to maximise the value of a HUGE investment into R&D is to create something great, then build a ton of them.

    Joseph Stalin is reported to have said that "Quantity has a quality all its own", and the US is ramping up production of F-35 about as fast as it can outside a wartime environment and is preparing to build thousands of advanced stealth fighters.

    If it were just a white elephant program designed to employ US citizens, you'd see a slow trickle of procurement stretched out over a long period of time, and minimal export orders as other countries realize it's just a government subsidized jobs program that isn't affordable or worth the price for the capability it brings.

    The F/A-18 Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Chengdu J-10 are the most prolific fighters designs to come out in the last 30 years, but fewer than 600 of each were ever built. The F-35 already has orders for nearly 1000 airframes just to satisfy exports! The US could cancel its planned procurement of 2,500 aircraft altogether and the F-35 would still be the most prolific modern fighter design since the early 1970s.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    #2. Do destroyers carry BVR missiles, for the F-35 to take over it's guidance systems and shoot down an enemy aircraft? Won't range be an issue then? Or you mean, cruise missiles from the destroyer will be used to shoot down hostile aircraft? In this case, too expensive don't you think?
    The SM-6 missile is a 1,500 kg missile with a listed range of 496 km. It is primarily designed to engage aircraft and anti-ship missiles, although it can act in a cooperative manner against terminal ballistic missiles along with the SM-3.

    The SM-6 is equipped for cooperative engagement capability allowing a destroyer to fire SM-6 missiles in the direction of other networked platforms that can then take command of the missile in flight and direct it towards targets. This could be another surface vessel closer to combat, or an F-35 that has infiltrated enemy lines.

    Recently the SM-6 has publicly been given ground and ship attack capabilities as well, sinking an OHP Frigate last year. (Although the USN has actually possessed this capability since at least the 1980s as evidenced by Operation Praying Mantis...)

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Some more years down the line, I'm waiting for India to become a non-NATO ally and get this bird. The problem here lies with India, with a significant percentage of bureaucrats still holding onto the cold war memory.
    This may well happen eventually as I believe the US and India will continue to align more closely politically and militarily as fellow democracies and as counterweights to China's expanding influence. But I don't expect to see F-35 sales to India in the immediate future due to India's continuing close cooperation with Russia on defense projects.

    The bureaucrats in New Delhi are currently in bed with everyone when it comes to military procurement. I believe the US still lags behind the Russians in equipment sold to India, although the US is the most common partner for Indian military exercises. While sleeping around keeps India's options open as far as military suppliers go, access to the top shelf US toys requires a more committed relationship. Well maybe not strictly monogamous, Uncle Sam will probably look the other way if India gets a little side action from the French... ;-)
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 01 Aug 17, at 21:06.

  3. #1713
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    My 2 cents. Now keep in mind While I was an Infantry officer awhile ago I transitioned in the Army Acquisition Corps...i.e., the part of the Army which buys "stuff". My field of expertise is acquisition logistics....i.e. figuring out everything a system needs to get to the field, stay there and fight and then disposing it at end of service life.

    1. The technologies being used for the F-35 are just mind boggling. The amount of capabilities being built into those air frames are staggering. As Joe & Steve have pointed out the game is very different in the 21st Century. Now everything unclass I have read shows that the F-35 outperforms current airframes at an order of magnitude or better. Live flying testing at RED FLAG has shown its enormous capability. The USMC has their aircraft in squadron service doing operational testing.

    So why the cost? Okay 2 things....requirements creep and production runs. The USAF/USN/USMC let the idea fairies go a little nuts adding requirements to the systems which some find questionable. Once all the good idea fairies were "shot" the aircraft steadied down and requirements creep came under control. As for production runs...the aircraft is currently in the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). What that means is by acquisition law a program manager can produce up to 10% of the total numbers of his authorized systems. Those systems go through rigorous tests in the hands of troops. That is what is happening now. LRIP items cost more than Full Rate Production (FRP) because the vendor(s) are modifying their production lines and pouring test results back into the production plans. That is ongooing and that cost the government. Once that stabilizes and FRP begins the cost per airframe drops because now we have a set design and build capability. So that boast that our President talked about he got the price of the F-35 down? Nope...that was just natural result of hitting FRP.
    Sidenote: As I have said before the most difficult thing to do on a new system is integrating software. The amount of software integration in the F-35s is staggering.

    2. Burkes and Ticos do carry BVR missiles. That's what Standards are by nature. I have seen some talk of the USMC & USN aircraft having this capability but it has only been on PowerPoint slides.

    Hope this all helps.
    Thank you. Point # 1, reminds me of many troubled nights when clients would change requirements or add newer ones, and I had to literally sit all night in office to modify the TM, design docs etc. # 2, so depending on whether Burkes or Ticos are on the high seas, one of RIM-66 Standard MR/RIM-67 Standard ER/RIM-162 ESSM will be used against hostile aircraft. If F-35 has this ability, then F-22 sure has. What about the F-16 and F-18? I guess they too have this ability.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    You're very welcome Oracle

    My opinion on #1, The U.S. has built another super fighter along the lines of the F-15 Eagle. When the Eagle was being developed, it was derided as an expensive boondoggle that the U.S. couldn't afford, a costly overreaction to mistaken notions about the MiG-25 Foxbat. The truth is, it was extremely expensive. It did have a protracted and difficult development.

    One example: It was supposed to have a brand new super-duper cannon to replace the 1950's-era M61 Vulcan. The result? A cancelled super-duper gun program with a huge expenditure of time and money wasted on an utter failure, causing the new super fighter to be equipped with the old Vulcan.

    Yet, when one looks back at the F-15, it's a legend without peer in fighter history. In service for over 40 years, never once shot down in air-to-air combat, and over 100 kills.

    And we haven't even talked about the Strike Eagle variant!

    I have a feeling that the F-35 will, in its own way, be as much of a legend.

    Is it worth the many billions of dollars? Well, as the saying goes "To win a war takes billions...to lose a war takes all you've got"
    Yeah, agree.

  4. #1714
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,210
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    The F-35 program is expensive, no doubt about it. Building a top of the line fighter is a very expensive undertaking, but the best way to maximise the value of a HUGE investment into R&D is to create something great, then build a ton of them.

    Joseph Stalin is reported to have said that "Quantity has a quality all its own", and the US is ramping up production of F-35 about as fast as it can outside a wartime environment and is preparing to build thousands of advanced stealth fighters.

    If it were just a white elephant program designed to employ US citizens, you'd see a slow trickle of procurement stretched out over a long period of time, and minimal export orders as other countries realize it's just a government subsidized jobs program that isn't affordable or worth the price for the capability it brings.

    The F/A-18 Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Chengdu J-10 are the most prolific fighters designs to come out in the last 30 years, but fewer than 600 of each were ever built. The F-35 already has orders for nearly 1000 airframes just to satisfy exports! The US could cancel its planned procurement of 2,500 aircraft altogether and the F-35 would still be the most prolific modern fighter design since the early 1970s.

    The SM-6 missile is a 1,500 kg missile with a listed range of 496 km. It is primarily designed to engage aircraft and anti-ship missiles, although it can act in a cooperative manner against terminal ballistic missiles along with the SM-3.

    The SM-6 is equipped for cooperative engagement capability allowing a destroyer to fire SM-6 missiles in the direction of other networked platforms that can then take command of the missile in flight and direct it towards targets. This could be another surface vessel closer to combat, or an F-35 that has infiltrated enemy lines.

    Recently the SM-6 has publicly been given ground and ship attack capabilities as well, sinking an OHP Frigate last year. (Although the USN has actually possessed this capability since at least the 1980s as evidenced by Operation Praying Mantis...)
    Thank you. Too much information to process.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    This may well happen eventually as I believe the US and India will continue to align more closely politically and militarily as fellow democracies and as counterweights to China's expanding influence. But I don't expect to see F-35 sales to India in the immediate future due to India's continuing close cooperation with Russia on defense projects.

    The bureaucrats in New Delhi are currently in bed with everyone when it comes to military procurement. I believe the US still lags behind the Russians in equipment sold to India, although the US is the most common partner for Indian military exercises. While sleeping around keeps India's options open as far as military suppliers go, access to the top shelf US toys requires a more committed relationship. Well maybe not strictly monogamous, Uncle Sam will probably look the other way if India gets a little side action from the French... ;-)
    Ah, c'mon, India can't fight with .303 rifles and 50s era artillery. We're under sanctions and we needed to maintain a deterrence. The Soviets were the only ones filling that gap. Why did we go nuclear? You have to understand that the current GoI have openly embraced the US, but India would still maintain an independent foreign policy. US administration have to live with that. Our interests would converge on some, and we'd disagree on some. What matters is how both nations overcome the differences and still co-operate. For example, the Obama administration was not averse to F-16 production line being shifted to India, if India ordered those jets, but with the coming of Trumph administration that has taken a backseat. That deal probably won't happen. I guess both sides worked for years on this deal, even though there were worries about the PAF using older variants of the same jet. This ended from US' side, so there will be many murmurs in south block saying 'we told you so'. Diversifying military equipment purchase is a logistical nightmare, but somewhere in the chain the trust is missing. What if the armed forces cannot use a US equipment during a war. Indian militarys' order books have a $15 billion purchase agreement with the US, and this happened in a decade. I think that's progress.

    I think there is a thinking that the Russians would gain in their 5th gen program, if India is sold the F-35.With whatever India has got, it is standing upto the dragon right now. And we're not Chinese to take down the first F-35 we get and reverse engineer it. We suck at copying. Just look at the LCA program. We have the GE engines, and still can't add enough thrust to the Kaveri. ;-))))
    Last edited by Oracle; 02 Aug 17, at 04:10.

  5. #1715
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,777
    The UK is starting to test the F-35B with external loads on the ski-jump ramp.

    Tbh, I thought this had allready been done. Isn't the carrier supposed to comission late this year/early 2018?

  6. #1716
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,895
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    Tbh, I thought this had allready been done. Isn't the carrier supposed to comission late this year/early 2018?
    They call that IOC. Apparently, IOC in British terms means it floats.

    Full F-35B flight test regime is planned for the second half of 2018 (Oct '18 off the eastern coast of the US, to be exact), FOC declaration is due 2020.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 12 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 12 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sig P250, Part 2
    By GraniteForge in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 26 Nov 08,, 00:04
  2. What part do you disagree with?
    By Roosveltrepub in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22 Apr 08,, 16:52
  3. Who wants to be a part?
    By joey2 in forum International Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22 Nov 06,, 00:31
  4. I did my part
    By bren in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08 Nov 06,, 10:49

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •