F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[HenryBHough]

And that lack of choice is a large part of discussions in Britain as to whether to abort the entire carrier program.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And that lack of choice is a large part of discussions in Britain as to whether to abort the entire carrier program.

I don't see where you have any other choice but to go with it. Argentina is firing up the rhetoric once again and will end up with some modern fighters (and maybe spend a little more time training ground support and Pilots). Without the F-35B you can just hand over the Falklands and other places like it. It confuses me that Britain still cares about the Falklands and hasn't turned it over to Argentina before now. You won last time but it was an ugly win. The next time, without the F-35B will be even uglier and you may not win.

 

[westwall]

The only important part of the story is, is it accurate. Trying to discredit the story based on who wrote it is stupid. Aviation Week and Space Technology is a civilian magazine, written by civilians. You would be hard pressed to find mistakes in that publication.

Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking. Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight. Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup. One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid. And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid. That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact. The article was more about agenda than facts. And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.

There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda. Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky. There were a hell of a lot of growing pains. But it's doing duty in Syria today. You don't hear a lot about it when it flies. That's because it's doing what it's designed to do. You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there. And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it. But the F-16 has to get there first. When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight. The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.

The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air. It's all been ground to air. Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable. If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle. The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well. If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.

The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation. One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar. You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless. What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in. If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.

The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over. If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC. They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in. We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore. And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap? By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate. And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.

The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done. There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22. This puts the US on top where it needs to stay. It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat. The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill. By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes. And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it. You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years. Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years. The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments. So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.

The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one. The Chinese are having the same problem. And so is the EU.

The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22. They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.

The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault. Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range. No doubt about it. However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous. In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.

I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.

On the best fighters, we do agree. It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter. While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone. If that is the case, we ain't winnin'. The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction. That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.

Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine. I imagine I have a couple or three years on you. We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter. The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15. It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5. Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5. Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante. The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives. We don't anymore. We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.

The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters. It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings. And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning. And beginnings are painfully slow. The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35. . It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.

If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong. Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.

By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.

As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense. I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc. There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc. That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.

The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile. The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress. That was in 1974 or 75.

ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before. Don't kid yourself on that fact. I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.

The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish. My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these. That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance. Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.

And I was alive when the P-51 was being used for long range bomber escort. Korea sure changed things.

The Century Series had a ton of turkeys and a few really good ones like the 104, F106. Not much else was worth a damned. There was promise in the XF-107 but it lost out to a big Fighter Bomber called the F-105. I don't count the F-105 as good because it was never used like it was supposed to be used for. It was used as a Tactical Fighter, Bomber instead of long ranged Tactical/Strategic Nuke carrier. The A-5C was better at the nuke role as well as the recon role. The 105 was a dead duck to other fighters.

I list the 104 and the 106 as the two century series fighter successes. The 104 was the first true Mach 2 interdiction fighter and the 106 took the weak kneed 102 and cleaned up what was wrong with it for a bomber interceptor. The 101, 102 were both under powered turkeys and neither had a thing worth copying into a newer AC like the 104 and 106.

Trust me, the F-15s that are exported don't have the same avionic packages (mostly software difference) as the ones we keep for ourselves. Same goes for the F-16 and the F-18. We don't ship F-15C/D or Es with the latest hot stuff. Israel puts their own twist on things because they have no choice. The Israel PR says they do it because theirs is better. In reality, it probably is better than the exports but not as good as the US Domestics. There are reasons why certain parts of the Avionics for the F-15 is only opened in a secure vault. That method keeps the F-15 flying and able to fight anything other than the F-22. And it has trouble with the F-35 as well.

Case in point. They just finished Green Flag where two of the F-35As handled all the CAS. They weren't seen but they were certain felt. This same scenario was handled by both the A-10 and the F-16 where both of these were wiped out. Yet, there were no losses for the F-35. The term ICUUCMe comes into play. All you know is that your troops and equipment are exploding around you. The F-35A is already able to hand CAS. But you can't see it when it does it. The Army likes to see the CAS Aircraft. Now, that's pretty damned stupid when you can do it without being seen at all. You have to see it (either visual, IR or Radar) to shoot it. Of course, the F-22 was handling Topcap so nothing in the air got remotely close to the F-35A . It took a gaggle of F-16s and A-10s to fail at the same job as two F-35As with no losses. Ground Fire has gotten so that anyone flying below 20,000 feet is being shot at by ground forces. And if you drop below 10,000 feet, even the ground troops are taking pot shots at your butt.

AS it was once said by a Popular General, "The idea is not to die for your country but to make the other SOB die for his country". Or something like that.

The cost of the F-35A is right around 85 mil right now. The cost of the ones you are getting (F-35B) are around 110 mil. By 2019, the cost of the B will be down to 85 mil and the A will be down close to 60 mil. There are no AC out there to do do ground support at any price other than the F-35 that can't be detected.

During Desert Storm, the Buffs were used for high level bombing against amassed tanks. They couldn't here them nor see them and by the time they saw the contrails, the bombs were already hitting. The Buffs cut a 100 foot wide trough through the armor, leaving a 100 foot open area, then another wasted 100 foot wide area. There were tank drivers throwing their hatches open to get away from the tanks and trying to surrender to everyone including Journalists. One flight of Buffs can do more damage than all 300 of the A-10s put together. Two F-35As can do the same job of ground attack as a squadron of convention Fighters or Attack birds. Much like 4 F-22 can handle 24 conventional Fighters. All you know is that your stuff is going boom. Makes you a very nervous person.

You talk about cost. The F-16 is around 30mil right now. The F-35A is right around 85 mil. Considering it would take 4 F-16s to take out the same targets it sounds like the F-35A is quite a bargain. Now, considering you are going to lose F-16 pilots in the mix, the F-35A is a fantastic deal.

You have been following the B which is what has run up the cost and the time to production for the other two. The F-16C/D is getting replaced by the cheapest version and the one that is further along in development. What stupid is that the B model is going to be in production according the Congress before the A. But the Air Force plans on the F-35A going into service next year. It's pretty stupid that Britain has decided to go all B model. It could have saved a bunch by mixing in the A along with it.

The C model (combat loaded replaces the F18) has a .78 power to weight ratio. The A model (replaces the F-16 and A-10) has a better than 1 to 1. The C is built heavier and has more wing area then the C since it's for a carrier. Imagine the performance of the F-18 had they went ahead and built the Non Carrier Version? Because of the F-16, they couldn't find buyers. The B model still has to have the worst stats since it does an entirely different mission but it can overlap if need be with lighter fuel and ordinance loads. Look for jump ramps to go onto some of the British small carriers that once housed Harriers. That test has already been done and it went flawless.

After Green Flag, the USAF has accelerated getting the A models into service for one huge reason, if can cu, and you can't C Me then I win with no losses.

The more that Lockheed can sell, the lower the cost. Simple as that. You brits are buying quite a few of them since you need them for places like the Falklands. Your birds were in such bad shape, the Marines could only use them for parts.

The only bird left other than the F-35B to do the mission that you need are the Russian Yak-38s and 41. And even the Russians took them out of service after a bunch of deaths.

Your reasons have long since turn to whining. Get over it and make sure that Britain gets the best buy on them they can get since Britain really has no other choice for the carriers it already possesses.

British Aerospace is providing a good proportion of the avionics so I can assure YOU that the British aircraft are going to be the same as ours. End of story. To believe otherwise is to defy the reality of the procurement process. Your estimate of the cost of the A model is wildly optimistic, parroting the number that Lockheed has been giving out. The real cost is going to be around 172 million per. And even THAT is generous. The most realistic per unit price is around 181 million per. Per unit cost of the Block 50 F-16 is around 35 million per, however the most advanced F-16's are the Block 60's that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES just bought. Yes, they are a half generation ahead of our aircraft. So much for your theory that we get the best.....

"The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force’s F-35A, are the following. (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)

“The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the “long lead” money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014. The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.

To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for “modification of aircraft” for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy.

None of that includes the 2014 R&D bill for the F-35A; that was $816 million; calculate that in if you want; I choose not to” Wheeler added.

The Marine Corps and Navy versions are a little pricier."


How much the F-35 Really Cost Defense Update


"The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore."

Top Falcons The UAE s F-16 Block 60 61 Fighters

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Like every other civilian publication, it should be subject to fact checking. Things like believing that the F-16 won't jettison the external tanks for a dogfight. Just because it's shown with tanks for a photo op doesn't mean it will not jettison those tanks during a dustup. One thing that can be said of REAL Fighter Pilots of the US Military is that they are far from stupid. And keeping those tanks onboard would be really stupid. That stupidity is implied in the article and some of you jump on that as if it were fact. The article was more about agenda than facts. And it fits nicely in with your own agenda.

There are those that still dog the F-22 and come up with "Articles" that fit their own agenda. Yet the F-22 is in service and has been proven to be the baddest fighter in the sky. There were a hell of a lot of growing pains. But it's doing duty in Syria today. You don't hear a lot about it when it flies. That's because it's doing what it's designed to do. You don't see it and you aren't aware it's there. And I know that in a nose to nose dogfight the F-16 has a good chance of defeating it. But the F-16 has to get there first. When it costs almost your entire flight to get a F-16 in position you are in deep doo doo because there are more than one F-22s to fight. The F-35 is a real 5th gen fighter and you will have to pay a high price to engage it nose to nose.

The losses of the F-16 in combat have not been air to air. It's all been ground to air. Today's combat environment means that the F-16 is vulnerable. If you are using your Ground Attack birds for fighter cover then you are losing the battle. The F-15 has done the top cap role quite well. If the F-15C drops down to low altitude then it's even more vulnerable than the F-16 since it's larger and has a larger radar signature.

The F-35 can strike back at the ground attack installation. One method is to send a really nasty signal that burns out the ground radar. You can have thousands of missiles but without the radar they are worthless. What the F-35 does is makes a safe corridor for the F-16s, F-15s and F-18s to operate in. If this doesn't happen then the losses of the conventional 4thgen fighters will be very high.

The days of surviving "Going Downtown" are over. If it weren't for the F-117 during Desert Storm, the losses would have been tremendous to all other AC. They hit the ground installation Radar Sites making that corridor for the conventional fighters and attack birds to operate in. We both know that the F-117 can't do that job anymore. And if we are using the F-22 for that mission then what is doing top cap? By introducing the F-35 into the attack role we are capable of making those corridors where the other AC can operate. And, of course, during the creation of those corridors, top cap will be being done by the F-22, the only other AC that can operate until that corridor is created.

The F-22 needs the F-35 to get the job done. There are NO other AC capable of doing the mission required by the F-35 and the F-22. This puts the US on top where it needs to stay. It took the F-22 more than 15 years to actually get into a position for combat. The F-35 is also growing into the shoes that it needs to fill. By 2019, it will be able to fill those shoes. And no other AC will be along until at least 2025 to compete with it. You are thinking that the F-35 will be static during those 6 years. Nope, much like the F-22 making improvements during the last couple of years. The F-22 has been robbing the F-35 blind for developments. So the cost that you see in the F-35 is better spent than you realize.

The Russian T-50 demonstrates that you can make it look like a 5th gen fighter but there are more to a 5th gen fighter an just looking like one. The Chinese are having the same problem. And so is the EU.

The fact remains that the F-35 is the other half of the F-22. They do their jobs and you can operate a Cessna 172 over enemy positions.

The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault. Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range. No doubt about it. However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous. In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.

I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.

On the best fighters, we do agree. It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter. While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone. If that is the case, we ain't winnin'. The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction. That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.

Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine. I imagine I have a couple or three years on you. We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter. The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15. It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5. Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5. Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante. The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives. We don't anymore. We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.

The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters. It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings. And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning. And beginnings are painfully slow. The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35. . It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.

If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong. Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.

By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.

As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense. I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc. There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc. That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.

The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile. The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress. That was in 1974 or 75.

ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before. Don't kid yourself on that fact. I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.

The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish. My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these. That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance. Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.

And I was alive when the P-51 was being used for long range bomber escort. Korea sure changed things.

The Century Series had a ton of turkeys and a few really good ones like the 104, F106. Not much else was worth a damned. There was promise in the XF-107 but it lost out to a big Fighter Bomber called the F-105. I don't count the F-105 as good because it was never used like it was supposed to be used for. It was used as a Tactical Fighter, Bomber instead of long ranged Tactical/Strategic Nuke carrier. The A-5C was better at the nuke role as well as the recon role. The 105 was a dead duck to other fighters.

I list the 104 and the 106 as the two century series fighter successes. The 104 was the first true Mach 2 interdiction fighter and the 106 took the weak kneed 102 and cleaned up what was wrong with it for a bomber interceptor. The 101, 102 were both under powered turkeys and neither had a thing worth copying into a newer AC like the 104 and 106.

Trust me, the F-15s that are exported don't have the same avionic packages (mostly software difference) as the ones we keep for ourselves. Same goes for the F-16 and the F-18. We don't ship F-15C/D or Es with the latest hot stuff. Israel puts their own twist on things because they have no choice. The Israel PR says they do it because theirs is better. In reality, it probably is better than the exports but not as good as the US Domestics. There are reasons why certain parts of the Avionics for the F-15 is only opened in a secure vault. That method keeps the F-15 flying and able to fight anything other than the F-22. And it has trouble with the F-35 as well.

Case in point. They just finished Green Flag where two of the F-35As handled all the CAS. They weren't seen but they were certain felt. This same scenario was handled by both the A-10 and the F-16 where both of these were wiped out. Yet, there were no losses for the F-35. The term ICUUCMe comes into play. All you know is that your troops and equipment are exploding around you. The F-35A is already able to hand CAS. But you can't see it when it does it. The Army likes to see the CAS Aircraft. Now, that's pretty damned stupid when you can do it without being seen at all. You have to see it (either visual, IR or Radar) to shoot it. Of course, the F-22 was handling Topcap so nothing in the air got remotely close to the F-35A . It took a gaggle of F-16s and A-10s to fail at the same job as two F-35As with no losses. Ground Fire has gotten so that anyone flying below 20,000 feet is being shot at by ground forces. And if you drop below 10,000 feet, even the ground troops are taking pot shots at your butt.

AS it was once said by a Popular General, "The idea is not to die for your country but to make the other SOB die for his country". Or something like that.

The cost of the F-35A is right around 85 mil right now. The cost of the ones you are getting (F-35B) are around 110 mil. By 2019, the cost of the B will be down to 85 mil and the A will be down close to 60 mil. There are no AC out there to do do ground support at any price other than the F-35 that can't be detected.

During Desert Storm, the Buffs were used for high level bombing against amassed tanks. They couldn't here them nor see them and by the time they saw the contrails, the bombs were already hitting. The Buffs cut a 100 foot wide trough through the armor, leaving a 100 foot open area, then another wasted 100 foot wide area. There were tank drivers throwing their hatches open to get away from the tanks and trying to surrender to everyone including Journalists. One flight of Buffs can do more damage than all 300 of the A-10s put together. Two F-35As can do the same job of ground attack as a squadron of convention Fighters or Attack birds. Much like 4 F-22 can handle 24 conventional Fighters. All you know is that your stuff is going boom. Makes you a very nervous person.

You talk about cost. The F-16 is around 30mil right now. The F-35A is right around 85 mil. Considering it would take 4 F-16s to take out the same targets it sounds like the F-35A is quite a bargain. Now, considering you are going to lose F-16 pilots in the mix, the F-35A is a fantastic deal.

You have been following the B which is what has run up the cost and the time to production for the other two. The F-16C/D is getting replaced by the cheapest version and the one that is further along in development. What stupid is that the B model is going to be in production according the Congress before the A. But the Air Force plans on the F-35A going into service next year. It's pretty stupid that Britain has decided to go all B model. It could have saved a bunch by mixing in the A along with it.

The C model (combat loaded replaces the F18) has a .78 power to weight ratio. The A model (replaces the F-16 and A-10) has a better than 1 to 1. The C is built heavier and has more wing area then the C since it's for a carrier. Imagine the performance of the F-18 had they went ahead and built the Non Carrier Version? Because of the F-16, they couldn't find buyers. The B model still has to have the worst stats since it does an entirely different mission but it can overlap if need be with lighter fuel and ordinance loads. Look for jump ramps to go onto some of the British small carriers that once housed Harriers. That test has already been done and it went flawless.

After Green Flag, the USAF has accelerated getting the A models into service for one huge reason, if can cu, and you can't C Me then I win with no losses.

The more that Lockheed can sell, the lower the cost. Simple as that. You brits are buying quite a few of them since you need them for places like the Falklands. Your birds were in such bad shape, the Marines could only use them for parts.

The only bird left other than the F-35B to do the mission that you need are the Russian Yak-38s and 41. And even the Russians took them out of service after a bunch of deaths.

Your reasons have long since turn to whining. Get over it and make sure that Britain gets the best buy on them they can get since Britain really has no other choice for the carriers it already possesses.

British Aerospace is providing a good proportion of the avionics so I can assure YOU that the British aircraft are going to be the same as ours. End of story. To believe otherwise is to defy the reality of the procurement process. Your estimate of the cost of the A model is wildly optimistic, parroting the number that Lockheed has been giving out. The real cost is going to be around 172 million per. And even THAT is generous. The most realistic per unit price is around 181 million per. Per unit cost of the Block 50 F-16 is around 35 million per, however the most advanced F-16's are the Block 60's that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES just bought. Yes, they are a half generation ahead of our aircraft. So much for your theory that we get the best.....

"The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force’s F-35A, are the following. (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)

“The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the “long lead” money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014. The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.

To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for “modification of aircraft” for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy.

None of that includes the 2014 R&D bill for the F-35A; that was $816 million; calculate that in if you want; I choose not to” Wheeler added.

The Marine Corps and Navy versions are a little pricier."


How much the F-35 Really Cost Defense Update


"The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore."

Top Falcons The UAE s F-16 Block 60 61 Fighters

From your own Cite: As a rule, the software source codes that program the electronic-warfare, radar, and data buses on US fighters are too sensitive for export. Instead, the USA sent the UAE “object codes” (similar to APIs), which allow them to add to the F-16’s threat library on their own.

Sounds to me that the UAE had to write their own software. And they limited the weapons to be used. Plus, they ordered it heavy to carry all that extra gear around removing it from the nimble lawn dart. Let's face it, they broke the plane.

Still, it's going to be one hell of a fun bird. But it's going to be a bit sluggish due to extra weight. What's funny, the way you present it, one would think that it's not American. It's as American as apple pie and came from Lockheed of the US. About the only thing that didn't come from the US was the source code since the US won't release their own for export. Giving the edge back to the US F-16s.

Again, from your own cites: Summing it up, The F-16 might do well against other types of AC but the fact remains that it's still at a disadvantage to the F-22, F-15 and F-35. They will see it before it sees them and they can bag it and head home for Pizza and Beer. Even if the Russians get the T-50 ironed out, their weapons are still short against the Aim-120. Even the lowly F-15C will be able to shoot first due to the range of the radar, passives and the range of the weapons. They aren't exporting the source code. You have to roll your own. And, right now, the US rolls the meanest source code of them all.

You are reaching on this one. In fact, you are whining.

 

[westwall]

The first part of Desert Storm, and what allowed the 117's to do their job was the Hellfire missile attacks on the Iraq radars on the border prior to the air assault. Yes, the F-16 was the best fighter in the world at knife range. No doubt about it. However the F-22 is better and the SU-27 series in the hands of a good pilot was extremely dangerous. In a heads up fight between the Sukhoi, and the F-16, it would be down to pilot skill.

I appreciate your championing of the F-35, but it has had more problems, with more things, than any aircraft I can remember...and I've been around for a lot of them.

On the best fighters, we do agree. It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter. While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone. If that is the case, we ain't winnin'. The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction. That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.

Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine. I imagine I have a couple or three years on you. We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter. The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15. It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5. Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5. Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante. The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives. We don't anymore. We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.

The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters. It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings. And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning. And beginnings are painfully slow. The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35. . It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.

If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong. Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.

By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.

As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense. I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc. There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc. That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.

The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile. The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress. That was in 1974 or 75.

ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before. Don't kid yourself on that fact. I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.

The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish. My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these. That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance. Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.

And I was alive when the P-51 was being used for long range bomber escort. Korea sure changed things.

The Century Series had a ton of turkeys and a few really good ones like the 104, F106. Not much else was worth a damned. There was promise in the XF-107 but it lost out to a big Fighter Bomber called the F-105. I don't count the F-105 as good because it was never used like it was supposed to be used for. It was used as a Tactical Fighter, Bomber instead of long ranged Tactical/Strategic Nuke carrier. The A-5C was better at the nuke role as well as the recon role. The 105 was a dead duck to other fighters.

I list the 104 and the 106 as the two century series fighter successes. The 104 was the first true Mach 2 interdiction fighter and the 106 took the weak kneed 102 and cleaned up what was wrong with it for a bomber interceptor. The 101, 102 were both under powered turkeys and neither had a thing worth copying into a newer AC like the 104 and 106.

Trust me, the F-15s that are exported don't have the same avionic packages (mostly software difference) as the ones we keep for ourselves. Same goes for the F-16 and the F-18. We don't ship F-15C/D or Es with the latest hot stuff. Israel puts their own twist on things because they have no choice. The Israel PR says they do it because theirs is better. In reality, it probably is better than the exports but not as good as the US Domestics. There are reasons why certain parts of the Avionics for the F-15 is only opened in a secure vault. That method keeps the F-15 flying and able to fight anything other than the F-22. And it has trouble with the F-35 as well.

Case in point. They just finished Green Flag where two of the F-35As handled all the CAS. They weren't seen but they were certain felt. This same scenario was handled by both the A-10 and the F-16 where both of these were wiped out. Yet, there were no losses for the F-35. The term ICUUCMe comes into play. All you know is that your troops and equipment are exploding around you. The F-35A is already able to hand CAS. But you can't see it when it does it. The Army likes to see the CAS Aircraft. Now, that's pretty damned stupid when you can do it without being seen at all. You have to see it (either visual, IR or Radar) to shoot it. Of course, the F-22 was handling Topcap so nothing in the air got remotely close to the F-35A . It took a gaggle of F-16s and A-10s to fail at the same job as two F-35As with no losses. Ground Fire has gotten so that anyone flying below 20,000 feet is being shot at by ground forces. And if you drop below 10,000 feet, even the ground troops are taking pot shots at your butt.

AS it was once said by a Popular General, "The idea is not to die for your country but to make the other SOB die for his country". Or something like that.

The cost of the F-35A is right around 85 mil right now. The cost of the ones you are getting (F-35B) are around 110 mil. By 2019, the cost of the B will be down to 85 mil and the A will be down close to 60 mil. There are no AC out there to do do ground support at any price other than the F-35 that can't be detected.

During Desert Storm, the Buffs were used for high level bombing against amassed tanks. They couldn't here them nor see them and by the time they saw the contrails, the bombs were already hitting. The Buffs cut a 100 foot wide trough through the armor, leaving a 100 foot open area, then another wasted 100 foot wide area. There were tank drivers throwing their hatches open to get away from the tanks and trying to surrender to everyone including Journalists. One flight of Buffs can do more damage than all 300 of the A-10s put together. Two F-35As can do the same job of ground attack as a squadron of convention Fighters or Attack birds. Much like 4 F-22 can handle 24 conventional Fighters. All you know is that your stuff is going boom. Makes you a very nervous person.

You talk about cost. The F-16 is around 30mil right now. The F-35A is right around 85 mil. Considering it would take 4 F-16s to take out the same targets it sounds like the F-35A is quite a bargain. Now, considering you are going to lose F-16 pilots in the mix, the F-35A is a fantastic deal.

You have been following the B which is what has run up the cost and the time to production for the other two. The F-16C/D is getting replaced by the cheapest version and the one that is further along in development. What stupid is that the B model is going to be in production according the Congress before the A. But the Air Force plans on the F-35A going into service next year. It's pretty stupid that Britain has decided to go all B model. It could have saved a bunch by mixing in the A along with it.

The C model (combat loaded replaces the F18) has a .78 power to weight ratio. The A model (replaces the F-16 and A-10) has a better than 1 to 1. The C is built heavier and has more wing area then the C since it's for a carrier. Imagine the performance of the F-18 had they went ahead and built the Non Carrier Version? Because of the F-16, they couldn't find buyers. The B model still has to have the worst stats since it does an entirely different mission but it can overlap if need be with lighter fuel and ordinance loads. Look for jump ramps to go onto some of the British small carriers that once housed Harriers. That test has already been done and it went flawless.

After Green Flag, the USAF has accelerated getting the A models into service for one huge reason, if can cu, and you can't C Me then I win with no losses.

The more that Lockheed can sell, the lower the cost. Simple as that. You brits are buying quite a few of them since you need them for places like the Falklands. Your birds were in such bad shape, the Marines could only use them for parts.

The only bird left other than the F-35B to do the mission that you need are the Russian Yak-38s and 41. And even the Russians took them out of service after a bunch of deaths.

Your reasons have long since turn to whining. Get over it and make sure that Britain gets the best buy on them they can get since Britain really has no other choice for the carriers it already possesses.

British Aerospace is providing a good proportion of the avionics so I can assure YOU that the British aircraft are going to be the same as ours. End of story. To believe otherwise is to defy the reality of the procurement process. Your estimate of the cost of the A model is wildly optimistic, parroting the number that Lockheed has been giving out. The real cost is going to be around 172 million per. And even THAT is generous. The most realistic per unit price is around 181 million per. Per unit cost of the Block 50 F-16 is around 35 million per, however the most advanced F-16's are the Block 60's that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES just bought. Yes, they are a half generation ahead of our aircraft. So much for your theory that we get the best.....

"The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force’s F-35A, are the following. (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)

“The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the “long lead” money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014. The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.

To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for “modification of aircraft” for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy.

None of that includes the 2014 R&D bill for the F-35A; that was $816 million; calculate that in if you want; I choose not to” Wheeler added.

The Marine Corps and Navy versions are a little pricier."


How much the F-35 Really Cost Defense Update


"The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore."

Top Falcons The UAE s F-16 Block 60 61 Fighters

From your own Cite: As a rule, the software source codes that program the electronic-warfare, radar, and data buses on US fighters are too sensitive for export. Instead, the USA sent the UAE “object codes” (similar to APIs), which allow them to add to the F-16’s threat library on their own.

Sounds to me that the UAE had to write their own software. And they limited the weapons to be used. Plus, they ordered it heavy to carry all that extra gear around removing it from the nimble lawn dart. Let's face it, they broke the plane.

Still, it's going to be one hell of a fun bird. But it's going to be a bit sluggish due to extra weight. What's funny, the way you present it, one would think that it's not American. It's as American as apple pie and came from Lockheed of the US. About the only thing that didn't come from the US was the source code since the US won't release their own for export. Giving the edge back to the US F-16s.

Again, from your own cites: Summing it up, The F-16 might do well against other types of AC but the fact remains that it's still at a disadvantage to the F-22, F-15 and F-35. They will see it before it sees them and they can bag it and head home for Pizza and Beer. Even if the Russians get the T-50 ironed out, their weapons are still short against the Aim-120. Even the lowly F-15C will be able to shoot first due to the range of the radar, passives and the range of the weapons. They aren't exporting the source code. You have to roll your own. And, right now, the US rolls the meanest source code of them all.

You are reaching on this one. In fact, you are whining.

Do you really believe that crapola?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

On the best fighters, we do agree. It takes more than turn and burn to be a fighter. While some countries may have to use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter, if the US gets to that point then the F-22 and F-15s are gone. If that is the case, we ain't winnin'. The same can be said about the Russians if they are using their SU-30s and Migs for interdiction. That means they have lost their SU-27s and ain't winnin' either.

Maybe in your lifetime, it has more problems but not in mine. I imagine I have a couple or three years on you. We used to build fighters by cleaning up the mistakes on the last one and just change the last letter. The last Fighter to come out of that system is the F-15. It took all the things wrong with the F-4 and cleaned it up. Just like the F-18 is actually a cleaned up F-5. Even the F-16 owes it's heritage to the F-4 and the F-5. Even the Mig-25 owes it's beginnings to the A-5 Vigilante. The difference is, we used to pay for those mistakes in Test Pilot Lives. We don't anymore. We pay that price in slow painful paper deaths.

The F-35 owes little to the older Fighters. It's the driving force and all others gain from it's beginnings. And you are seeing the dawn of a new beginning. And beginnings are painfully slow. The F-22 just started the beginnings and benefits greatly by the F-35. . It's up to the F-35 to get it finished.

If you believe that all those wonderful gadgets on the F-35 is going to be passed to other countries when they buy it, you would be wrong. Like the F-15, export F-35s will have Export features which guarantees that the US F-35 will be the best of the best.

By the time the rest of the world catches up it's Gen6 time for the US and another leap forward.

As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense. I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc. There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc. That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.

The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile. The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress. That was in 1974 or 75.

ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before. Don't kid yourself on that fact. I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.

The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish. My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these. That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance. Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.

And I was alive when the P-51 was being used for long range bomber escort. Korea sure changed things.

The Century Series had a ton of turkeys and a few really good ones like the 104, F106. Not much else was worth a damned. There was promise in the XF-107 but it lost out to a big Fighter Bomber called the F-105. I don't count the F-105 as good because it was never used like it was supposed to be used for. It was used as a Tactical Fighter, Bomber instead of long ranged Tactical/Strategic Nuke carrier. The A-5C was better at the nuke role as well as the recon role. The 105 was a dead duck to other fighters.

I list the 104 and the 106 as the two century series fighter successes. The 104 was the first true Mach 2 interdiction fighter and the 106 took the weak kneed 102 and cleaned up what was wrong with it for a bomber interceptor. The 101, 102 were both under powered turkeys and neither had a thing worth copying into a newer AC like the 104 and 106.

Trust me, the F-15s that are exported don't have the same avionic packages (mostly software difference) as the ones we keep for ourselves. Same goes for the F-16 and the F-18. We don't ship F-15C/D or Es with the latest hot stuff. Israel puts their own twist on things because they have no choice. The Israel PR says they do it because theirs is better. In reality, it probably is better than the exports but not as good as the US Domestics. There are reasons why certain parts of the Avionics for the F-15 is only opened in a secure vault. That method keeps the F-15 flying and able to fight anything other than the F-22. And it has trouble with the F-35 as well.

Case in point. They just finished Green Flag where two of the F-35As handled all the CAS. They weren't seen but they were certain felt. This same scenario was handled by both the A-10 and the F-16 where both of these were wiped out. Yet, there were no losses for the F-35. The term ICUUCMe comes into play. All you know is that your troops and equipment are exploding around you. The F-35A is already able to hand CAS. But you can't see it when it does it. The Army likes to see the CAS Aircraft. Now, that's pretty damned stupid when you can do it without being seen at all. You have to see it (either visual, IR or Radar) to shoot it. Of course, the F-22 was handling Topcap so nothing in the air got remotely close to the F-35A . It took a gaggle of F-16s and A-10s to fail at the same job as two F-35As with no losses. Ground Fire has gotten so that anyone flying below 20,000 feet is being shot at by ground forces. And if you drop below 10,000 feet, even the ground troops are taking pot shots at your butt.

AS it was once said by a Popular General, "The idea is not to die for your country but to make the other SOB die for his country". Or something like that.

The cost of the F-35A is right around 85 mil right now. The cost of the ones you are getting (F-35B) are around 110 mil. By 2019, the cost of the B will be down to 85 mil and the A will be down close to 60 mil. There are no AC out there to do do ground support at any price other than the F-35 that can't be detected.

During Desert Storm, the Buffs were used for high level bombing against amassed tanks. They couldn't here them nor see them and by the time they saw the contrails, the bombs were already hitting. The Buffs cut a 100 foot wide trough through the armor, leaving a 100 foot open area, then another wasted 100 foot wide area. There were tank drivers throwing their hatches open to get away from the tanks and trying to surrender to everyone including Journalists. One flight of Buffs can do more damage than all 300 of the A-10s put together. Two F-35As can do the same job of ground attack as a squadron of convention Fighters or Attack birds. Much like 4 F-22 can handle 24 conventional Fighters. All you know is that your stuff is going boom. Makes you a very nervous person.

You talk about cost. The F-16 is around 30mil right now. The F-35A is right around 85 mil. Considering it would take 4 F-16s to take out the same targets it sounds like the F-35A is quite a bargain. Now, considering you are going to lose F-16 pilots in the mix, the F-35A is a fantastic deal.

You have been following the B which is what has run up the cost and the time to production for the other two. The F-16C/D is getting replaced by the cheapest version and the one that is further along in development. What stupid is that the B model is going to be in production according the Congress before the A. But the Air Force plans on the F-35A going into service next year. It's pretty stupid that Britain has decided to go all B model. It could have saved a bunch by mixing in the A along with it.

The C model (combat loaded replaces the F18) has a .78 power to weight ratio. The A model (replaces the F-16 and A-10) has a better than 1 to 1. The C is built heavier and has more wing area then the C since it's for a carrier. Imagine the performance of the F-18 had they went ahead and built the Non Carrier Version? Because of the F-16, they couldn't find buyers. The B model still has to have the worst stats since it does an entirely different mission but it can overlap if need be with lighter fuel and ordinance loads. Look for jump ramps to go onto some of the British small carriers that once housed Harriers. That test has already been done and it went flawless.

After Green Flag, the USAF has accelerated getting the A models into service for one huge reason, if can cu, and you can't C Me then I win with no losses.

The more that Lockheed can sell, the lower the cost. Simple as that. You brits are buying quite a few of them since you need them for places like the Falklands. Your birds were in such bad shape, the Marines could only use them for parts.

The only bird left other than the F-35B to do the mission that you need are the Russian Yak-38s and 41. And even the Russians took them out of service after a bunch of deaths.

Your reasons have long since turn to whining. Get over it and make sure that Britain gets the best buy on them they can get since Britain really has no other choice for the carriers it already possesses.

British Aerospace is providing a good proportion of the avionics so I can assure YOU that the British aircraft are going to be the same as ours. End of story. To believe otherwise is to defy the reality of the procurement process. Your estimate of the cost of the A model is wildly optimistic, parroting the number that Lockheed has been giving out. The real cost is going to be around 172 million per. And even THAT is generous. The most realistic per unit price is around 181 million per. Per unit cost of the Block 50 F-16 is around 35 million per, however the most advanced F-16's are the Block 60's that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES just bought. Yes, they are a half generation ahead of our aircraft. So much for your theory that we get the best.....

"The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force’s F-35A, are the following. (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)

“The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the “long lead” money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014. The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.

To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for “modification of aircraft” for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy.

None of that includes the 2014 R&D bill for the F-35A; that was $816 million; calculate that in if you want; I choose not to” Wheeler added.

The Marine Corps and Navy versions are a little pricier."


How much the F-35 Really Cost Defense Update


"The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore."

Top Falcons The UAE s F-16 Block 60 61 Fighters

From your own Cite: As a rule, the software source codes that program the electronic-warfare, radar, and data buses on US fighters are too sensitive for export. Instead, the USA sent the UAE “object codes” (similar to APIs), which allow them to add to the F-16’s threat library on their own.

Sounds to me that the UAE had to write their own software. And they limited the weapons to be used. Plus, they ordered it heavy to carry all that extra gear around removing it from the nimble lawn dart. Let's face it, they broke the plane.

Still, it's going to be one hell of a fun bird. But it's going to be a bit sluggish due to extra weight. What's funny, the way you present it, one would think that it's not American. It's as American as apple pie and came from Lockheed of the US. About the only thing that didn't come from the US was the source code since the US won't release their own for export. Giving the edge back to the US F-16s.

Again, from your own cites: Summing it up, The F-16 might do well against other types of AC but the fact remains that it's still at a disadvantage to the F-22, F-15 and F-35. They will see it before it sees them and they can bag it and head home for Pizza and Beer. Even if the Russians get the T-50 ironed out, their weapons are still short against the Aim-120. Even the lowly F-15C will be able to shoot first due to the range of the radar, passives and the range of the weapons. They aren't exporting the source code. You have to roll your own. And, right now, the US rolls the meanest source code of them all.

You are reaching on this one. In fact, you are whining.

Do you really believe that crapola?

You want a bit of Cheeze to go with that whine?

 

[HenryBHough]

One share of Lockheed stock apparently is sufficient to cause diarrhea of the keyboard.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

One share of Lockheed stock apparently is sufficient to cause diarrhea of the keyboard.

You must own thousands of shares then. No wonder you are so worried. Once again, Lockheed has placed all it's eggs in one basket. Kelly would be proud.

 

[HenryBHough]

wooossshhhhhhh!

And that was no F35.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

wooossshhhhhhh!

And that was no F35.

You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack. It's already proven. What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?

 

[westwall]

As far as age go's I was alive when Merlin engined fighters were still the main line of defense. I was able to witness the Century series as they were developed into the 101, 102, 104, 105, 106 etc. There were a lot of crazy theories around back in the day that missiles were going to make guns obsolete etc. That's why the Phantom was designed with no gun.

The F-20 (which owes its existence to the N-300, which was an internal Northrop project) is the cleaned up F-5 and is arguably better than the F-18 by a country mile. The YF-17 was the F-16's main challenger, and that became the F/A-18, which was saved from the scrap heap of history because it had two engines, so the Navy took it because they were ordered to do so by Congress. That was in 1974 or 75.

ALL aircraft owe something to those that came before. Don't kid yourself on that fact. I can also guarantee you that the UK's F-35 will be exactly the same as ours, they're providing the helmet you like so much after all.

The F-35 went off the rails years ago when it was decided to jump in with both feet without a full understanding of what they were trying to accomplish. My argument against it is I can have 10 other aircraft that are fully capable for the price of one of these. That means I will have 6 in the air when these are down for maintenance. Aircraft in the air do things, others are targets, and this is a bloody expensive target.

And I was alive when the P-51 was being used for long range bomber escort. Korea sure changed things.

The Century Series had a ton of turkeys and a few really good ones like the 104, F106. Not much else was worth a damned. There was promise in the XF-107 but it lost out to a big Fighter Bomber called the F-105. I don't count the F-105 as good because it was never used like it was supposed to be used for. It was used as a Tactical Fighter, Bomber instead of long ranged Tactical/Strategic Nuke carrier. The A-5C was better at the nuke role as well as the recon role. The 105 was a dead duck to other fighters.

I list the 104 and the 106 as the two century series fighter successes. The 104 was the first true Mach 2 interdiction fighter and the 106 took the weak kneed 102 and cleaned up what was wrong with it for a bomber interceptor. The 101, 102 were both under powered turkeys and neither had a thing worth copying into a newer AC like the 104 and 106.

Trust me, the F-15s that are exported don't have the same avionic packages (mostly software difference) as the ones we keep for ourselves. Same goes for the F-16 and the F-18. We don't ship F-15C/D or Es with the latest hot stuff. Israel puts their own twist on things because they have no choice. The Israel PR says they do it because theirs is better. In reality, it probably is better than the exports but not as good as the US Domestics. There are reasons why certain parts of the Avionics for the F-15 is only opened in a secure vault. That method keeps the F-15 flying and able to fight anything other than the F-22. And it has trouble with the F-35 as well.

Case in point. They just finished Green Flag where two of the F-35As handled all the CAS. They weren't seen but they were certain felt. This same scenario was handled by both the A-10 and the F-16 where both of these were wiped out. Yet, there were no losses for the F-35. The term ICUUCMe comes into play. All you know is that your troops and equipment are exploding around you. The F-35A is already able to hand CAS. But you can't see it when it does it. The Army likes to see the CAS Aircraft. Now, that's pretty damned stupid when you can do it without being seen at all. You have to see it (either visual, IR or Radar) to shoot it. Of course, the F-22 was handling Topcap so nothing in the air got remotely close to the F-35A . It took a gaggle of F-16s and A-10s to fail at the same job as two F-35As with no losses. Ground Fire has gotten so that anyone flying below 20,000 feet is being shot at by ground forces. And if you drop below 10,000 feet, even the ground troops are taking pot shots at your butt.

AS it was once said by a Popular General, "The idea is not to die for your country but to make the other SOB die for his country". Or something like that.

The cost of the F-35A is right around 85 mil right now. The cost of the ones you are getting (F-35B) are around 110 mil. By 2019, the cost of the B will be down to 85 mil and the A will be down close to 60 mil. There are no AC out there to do do ground support at any price other than the F-35 that can't be detected.

During Desert Storm, the Buffs were used for high level bombing against amassed tanks. They couldn't here them nor see them and by the time they saw the contrails, the bombs were already hitting. The Buffs cut a 100 foot wide trough through the armor, leaving a 100 foot open area, then another wasted 100 foot wide area. There were tank drivers throwing their hatches open to get away from the tanks and trying to surrender to everyone including Journalists. One flight of Buffs can do more damage than all 300 of the A-10s put together. Two F-35As can do the same job of ground attack as a squadron of convention Fighters or Attack birds. Much like 4 F-22 can handle 24 conventional Fighters. All you know is that your stuff is going boom. Makes you a very nervous person.

You talk about cost. The F-16 is around 30mil right now. The F-35A is right around 85 mil. Considering it would take 4 F-16s to take out the same targets it sounds like the F-35A is quite a bargain. Now, considering you are going to lose F-16 pilots in the mix, the F-35A is a fantastic deal.

You have been following the B which is what has run up the cost and the time to production for the other two. The F-16C/D is getting replaced by the cheapest version and the one that is further along in development. What stupid is that the B model is going to be in production according the Congress before the A. But the Air Force plans on the F-35A going into service next year. It's pretty stupid that Britain has decided to go all B model. It could have saved a bunch by mixing in the A along with it.

The C model (combat loaded replaces the F18) has a .78 power to weight ratio. The A model (replaces the F-16 and A-10) has a better than 1 to 1. The C is built heavier and has more wing area then the C since it's for a carrier. Imagine the performance of the F-18 had they went ahead and built the Non Carrier Version? Because of the F-16, they couldn't find buyers. The B model still has to have the worst stats since it does an entirely different mission but it can overlap if need be with lighter fuel and ordinance loads. Look for jump ramps to go onto some of the British small carriers that once housed Harriers. That test has already been done and it went flawless.

After Green Flag, the USAF has accelerated getting the A models into service for one huge reason, if can cu, and you can't C Me then I win with no losses.

The more that Lockheed can sell, the lower the cost. Simple as that. You brits are buying quite a few of them since you need them for places like the Falklands. Your birds were in such bad shape, the Marines could only use them for parts.

The only bird left other than the F-35B to do the mission that you need are the Russian Yak-38s and 41. And even the Russians took them out of service after a bunch of deaths.

Your reasons have long since turn to whining. Get over it and make sure that Britain gets the best buy on them they can get since Britain really has no other choice for the carriers it already possesses.

British Aerospace is providing a good proportion of the avionics so I can assure YOU that the British aircraft are going to be the same as ours. End of story. To believe otherwise is to defy the reality of the procurement process. Your estimate of the cost of the A model is wildly optimistic, parroting the number that Lockheed has been giving out. The real cost is going to be around 172 million per. And even THAT is generous. The most realistic per unit price is around 181 million per. Per unit cost of the Block 50 F-16 is around 35 million per, however the most advanced F-16's are the Block 60's that the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES just bought. Yes, they are a half generation ahead of our aircraft. So much for your theory that we get the best.....

"The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force’s F-35A, are the following. (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)

“The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the “long lead” money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014. The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.

To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for “modification of aircraft” for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy.

None of that includes the 2014 R&D bill for the F-35A; that was $816 million; calculate that in if you want; I choose not to” Wheeler added.

The Marine Corps and Navy versions are a little pricier."


How much the F-35 Really Cost Defense Update


"The most advanced F-16s in the world aren’t American. That distinction belongs to the UAE, whose F-16 E/F Block 60s are a half-generation ahead of the F-16 C/D Block 50/52+ aircraft that form the backbone of the US Air Force, and of many other fleets around the world. The Block 60 has been described as a lower-budget alternative to the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and there’s a solid argument to be made that their performance figures and broad sensor array will even keep them ahead of pending F-16 modernizations in countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore."

Top Falcons The UAE s F-16 Block 60 61 Fighters

From your own Cite: As a rule, the software source codes that program the electronic-warfare, radar, and data buses on US fighters are too sensitive for export. Instead, the USA sent the UAE “object codes” (similar to APIs), which allow them to add to the F-16’s threat library on their own.

Sounds to me that the UAE had to write their own software. And they limited the weapons to be used. Plus, they ordered it heavy to carry all that extra gear around removing it from the nimble lawn dart. Let's face it, they broke the plane.

Still, it's going to be one hell of a fun bird. But it's going to be a bit sluggish due to extra weight. What's funny, the way you present it, one would think that it's not American. It's as American as apple pie and came from Lockheed of the US. About the only thing that didn't come from the US was the source code since the US won't release their own for export. Giving the edge back to the US F-16s.

Again, from your own cites: Summing it up, The F-16 might do well against other types of AC but the fact remains that it's still at a disadvantage to the F-22, F-15 and F-35. They will see it before it sees them and they can bag it and head home for Pizza and Beer. Even if the Russians get the T-50 ironed out, their weapons are still short against the Aim-120. Even the lowly F-15C will be able to shoot first due to the range of the radar, passives and the range of the weapons. They aren't exporting the source code. You have to roll your own. And, right now, the US rolls the meanest source code of them all.

You are reaching on this one. In fact, you are whining.

Do you really believe that crapola?

You want a bit of Cheeze to go with that whine?

What whine is that? Your claim for how much the F-35 is going to cost is simply ridiculous, the claim that the F-35 that we get will somehow be better than the one the British get even though they are providing the avionics for it is likewise ridiculous, and your claim that the US F-16s (which are Block 50-52 for the most part) are somehow magically superior to the Block 60-62 that the UAE is receiving is likewise ridiculous.

Your argument basically breaks down to "I am using the sources that best suit my POV and if you don't you're "whining". You sound like my 9 year old daughter.

 

[westwall]

wooossshhhhhhh!

And that was no F35.

You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack. It's already proven. What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?

It's already "proven"? What the heck has it attacked?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

wooossshhhhhhh!

And that was no F35.

You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack. It's already proven. What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?

It's already "proven"? What the heck has it attacked?

This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do. It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision. 2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses. That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war. The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016. The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.

USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles. Unlike you that want them all killed in combat. How dare USAF.

 

[westwall]

wooossshhhhhhh!

And that was no F35.

You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack. It's already proven. What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?

It's already "proven"? What the heck has it attacked?

This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do. It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision. 2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses. That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war. The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016. The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.

USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles. Unlike you that want them all killed in combat. How dare USAF.

You weaken your argument when you make snide, untruthful comments such as that. Just sayin. As to the F-35 surviving the exercise, good. That's what it's supposed to do. Here is a good discussion on the current state of the F-35. I wasn't aware they had to send the USS Wasp back in to redo her flightdeck. Seems the heat of the F-35 engines wasn't taken into account when they built the ship.


F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag Defense content from Aviation Week

 

[HenryBHough]

You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack. It's already proven. What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?

Why go to the expense of having landing gear?

Catapult launch, secure in the knowledge that they won't be coming back.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

wooossshhhhhhh!

And that was no F35.

You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack. It's already proven. What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?

It's already "proven"? What the heck has it attacked?

This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do. It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision. 2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses. That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war. The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016. The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.

USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles. Unlike you that want them all killed in combat. How dare USAF.

You weaken your argument when you make snide, untruthful comments such as that. Just sayin. As to the F-35 surviving the exercise, good. That's what it's supposed to do. Here is a good discussion on the current state of the F-35. I wasn't aware they had to send the USS Wasp back in to redo her flightdeck. Seems the heat of the F-35 engines wasn't taken into account when they built the ship.


F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag Defense content from Aviation Week

Sorry to bring in facts. They do get in your way and should always be ignored.

As for cheap work, guess if you get rid of all your small carrier AC that's dumb, really dumb. Then you want to cancel the replacement AC. Well, shoddy work is shoddy work. They need to get that flight deck usable. Or they can listen to you and lose the next little tiff against a 3rd word, 5th rate country.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack. It's already proven. What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?

Why go to the expense of having landing gear?

Catapult launch, secure in the knowledge that they won't be coming back.

Wow, another cost savings, right? Just get rid of all the carriers while you are at it. There are some that keep hammering about that as well. The entire USN should only have row boats.

 

[westwall]

wooossshhhhhhh!

And that was no F35.

You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack. It's already proven. What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?

It's already "proven"? What the heck has it attacked?

This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do. It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision. 2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses. That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war. The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016. The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.

USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles. Unlike you that want them all killed in combat. How dare USAF.

You weaken your argument when you make snide, untruthful comments such as that. Just sayin. As to the F-35 surviving the exercise, good. That's what it's supposed to do. Here is a good discussion on the current state of the F-35. I wasn't aware they had to send the USS Wasp back in to redo her flightdeck. Seems the heat of the F-35 engines wasn't taken into account when they built the ship.


F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag Defense content from Aviation Week

Sorry to bring in facts. They do get in your way and should always be ignored.

As for cheap work, guess if you get rid of all your small carrier AC that's dumb, really dumb. Then you want to cancel the replacement AC. Well, shoddy work is shoddy work. They need to get that flight deck usable. Or they can listen to you and lose the next little tiff against a 3rd word, 5th rate country.

You mean like we're doing already? The Airfarce brass is all alike. They think they can win battles by bombing people. That hasn't worked yet. You need boots on the ground to win a fight. Those boots on the ground need a aircraft with a huge bomb load, and the loiter time to stick around for a while. We need a COIN aircraft and the Airfarce brass are buying a weapon system for a non existent opponent.

It's kind of like the Navy's new Littoral Combat Vessels. Designed to go in close and are all radar canceling but the good old Mark I eye ball can see them just fine. I remember when the Argentinians sailed one of their destroyers into the harbor at South Georgia Island and the Royal Marines knocked it out in seconds with LAWS and Carl Gustav rounds.

Nice to see our top Navy Brass have learned that lesson so well.

As have you, apparently.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Let's see. Did you research the author? I did. He's a civilian Journalist.[/QUOTENever claimed the author was a pilot dumbass

 

[Manonthestreet]

wooossshhhhhhh!

And that was no F35.

You are still whining. Meanwhile, the F-35 continues to progress into a fantastic ground attack. It's already proven. What next, you going to start the tire Inflatagate?

It's already "proven"? What the heck has it attacked?

This years Green Flag, did did the mission that the F-16 and the A-10 failed to do. It hit every target called in and the only way it could be told it was even in the area was the targets were destroyed with precision. 2 Pre Production F-35As survived with no losses. That is about as close to real combat as one can be in without having a real declaration of war. The F-35A works just fine and will be in service in 2016. The closer to the actual service date, the more your ravings are just ravings.

USAF really really wants it's pilots to survive battles. Unlike you that want them all killed in combat. How dare USAF.

Like the LCS sinking ships during exercises with missiles it doesnt carry....its called fraud