Jump to content

graves_09

Members
  • Content Count

    1,288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by graves_09

  1. Best way to get the "current market price" is to sign into ebay and check the "sold items" button in the search criteria.  Just looking at current auctions can be misleading because sellers can set artificially high prices (in which case they won't sell) or set very low prices to entice bidding (in which case most of the action is near the end of the auction)  as with anything a larger sample size is usually better.

  2. 4 hours ago, SBARC said:

     

    Isn't the F-22 part of a more integrated system where as the F-35 is more stand alone?

    Exactly the opposite.  F-35 is far more built on system integration.  The F-35 is built on 2000s computer/communication technology F-22 was built on 1990s technology.  The F-35 is a single glass cockpit with fully customizable displays.  The systems are so integrated the pilot can have a "gods eye view of the battle space".  It is by far the feature pilots like most about the JSF. 

  3. 1 hour ago, 11bee said:

    So that comes back to question I've long had.  We'll peddle the F-35 to anyone with check book (Turkey and probably other future customers in that category) and yet the F-22, which is a decade or so older than the F-35 is forbidden from export, even to "inner circle" allies like Japan / Israel.   The F-35 is supposed to be the cutting edge of stealth, sensors, design, etc but we don't have any problem exporting them as quickly as LockMart can churn them out of the factory.  

     

    What is so special about the Raptor?

     

     

     

     

    The F-22 has a lower RCS than F-35.  F-35 is still better than any of the 4th gen fighters, but F-22 is still the king of stealth.  

     

    Also agree with TTYL.  Restarting the production line for F-22 would be enormously expensive, so much so that F-35 would once again be the "cheap" option. 

     

    Also not mentioned is the fact that F-22 production machinery and technicians have been moved to F-35 production.  You can't restart F-22 without dramatically impacting the F-35 production rate.  Given the current delays in JSF, I doubt anyone would accept further delays.

  4. Problem is most of the R&D money had already been spent.  They are moving into the production and sustainment phase of the program.  With an advanced super hornet you'd have to start flight tests from the ground up which would cost more money.  Canceling get F35 now would be akin to canceling F22 after 122 aircraft.  You've already invested the sunk costs.  Cutting production just means you get less benefit for the investment you've already made.

     

    I love the hornet but JSF is the future.

  5. 12 hours ago, jpk said:

    Well if money is the problem I say when he's pres let Trump use his 757 and just park the 747's. Ok by me.

    Because the plane isn't for Trump, it's for the President of the United States.  After 2020 or 2024 we will still need a presidential transport regardless of how trump chooses to travel.  Besides the planned replacement won't be ready until 2023 (at best) so trump will probably never use the new AF1.  

  6. Yes the Tomcat did carry dumb bombs as well as guided units. That photo looks like it's early on, mid 90s.

    Given that that is a F-14A or F-14B, it could be any number of squadrons. That being said, those look like Mk 83 1,000lb bombs, since I believe Mk84's required staggering in the tunnel.

    Mk 84's could be carried side by side in the tunnel. Your thinking of GBU-24's that couldn't be loaded side by side. (also a 2,000 lb bomb, but with larger fins/guidance)

  7. The CFTs still are a Boeing led initiative as part of the Super Hornet Growth program. Currently the Navy and the Australian Air Force are flying the Block II variant which incorporates the ECS bard Stacks and the ACS cockpit. The Block III version is more likely to include the CFTs and Weapons pod as well as a new front cockpit 18" touch screen display and also a new centreline fuel tank incorporating an IRST like that fitted to the F-14D dual chin pod. Boeing is basically trying to head off competition from Lockheed Martin and their F-35 due to rising costs and inability to perform certain tasks until software updates become available. Canada are currently looking at the Super Hornet due to it's twin engine/twin crew reliability as well as Malaysia and Denmark.

    More like a Boeing hoping that JSF would slip and F-18 could pick up the pieces. Denmark already rejected the advanced super hornet for the JSF. The IRST in the late stages of flight test and will likely be in the fleet in a few years. CFT probably won't happen with USN hornets this late in the game, as only 2-3 more lots of SH are planned. The concept is good, however the cost and time to test makes it prohibitive.

  8. Ejection seats are built so the pilot survives not for comfort. In order to survive the high gs and violent acceleration of an ejection the body must be in an optimum position. A fluffy seat cushion isn't very conducive to proper body position, so the seats usually have a very thin cushion. I'm sure there are newer materials available that can satisfy both comfort and pilot survivability, however anything new must be tested. And ejection seat tests are VERY expensive.

    That said you bring up a good point about the human factors that have historically been over looked in military aircraft. This area has had more focus with long flights in Afghanistan and now Syria/Iraq. It is a lot to ask of a pilot to sit for hours flying and tanking, and then arrive ready to fight a war.

  9. Probably won't be a next round. I've made my point, either take it or leave it. My experience with military aquisition is the press and even official reports don't tell the whole story. Just trying to make that point in this discussion.

    Also want to point out, I'm not a JSF hater. As a patriot and tax payer I WANT it to succeed. I WANT it to be all that and a bag of chips. The enemies we face in the future will be much better dealt with if JSF reaches all its promise and potential. Too many people depend on its success for it to fail.

    However, let's not pretend this program isn't the anything but a poster child for mismanaged aquisition programs. All the lessons learned from past programs were ignored and the prevailing attitude has always been "we're too big to fail or that won't happen to us". A wise man one said "hope is not a strategy", well in JSF program hope is about the only thing they seem to have. For the sake of our future, I hope we never repeat the mistakes of JSF.

    Rant off.

  10. Probably won't be a next round. I've made my point, either take it or leave it. My experience with military aquisition is the press and even official reports don't tell the whole story. Just trying to make that point in this discussion.

  11. How many growler Updates would apply to Canada's Block IIs? There are some differences between the two. The engines are the same and F414 isn't going anywhere, but the retirement date is probably going to be pretty firm for the regular SHs.

    VX-23 routinely uses a growler to test Block II SH upgrades, that should give you an idea of commonalities. Navy is keeping growler until 2050-2060. That should keep Canadian SH chugging along

    I wouldn't recommend that as a primary goal, And of course there are many hornets that were simply retired. Yes I get that they keep going, but in far fewer numbers. you can keep some going, but not all. Marine Hornet Squadrons are dropping to 10 aircraft each. Yes they are still going, but they are extremely depleted, and (shockingly!) parts are scarce. Its not even like the Legacy bug where you had multiple operators for thousands of aircraft. Super Hornet hasn't topped 700.

    the point is that Canada may well be the last man standing if it gets SH, with a very rare and small aircraft fleet it has to make work at a cost that would be impossible. Even more so as NATO and other Allies move onto newer everything with the F-35.

    Being the last man standing isn't always a bad thing for spares. Ask Marine Harrier community or last tomcat squadrons. 1000+ retired Navy SH could provide quite a few cheap spares for a few Canadian SH in 2045.

    Of course it has. The question is again how much it costs. The Danes just published that it was cheaper to buy the 8000 hour airplane rather than the 6,000 hour airplane.

    an estimate based on limited data. See reply below.

    6 years is massive alright.

    6 years x 20 aircraft/ year = 120 aircraft not in the fleet = 6 squadrons = 120 legacy hornets replaced with SH that should have been replaced with JSF. Ask any CO if that's not massive? SH is struggling right now to make up a major gap left by lack of JSF. Maybe by bean counter standards 6 years is not a lot by warfighter standards it is massive.

    No not really, and we actually have an active F-35 squadron.

    Haha right. IOC in name only.

    we have 50,000 hours of F-35 time to look at right now and its the most heavily scrutinized defense program in the world. and its 80 percent through testing. over 150 built and flying, and a squadron in operation. actually had cost estimates trending downward.

    How many of those hours are directly contractor supported vs sailor/airman supported? Much different having a LM mech with 20+ years working a jet vs 19 -20 year old E-4 (no offense meant just pointing out a large experience gap). At this stage is a program cost estimates SHOULD be trending downward. Economies of scale, better training, maturing system should ALWAYS get better. The real question is will the JSF actual benifit from the cost saving touted by parts commonality and maintenance systems. Until the jet reaches full operational capability and all bugs are fully worked out, just just won't know. Past experiences say these estimates are always optimistic. SH never really realized all the proported cost savings from commonalities with legacy.

    its not a study its an audit and the numbers are not from LM. and if you want to dismiss that one you can just look at the Danish report from a few weeks ago that concluded the exact same thing --Super Hornet cost more and does not last as long. we can slice this onion a thousand different ways, but its not going to turn into gold. if you want to be fair you can throw another 5 million or so on for the SLEP, SLAP that gets it to 8,000 hours. Lastly AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. The numbers were not provided by just LM but from the US government and the many oversight bodies that look after such things to ensure that no shenanigans (like lying about numbers) from the manufacturer take place. GAO, DOT&E, and even Laws that forbid tampering with numbers. Its one thing to blow an estimate. Its quite another to say a 100 million dollar aircraft actually costs only 85 million. thats some serious scandal, and the exact reason the ANAO exists. And Boeing was taking pleasure in telling the Canadian media/public their aircraft cost 1/2 as much as the F-35, which of course it doesn't and thats not borne out by the RAAF, but hey at least its an optimistic number people can take with a grain of salt amiright?

    the KPMG report was an audit done by a Canadian big 4 firm that took the entire F-35 shebang from procurement, 42 years of operation, to the cost of retirement (F-35 gate guard?) The biggest mistake that the previous government made was not doing a similar study for the Super Hornet and just nipping this whole thing in the bud for Canada. Because if they had it would have concluded what everyone else has so far-- F-35 is cheaper than the Super Bug especially long term.

    That sounds like science fiction but when all the factors are accounted for the F-35 is a net savings over the SH. the Primary reasons for this is the F-35 will have a much larger fleet, common pools for training, spares, etc. and a huge economy of scale that drives the cost down (which was the whole goal of the JSF) compared to the SH for Canada which is getting more expensive, would have to have R&D and FMS fees, and would have a shorter lifespan, and more expensive upgrades, and is coming up on the end of its assembly line.

    If some of those factors were different, the SH may well be cheaper for Canada but thats not reality and of course two engine engine aircraft generally cost more to maintain to boot.

    http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22571&mode=view

    Call it what you want but it's still an estimate based on past history, trends, and assumptions. A very close family member works an ACAT 1 program as a gov cost analyst. The first thing she learned was estimates provide ranges, programs choose the rating that's most favorable to their positon. It doesn't matter who prepared the report there will be bias and assumptions built in. Estimating the complete life cycle costs for a program in year 2 (after "IOC") of its 40 + estimated life has to be taking with a large grain of salt. It doesn't matter if it's JSF, advanced bomber, newer trainer etc, assumptions are made that don't always hold for 40 years or new uses for the system pop up or operating environment changes, etc. SH has 17 years operating experience vs 2 for JSF (removing pre- IOC years)

    I have no dog in this fight. I lean toward JSF as probably the better option for Canada as it is more forward thinking than buy SH, but some of the information being presented here as "fact" is estimated at best. That is why I throw the BS flag.

  12. The Navy has ordered 0 F-18 CFTs and unless someone decides to dust off the proposal in a few years we probably will never see them in the fleet.

    As for the NGJ pods, those are only the prototype pods. The real thing has a long ways to mature and may look very different than the prototypes.

×
×
  • Create New...