Horrido Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 And Spejic is dead on--dollar for dollar, defense is one of if not the least efficient way to create jobs. That's why it is called spending, not investing. To reach that benchmark, the job requires election. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Wasn't trying to introduce politics Lets all have some cupcakes: Its official: The average airframe cost dropped roughly 3.5 percent from LRIP-7, and are down 57 percent since LRIP-1. The average cost for each of the three F-35 variants to the US:» F-35A conventional take off and landing — $94.8 million/airframe » F-35B “jump jet” variant — $102.0 million/airframe » F-35C carrier variant — $115.7 million/airframe Those costs do not include engine prices. The Pentagon signed an LRIP 8 agreement with engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney in October http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141121/DEFREG02/311210025/Pentagon-Lockheed-Finalize-8th-F-35-Lot The government released a few contract details. Lockheed covers 100 percent of any cost overruns and the two parties will share any cost savings cost — 20 percent for the government and 80 percent for Lockheed. Any concurrent problems in the System Development and Demonstration buy and they share these 50-50. New problems discovered in LRIP 8 “will be authorized via engineering change proposals.”Also, Lockheed gets paid incrementally it achieves specified performance criteria. http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/new-f-35-prices-a-95m-b-116m-c-102m/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted November 22, 2014 Author Share Posted November 22, 2014 Keep in mind that cost "decrease", while important, is a relative cost decrease. The overall price at this point is still exceeding even recent projections. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vince Maddux Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 For whats it worth, I met and made friend with Col Fager, he is the Deputy Commander of the 53rd Electronic Warfare Group. He works an flies the F-35As out of Eglin. Just goes to show you you never know who your going to meet in the real world. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alan in Yorktown Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Interesting 5th gen training together at the same time the Ruskies are poking around the GOMEX airspace... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Interesting 5th gen training together at the same time the Ruskies are poking around the GOMEX airspace... Yeah, because everyone knows that all the F-15/16/18's we have are useless against those 50 year old Bears that are flying at will through the "GOMEX". We could strap an AIM-9 on one those F-4 drones we have flying out of Tyndall and we'd be just as safe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alan in Yorktown Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Yeah, because everyone knows that all the F-15/16/18's we have are useless against those 50 year old Bears that are flying at will through the "GOMEX". We could strap an AIM-9 on one those F-4 drones we have flying out of Tyndall and we'd be just as safe. What I was obliquely referring to was the fact that the Russian A/C are probably loaded w/ sensors to look at US 5th Gen technology. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 What I was obliquely referring to was the fact that the Russian A/C are probably loaded w/ sensors to look at US 5th Gen technology. If they are, then we just don't fly them for the 30 minutes that the Bears are passing close to those bases. How does a Bear look at our 5th Gen technology from outside US territorial airspace? Plenty of other ways to get intel on these aircraft beside flying all the way to South Florida. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fellow Hobbyist Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I would assume that we have the means to track the Russian aircraft in vicinity of the Gulf of Mexico that mission planners could schedule 5th gen flight operations to avoid giving the Russians any chance of getting any data. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Interesting the the Ruskies are poking around the GOMEX airspace at the same time the 5th gen is training together... FTFY What I was obliquely referring to was the fact that the Russian A/C are probably loaded w/ sensors to look at US 5th Gen technology. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fellow Hobbyist Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) Tony, Taiidan, I have to ask. Where do you find all of the comical and witty images you use in your respective responses? Edited November 23, 2014 by Fellow Hobbyist Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) FTFY Tony, Taiidan, I have to ask. Where do you find all of the comical and witty images you use in your respective responses? Google "reaction gif" and that will get you plenty, you can also add something you want to convey like " yes reaction gif" or "sad reaction gif" You can search by movie or actor as well. After you type in your google search Go to "images" and then click on "search tools" a bar will drop down with "type" on it if you click on "Animated" it will give you only animated gifs. Edited November 24, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) Tony, Taiidan, Thoughts on whether they should merge into a single character? To be called "Tony Taiidan"? Given their similar outlooks, rapier sharp wit and excessive use of .gifs, it makes one wonder if maybe, just maybe, they might be the same person? Just kidding guys... I am a bit amused at the fear that the Russian Bears are coming to steal our 5th generation secrets (as well as probably our precious bodily fluids). If this is the case, I guess we'll never be able to deploy them anywhere near China or Russia, because those baddies will suck the secrets right out of them. I thought the whole point was that these aircraft were super hard to detect? Now it appears that we need to keep them grounded anytime a Bear is within a hundred miles of our shore. What a dumb idea basing them on the eastern coast. Need to move the whole operation back to Nellis to keep everything secret. Edited November 24, 2014 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 You don't have to consult Gen Buck Turgidson to know those aircraft are not configured to be stealthy. And any emissions they'd be emitting would be standard, well catalogued training modes. Our purity of essence is secure for now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Google "reaction gif"... You still use Google??? Given their similar outlooks, rapier sharp wit and excessive use of .gifs, it makes one wonder if maybe, just maybe, they might be the same person? No sir, we are not of relation. I am a bit amused at the fear that the Russian Bears are coming to steal our 5th generation secrets (as well as probably our precious bodily fluids). They've been trying to get a whiff of the Raptor's EM signature for a while up in Alaska. Gulf of Mexico would be their first opportunity to do the same with the F-35. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rodmac Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 G'day all , I just watched some Pierre Sprey and other F35 videos and if I have to be honest ....THEY SCARED ME. If only some of their comments were true....Oh My God..this plane will be a disaster...I didn't realise how compromised it is in so many ways , that is if much of the comment is correct... Lockheed Martin has A LOT of work ahead ... At least with the F111 , the basic fighter bomber concept was solid and once they sorted out some basic crazy stuff it became a great plane..The one point that Sprey made that hit home with me is the F35 is expected to meet the roles of three different arms of the US military and the compromises will affect the overall aircraft to the point of not yet being able to cover all the required bases especially well. I hope they're wrong but now I fear they may not be.. Cheers Rod.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 rodmac, welcome to the internet. Sprey is a self appointed expert. Doing a simple search of this thread, you'll find he has been much discussed and why he generally has no credibility. Here's a few starters: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=209836&st=4180 This is a guy who insisted the F-15 and M-1 Abrams were rolling hot messes too. So, his track record is is pretty good at being the heck off. From page 209 of this thread (http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=209836&st=4160): The reformers continued to pick at the Eagle as the years rolled by. In 1981, Sprey wrote an airpower section in a book issued by the Heritage Foundation which questioned the F-15’s effectiveness.The F-15 was larger and more visible than its predecessor the F-4, wrote Sprey, making it vulnerable in daylight close-in dogfighting. He claimed the Eagle was too dependent on radar guided missiles, which "are not likely to be more effective than those used in Vietnam." Since 1960, Sprey wrote in the 1981 piece, too much of the Air Force tactical aviation budget had been devoted to complex night/all-weather systems "of highly questionable capability." Sprey urged the Air Force to emphasize the F-16 over the F-15 because "in visual combat, the F-16 has been demonstrated to be the superior aircraft." This was the point where the military reformers misfired. Future air combat would not, as they assumed, take place largely in daytime, close-in engagements. The F-15 would go on to become the dominant air-to-air force in the skies precisely because of its radar missiles and long reach. In the first Gulf War, the F-15 accounted for 36 of 40 Air Force aerial victories. Of those, 28 involved radar guided missiles. Worldwide, the Eagle has racked up an unprecedented kill ratio of 104-to-zero. Seriously, when you start throwing out stuff like Sprey, or move on to Wheeler or APA, I'm starting to wonder if this is a trolling expedition. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) No sir, we are not of relation. Lost it :rofl:/> :thumbsup:/> G'day all , I just watched some Pierre Sprey and other F35 videos and if I have to be honest ....THEY SCARED ME. If only some of their comments were true....Oh My God..this plane will be a disaster...I didn't realise how compromised it is in so many ways , that is if much of the comment is correct... Lockheed Martin has A LOT of work ahead ... At least with the F111 , the basic fighter bomber concept was solid and once they sorted out some basic crazy stuff it became a great plane..The one point that Sprey made that hit home with me is the F35 is expected to meet the roles of three different arms of the US military and the compromises will affect the overall aircraft to the point of not yet being able to cover all the required bases especially well. I hope they're wrong but now I fear they may not be.. Cheers Rod.. In that case Ive got great news... He has zero credibility, so no worries. Sprey is very excited to have a new generation of weapons to complain about after being so terribly wrong on the last group. I don't even like Tyler Rogaway but he sure skewers Pierre: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665 Pierre at this point is like your grandpa trying to tell you that a computer will never be small enough to fit into a house let alone a room, while you surf the internet on your phone texting and nodding. Edited November 24, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) Sprey was a consultant and analyst that McNamara hired back in the 60s. He likes to take credit as the lead designer of both the F-16 and A-10 (The deceased Harry Hillaker is the true father of the F-16) and saying LO is a scam (He waited until Ben Rich, who ran the Skunk Works back when Have Blue and the F-117 was built, passed away before he started to tout that BS. Seeing a pattern here?). Pierre Sprey has never ‘designed’ anything with wings, and he still doesn’t know **** about aircraft design OR air warfare. He played a bit role in developing top level requirements at OSD for a couple of years, basically parroting whatever John Boyd or Everest Riccione were hawking that day. In Pierre's world, any aircraft that was not designed with Pierre Sprey in the room is a piece of s**t. The best summary of Sprey I’ve read: While working on the F-X, Boyd met Pierre Sprey, a weapons system analyst on the OASD/SA staff, whose background was similar to [Alain] Enthoven’s but much less distinguished. By his own account, Sprey was a dilettante with an engineering degree but no military experience. After graduation from Yale, Sprey became a research analyst at the Grumman Aircraft Corporation for space and commercial transportation projects. He came to OSD/SA in 1966, where he declared himself an expert on military fighter aircraft, despite his lack of experience. Sprey admitted being a gadfly, a nuisance, and an automatic opponent of any program he was not a part of. Sprey has been out of the industry for nearly three decades and hadn't worked on a serious project in about four decades. Even after being constantly disproven, he just doubles down on his opinions. His greatest success today has been to use his past to pass himself off as an "expert" to the media. People who just don't know better see him on YouTube/read his comments, they see the "credentials" and they take him seriously. I can't call someone who references Sprey a troll. Unless they, like Sprey, do it constantly. Sprey's old whine in a cracked bottle. He's the original troll. Might as well start calling him "Pillow Pants" or "Listerfiend." I don't even like Tyler Rogaway he sure skewers Pierre: True. But that still doesn't mean I like Rogaway. I'm convinced that every time that man types a letter, God kills a puppy. Pierre at this point is like your grandpa trying to tell you that a computer will never be small enough to fit into a house let alone a room, while you surf the internet on your phone. Edited November 24, 2014 by Tony Stark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Might as well start calling him "Pillow Pants" or "Listerfiend." True. But that still doesn't mean I like Rogaway. I'm convinced that every time that man types a letter, God kills a puppy. Thats a lot of puppies, he is pretty verbose and repetitive. just think, right now there is an actual combat veteran struggling to get work, but Tyler Rogaway collects a paycheck for writing about the military... BRB, asking a virgin for sex tips. That scared me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alan in Yorktown Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) Sprey was a consultant and analyst that McNamara hired back in the 60s. He likes to take credit as the lead designer of both the F-16 and A-10 (The deceased Harry Hillaker is the true father of the F-16) and saying LO is a scam (He waited until Ben Rich, who ran the Skunk Works back when Have Blue and the F-117 was built, passed away before he started to tout that BS. Seeing a pattern here?). Pierre Sprey has never ‘designed’ anything with wings, and he still doesn’t know **** about aircraft design OR air warfare. He played a bit role in developing top level requirements at OSD for a couple of years, basically parroting whatever John Boyd or Everest Riccione were hawking that day. In Pierre's world, any aircraft that was not designed with Pierre Sprey in the room is a piece of s**t. The best summary of Sprey I’ve read: While working on the F-X, Boyd met Pierre Sprey, a weapons system analyst on the OASD/SA staff, whose background was similar to [Alain] Enthoven’s but much less distinguished. By his own account, Sprey was a dilettante with an engineering degree but no military experience. After graduation from Yale, Sprey became a research analyst at the Grumman Aircraft Corporation for space and commercial transportation projects. He came to OSD/SA in 1966, where he declared himself an expert on military fighter aircraft, despite his lack of experience. Sprey admitted being a gadfly, a nuisance, and an automatic opponent of any program he was not a part of. Sprey has been out of the industry for nearly three decades and hadn't worked on a serious project in about four decades. Even after being constantly disproven, he just doubles down on his opinions. His greatest success today has been to use his past to pass himself off as an "expert" to the media. People who just don't know better see him on YouTube/read his comments, they see the "credentials" and they take him seriously. I can't call someone who references Sprey a troll. Unless they, like Sprey, do it constantly. Sprey's old whine in a cracked bottle. He's the original troll. Might as well start calling him "Pillow Pants" or "Listerfiend." True. But that still doesn't mean I like Rogaway. I'm convinced that every time that man types a letter, God kills a puppy. Sprey was also one of John Boyd's (who has probably had as much impact on US strategy as Clausewitz) disciples - for better or worse Boyd was a thorn in the side of the Military-Industrial complex. And by the behavior we see by some in this thread, the thorn is still in there, perhaps even festering a bit. Any time it is touched they howl. Edited November 25, 2014 by Alan in Yorktown Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Diamondback Six Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 There is a highly technical Texas term for sorts like Sprey: "More STEER MANURE than the Fort Worth Stockyards." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alan in Yorktown Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) There is a highly technical Texas term for sorts like Sprey: "More STEER MANURE than the Fort Worth Stockyards." As a taxpayer and retired AF Officer, I hope for our sake Sprey is wrong. But, do we have to have a knee-jerk reaction? As a philosopher once said - "Reverting to name-calling suggests you are defensive and therefore find my objections valid." It might be better if his points are listed one by one, and then discussed and possibly refuted as necessary. Edited November 25, 2014 by Alan in Yorktown Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Spey was also one of John Boyd's (who has probably had as much impact on US strategy as Clausewitz) disciples - for better or worse Boyd was a thorn in the side of the Military-Industrial complex. And by the behavior we see by some in this thread, the thorn is still in there, perhaps even festering a bit. Any time it is touched they howl. Yes its like when I tell a group of NASA people the earth is flat, You wouldn't believe how much they object. "the thorn is still in there, perhaps even festering a bit. Any time it is touched they howl." (who has probably had as much impact on US strategy as Clausewitz) http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj04/fal04/mets.html Boyd gets credit for the OODA loop, which was readily adopted by the USMC but its more of a tactical, than strategic, or doctrinal shift. OODA is easy to grasp (insert Marine Joke here) The reformers never got the kind of traction people want to give them credit for (Clausewitz!) and were kind of a dead issue after the Persian Gulf war. They had to wait until the next generation of weapons they could apply the same old tropes to arrived, and in the mean time the F-16 they wanted never came to be, but it did get heavier and more complex and more useful, so there is that. Big picture, the concept of aircraft being more advanced and built in smaller numbers and quality over quantity, as opposed to swarm attacks by visual daylight only fighters seems to have won the day. Not that the evil MIC wouldn't mind churning out thousands of POS planes MiG-21 style much to the chagrin of the people who have to take them into combat. The Air Force is funny like that. All those weapons that worked in 1991 that the reformers said would fail miserably had a much bigger impact I would say than Boyd and his buddies. But thats just me, I have to go take the Radar out of this F-16 now its added weight and complexity for far too long. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 They've been trying to get a whiff of the Raptor's EM signature for a while up in Alaska. Gulf of Mexico would be their first opportunity to do the same with the F-35. I'm sure that's the case but I just have a hard time believing that a Bear could sneak up (undetected), close enough to the US mainland to obtain those signals. I assume those aircraft would be detected while they are still hours away and since their time on station is extremely finite, I would think that we could easily reschedule any F-35 ops that would be occurring during that brief window. Besides, if I were the Russians, I would find better platforms for this work. Why not just go back to the cold war days and station a "fishing" boat packed with SIGINT gear just outside the 12-mile limit off the coast of Tyndall? Time on station would be measured in weeks instead of minutes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.