The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

[sferrin]

I thought that guy was your favorite writer? He knows planes and stuff ya know.

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that posting an article on the forum is the same thing as endorsing its content.

Nope. I'm commenting on the fact that some time ago I told you this author was questionable at best (not quite in the Tyler Rogway / David Axe category but certainly working on it) and you leaped to his defense. Looks like you've had a change of heart.

 

[Triton]

Nope. I'm commenting on the fact that some time ago I told you this guy author was questionable at best (not quite in the Tyler Rogway / David Axe category but certainly working on it) and you leaped to his defense. Looks like you've had a change of heart.

The supporting evidence presented in this article just doesn't fit Majumdar's narrative that Israel has misgivings about procuring the F-35i Adir. I am not sure if USNI News or Flight Global would have accepted this article that is more opinion than news. Plus, the article by Arie Egozi published in Flight Global has not been confirmed by any other source. But authors seem to be confident about making all sorts of leaps of presumption. Based on the quality of his latest articles published on The National Interest and War is Boring, Majumdar seems intent on following David Axe as an example.

 

[marauder2048]

Do we know if the Israelis have selected the fuel-probe equipped F-35As? Not strictly necessary if the EFTs/conformals or Gulfstream boom tankers become a reality.

 

[Triton]

"Experts: Bomber cost could upset F-35 plans"
by Jeff Schogol, Staff writer 4:11 p.m. EST November 10, 2015

Source:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/11/10/experts-bomber-cost-could-upset-f-35-plans/75528532/

The F-35 is going to eat up so much of the Air Force’s procurement budget going forward that the service will likely have to reduce the number of Joint Strike Fighters it buys to pay for other things, such as the Long Range Strike-Bomber, experts said on Tuesday.

As part of the Defense Department’s proposed budget for fiscal 2016, the Air Force would purchase 44 F-35s this fiscal year, 48 in fiscal 2017 and 60 each year from fiscal 2018 through 2020, budget documents show. The total procurement cost of the 1,763 F-35s is about $215 billion.

The Air Force also plans buy between 80 and 100 Long Range Strike-Bombers for up to $100 billion. The new bomber will replace the Air Force’s fleet of B-1s and B-52s.

In order to pay for the bomber, the Air Force will likely have to reduce the number of F-35s and other procurement programs, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst for the Teal Group.

“You’ve got so many competing requirements for the Air Force’s procurement budget, and on top of that, you’re inserting $4 to $5 billion a year for LRS-B – or more – I believe it peaks at a somewhat higher number than that. There’s no way right now to make that all work,” Aboulafia told Air Force Times after speaking at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Given the current budget situation, Aboulafia believes the Air Force has four options for the bomber.

“One: You could grow the topline [budget], which is not likely,” he said. “No. 2: You can create this national strategic priority line which comes out of somebody else’s budget – a lot of people tried that. It generally doesn’t work. Three: It can die and become a bill-payer for all for the other programs, which would be sad. Or four: The other programs have to give ground, either in terms of year-by-year procurement numbers or total procurement numbers, or both.”

Since the F-35 represents the lion’s share of other procurement programs, the Air Force’s stated goal of buying 1,763 Joint Strike Fighters has become “highly untenable,” Aboulafia said.

Right now, the Air Force is working on its portion of the president’s fiscal 2017 budget and “is exploring all options based on world events and financial constraints,” said Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek. More information about procurement programs will be available when next fiscal year’s budget is released, she said.

The Air Force may not want to reduce the number of F-35s it plans to buy, but by the mid-2020s the program will take up more than half of the service’s planned procurement dollars, and that means that unless the Defense Department budget goes up significantly, it will have to live with fewer F-35s, said Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.

Meanwhile, Canada plans to withdraw from the F-35 program and Norway may follow suit, and that will increase the cost of each F-35, said Eaglen, who also spoke at the Mitchell Institute.

 

[Ian33]

The F35 certainly is the boondoggle!

Well, the F35 is a steaming pile of embarrassing shite, and they have the gall to say they could produce the bomber? I'd not give Lockheed a puzzle to build, let alone another tier 1 asset.

 

[bobbymike]

"Experts: Bomber cost could upset F-35 plans"
by Jeff Schogol, Staff writer 4:11 p.m. EST November 10, 2015

Source:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/11/10/experts-bomber-cost-could-upset-f-35-plans/75528532/

The F-35 is going to eat up so much of the Air Force’s procurement budget going forward that the service will likely have to reduce the number of Joint Strike Fighters it buys to pay for other things, such as the Long Range Strike-Bomber, experts said on Tuesday.

As part of the Defense Department’s proposed budget for fiscal 2016, the Air Force would purchase 44 F-35s this fiscal year, 48 in fiscal 2017 and 60 each year from fiscal 2018 through 2020, budget documents show. The total procurement cost of the 1,763 F-35s is about $215 billion.

The Air Force also plans buy between 80 and 100 Long Range Strike-Bombers for up to $100 billion. The new bomber will replace the Air Force’s fleet of B-1s and B-52s.

In order to pay for the bomber, the Air Force will likely have to reduce the number of F-35s and other procurement programs, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst for the Teal Group.

“You’ve got so many competing requirements for the Air Force’s procurement budget, and on top of that, you’re inserting $4 to $5 billion a year for LRS-B – or more – I believe it peaks at a somewhat higher number than that. There’s no way right now to make that all work,” Aboulafia told Air Force Times after speaking at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Given the current budget situation, Aboulafia believes the Air Force has four options for the bomber.

“One: You could grow the topline [budget], which is not likely,” he said. “No. 2: You can create this national strategic priority line which comes out of somebody else’s budget – a lot of people tried that. It generally doesn’t work. Three: It can die and become a bill-payer for all for the other programs, which would be sad. Or four: The other programs have to give ground, either in terms of year-by-year procurement numbers or total procurement numbers, or both.”

Since the F-35 represents the lion’s share of other procurement programs, the Air Force’s stated goal of buying 1,763 Joint Strike Fighters has become “highly untenable,” Aboulafia said.

Right now, the Air Force is working on its portion of the president’s fiscal 2017 budget and “is exploring all options based on world events and financial constraints,” said Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek. More information about procurement programs will be available when next fiscal year’s budget is released, she said.

The Air Force may not want to reduce the number of F-35s it plans to buy, but by the mid-2020s the program will take up more than half of the service’s planned procurement dollars, and that means that unless the Defense Department budget goes up significantly, it will have to live with fewer F-35s, said Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.

Meanwhile, Canada plans to withdraw from the F-35 program and Norway may follow suit, and that will increase the cost of each F-35, said Eaglen, who also spoke at the Mitchell Institute.

$4 to $5 billion extra a year when the federal budget will be approaching $5 TRILLION/year.

Just think you had take home pay of $50,000/year and needed to spend $50 bucks/year extra on your home security system and claimed you couldn't do it.

Oh by the way the feds are anticipating setting aside $5 to $10 billion a year for refugees. Now that IS A SECURITY spending priority. God I'm disgusted. :'(

 

[sferrin]

Yep. Compared to almost anytime in the past we're spending less on defense and more on entitlements. Gotta keep buying those low-brow votes ya know. Who cares about tomorrow?

 

[Sundog]

Yep. Compared to almost anytime in the past we're spending less on defense and more on entitlements. Gotta keep buying those low-brow votes ya know. Who cares about tomorrow?

Entitlements are what people are "entitled" to, because they've paid for them. It's like a paycheck. If you work, you get paid, because you're "entitled" to it. Savings accounts are entitlements. Unless you're offering yours up, since you're apparently against them.

SSI is something we have paid for, but irresponsible republicans used those savings to give big tax cuts to their donors. They stole from the poor and gave to the rich and don't want to pay it back. I'm not interested in giving the thieves a free pass. Feel free to give them your share.

Besides that, I'd rather spend money on people than machines. If you're not taking care of your people than you have no reason to exist. The purpose of the military is to protect the government and it's people. If that military exists at the detriment to the people, than it no longer serves them. Of course, it's actually a false dichotomy, since we have more than enough money to do both. But the anti-tax free loaders don't like that, so they continue to push the myth that you must choose one or the other.

Also, our armed forces are as large as the next ten nations military's combined. I'd rather we just buy diapers for all of those people who are so damned afraid of everything that a military only the size of the next ten biggest military's makes them piss themselves. Seriously, this is supposed to be the land of brave, start acting like it.

The greatest threat to our country is climate change. Making the military larger won't protect you from that.

 

[SpudmanWP]

 

[sferrin]

x2 Scary

 

[LowObservable]

Let's knock this imbecilic, innumerate argument about low defense budgets on its head. The attached is a couple of years old (and did not attempt to predict future OCO funding) but is from Todd Harrison (now at CSIS) who is one of DC's premier budget experts.

The U.S. defense budget is not at a historically low level, even post-war. It's been higher as a percentage of GDP, but there is no factual or logical reason to tie defense spending to GDP (just because we are richer, it doesn't mean our adversaries are more dangerous and of course, factually, they are less so than in 1980).

On the other hand, costs have shifted. Much more of the budget goes (directly or indirectly) to personnel. Congress has been merrily voting for bigger pay raises than the Pentagon asked for, which also raises the pension liability. Tricare is huge. Congress also takes a lot of blame for its from-my-dead-cold-fingers approach to BRAC and other infrastructure consolidation (compare the size of the USAF force today with 1990, and then compare the number of U.S. bases) but the services have also resisted measures to reduce numbers and failed to become more efficient. (Exhibit A: an operational fighter force full of 25+-year-old jets, while money floods into an aircraft that is not operational and will cost even more per flight hour than its predecessors.) There's been a ground war on, too.

So having a dummy-spit about entitlements is not only a complete political loser, but ignores facts.

 

[sferrin]

Let's knock this imbecilic, innumerate argument about low defense budgets on its head.

So having a dummy-spit about entitlements is not only a complete political loser, but ignores facts.

If you want "facts" use percentage of GDP rather than dollar amounts. Then add it the fact that say, an M-1 Abrams is proportionally more expensive than a Sherman tank, F-35s are more expensive than P-51s, today's soldier costs more to train than a WWII grunt, etc. etc. ... But hey, I get it, we need those Obama phones and all that other "free" stuff and "the Cold War is over, so gut the military. Perhaps you'd like to explain to us why we're using military equipment LONG past it's sell-by date if we're swimming in new hardware? As for your obligatory F-35 jab did you know the F-16 costs more than a P-51? Where were you when we were buying those wastes of money instead of P-51s?

 

[LowObservable]

No, Sferrin. I'm not a Mitt Romney fan, and there's no logical reason to tie defense to GDP. Think how large the armed forces would be on that standard, and it quickly gets absurd relative to any threat. I'm sure it would be fun to have 40 CVNs but where would we put them all?

And if I proposed using the same criterion for other government spending (Environment, Civil Rights enforcement, Dept of Education...) you'd have another giant spazz attack, wouldn't you?

 

[sferrin]

No, Sferrin. I'm not a Mitt Romney fan, and there's no logical reason to tie defense to GDP.

Oh I'm sure. He paints the world as it is, not one viewed through rose-colored glasses. I'll bet you had a nice chuckle when Obama made his "the 80's called and want their Cold War back" comment didn't you? How's that workin' out?

And if I proposed using the same criterion for other government spending (Environment, Civil Rights enforcement, Dept of Education...) you'd have another giant spazz attack, wouldn't you?

Not at all. It would mean I get to keep more of my money instead of being forced to pay into the worlds biggest pyramid scheme (Social "Security"), the Dept. of Education would be gone (talk about a program botched in ways only the government could pull off), etc. etc. I'll take less government ANY day of the week.

 

[LowObservable]

Just because you think everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal doesn't make it a fact.

And go right ahead if you want to target Social Security. GLWT as they say.

Actually, the "more money for defense!!!!" is a cop-out. People who say that, including the Mittster, know it's not going to happen, but by saying defense should be tied to GDP they duck the difficult job of making real-world decisions.

 

[sferrin]

Just because you think everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal doesn't make it a fact.

Where did I say that? Oh right, I didn't. Just putting more words in my mouth.

And go right ahead if you want to target Social Security. GLWT as they say.

Yeah, that's the problem with giving the government a source of income. Once they get it you aren't EVER getting it back.

Actually, the "more money for defense!!!!" is a cop-out. People who say that, including the Mittster, know it's not going to happen, but by saying defense should be tied to GDP they duck the difficult job of making real-world decisions.

Not really. There is still a finite budget to work with. Of course it does make it a lot tougher to fund fluff packages. (Like rewarding political sponsors, buying a voter base, etc.)

Anyway. . .back to the F-35.

 

[lastdingo]

Entitlements are what people are "entitled" to, because they've paid for them. It's like a paycheck. If you work, you get paid, because you're "entitled" to it. Savings accounts are entitlements. Unless you're offering yours up, since you're apparently against them.

I don't think you understand how welfare systems work.

This made you sounds very unpatriotic, for a patriot would think at the national level, at which his description is fine.

So far the people who I've seen complaining about "entitlements" belonged to one of these groups
- employer-side lobbyists
- racists who wanted to keep dark people at the lowest level of society
- egoists who never ever seem to have grasped the concept of solidarity


I think the "entitlements" (welfare) references in regard to military spending are badly off-topic anyway, for most critiques of military spending aim at it delivering less value than expenses incurred, and changes of the government in other departments would hardly change this.

 

[sferrin]

So far the people who I've seen complaining about "entitlements" belonged to one of these groups
- employer-side lobbyists
- racists who wanted to keep dark people at the lowest level of society
- egoists who never ever seem to have grasped the concept of solidarity

Nice. Of course it's completely impossible that one could be a taxpayer tired of paying for freeloaders to live on welfare as a lifestyle right? Or tired of the government taking an ever larger piece of their paycheck because "they know best how to spend your money"? Nah, couldn't be. :

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Topic locked. Welfare versus defence spending is totally off topic even for this topic and things are once again getting personal. I will moderate posts and ban users as necessary to restore order.

 

[Jemiba]

Locking this thread more than three years ago, so I think, we can have a try once more, if a reasonable discussion is possible.
Pauls last post contains the reasons, why it was locked. So, for everyone participating, please bear in mind, that locking again
is done really quick, if necessary !

 

[SpudmanWP]

Thank you..

 

[SpudmanWP]

I know it's "news only" but as for this particular comment...

After all, why would instantaneous g performance at cruise be an important metric of merit for an attack aircraft?

Of course it might be. But in the case of A-X it was traded against the ability to carry a permanently installed anti-tank cannon, low-altitude turn radius and time, and loiter performance.

Please take it up here as that's why he reopened the thread.

 

[marauder2048]

I know it's "news only" but as for this particular comment...

After all, why would instantaneous g performance at cruise be an important metric of merit for an attack aircraft?

Of course it might be. But in the case of A-X it was traded against the ability to carry a permanently installed anti-tank cannon, low-altitude turn radius and time, and loiter performance.

It's still an integral part of the A-10's defensive counter against air and MANPADS/SHORAD threats.
And the likely go-to for A-10 pilots converting to the F-35 which when combined with the overlapping threat environment
makes it relevant for the metric/ranking.

 

[Arjen]

Apologies if this has been posted before.

Seeing this clip first appeared on Youtube in 2017, putting this in the F-35-news thread seemed inappropriate.
Royal Netherlands Air Force promotional shoot. 2 x F-35A Lightning II's putting on a show in Death Valley.

 

[Sundog]

I wonder if this problem is what caused the loss of the JASDF F-35?

There's also all of these problems as well. I have to admit, I almost did a spit take while eating lunch when I read of the limited supersonic capability due to melting coating on the tail booms.

 

[SpudmanWP]

That tail issue happened exactly TWICE (once on each F-35B/C) even after they have repeatedly tried to replicate the issue.

 

[AN/AWW-14(V)]

I'm found some interesting...
remember mysterious AIM-9X Block II PLUS (AIM-9X-3)

In FY17 the program will begin to produce a third variant of the missile labeled the AIM-9X Block II PLUS (Block II+) to meet survivability requirements inherent to the 5th generation aircraft platforms. The Block II+ will be procured only for specific critical mission area and the balance of the AIM-9X inventory will be continue to be produced as regular Block II missiles to meet munitions requirement. AIM-9X Block II+ is being procured in 2017 for a 2019 delivery.

AIM-9 Sidewinder

forums.eagle.ru

I think found related equipment for this Sidewinders,

ADVANCED AIR TO AIR PYLON CARRIES LAU-152 INTERNALLY FOR EXT. STORES

AAAP STATIONS?
STATIONS 1 & 11

https://quizlet.com/212747194/armament-flash-cards/

INTERNALLY FOR EXT. STORES, WOW

AAAP (SUU-?) is not the same that AAP (SUU-96/A):