• Trump asks Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 to compete with the F35
    64 replies, posted
I don't think he's gonna end up trashing the f35 program. Asking for a cheaper bid before going through is a bad thing?
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51571050]Isn't it just the vtol F-35B that's grossly overbudget? I thought that the runway and carrier models were doing fine[/QUOTE] ya the vtol has had some major cost overruns because of problems with its unusual configuration, they had drive issues as well as deck melting issues to name a few
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;51570190]The only real difference is the F-35s stealth and weaponry[/QUOTE] Only one or the other, though. The F-35 can only hold a couple missiles internally. Anything else needs to be mounted on external racks, removing the stealth aspect.
glad someone talked shit about the f35 in the gov before someone [URL="http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/10/14/f-35s-heavier-helmet-complicates-ejection-risks/73922710/"]snaps their neck[/URL] in one and dies the plane is a clusterfuck
You know as funny and unprofessional as this is, it's kinda nice having a president who's actually willing to speak on such a public platform this easily. Dumb shit he'll say notwithstanding.
[QUOTE=Wii60;51571211]glad someone talked shit about the f35 in the gov before someone [URL="http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/10/14/f-35s-heavier-helmet-complicates-ejection-risks/73922710/"]snaps their neck[/URL] in one and dies the plane is a clusterfuck[/QUOTE] Mind explaining your reasoning so I can tell you you're wrong?
[QUOTE=goon165;51571235]You know as funny and unprofessional as this is, it's kinda nice having a president who's actually willing to speak on such a public platform this easily. Dumb shit he'll say notwithstanding.[/QUOTE] Yes and no. There are some things that the public does not need to know about and some things that the public does need to know. Then you have cases like this were nothing should be said because it can influence the market and cause companies to get hurt. This should have been announce once a deal was said and done, instead it just like "hey look what i did."
[QUOTE=download;51571240]Mind explaining your reasoning so I can tell you you're wrong?[/QUOTE] He kind of linked the article explaining it?
[QUOTE=soulharvester;51571261]He kind of linked the article explaining it?[/QUOTE] I think he may have edited it. It's a minor issue anyway that will be solved as the helmet moves out of pre-production stage.
[QUOTE=Wii60;51571211]glad someone talked shit about the f35 in the gov before someone [URL="http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/10/14/f-35s-heavier-helmet-complicates-ejection-risks/73922710/"]snaps their neck[/URL] in one and dies the plane is a clusterfuck[/QUOTE] How to solve their issue: HANS device. Boom, pay me pls US government.
It's certainly not proof of the F35 being a clusterfuck.
[QUOTE=Van-man;51570181]Isn't the F-18 and F-35 meant for wholly different combat roles?[/QUOTE] ding ding ding the f-35 is meant to combine the strengths of the f-18, the Harrier, and the EA-6 a fighter/electronic attack aircraft with vertical take-off and landing capabilities is a dream come true, even if it doesn't excel in one specific area (although its vtol capabilities far outpace the outdated harriers) [editline]22nd December 2016[/editline] so yeah, let's not put yet another extension on aircraft which were set to expire nearly 20 years ago, and let's make one aircraft that can perform the roles of three weary old models
I don't get it, Canada is buying super hornets.. the USSR isn't really building any stealth fighters en masse yet and China is mass producing the Su-35. So why not build super hornets? Instead of spending money on defence lets send ships to mars!
[QUOTE=chernisreal?;51571436]I don't get it, Canada is buying super hornets.. the USSR isn't really building any stealth fighters en masse yet and China is mass producing the Su-35. So why not build super hornets? Instead of spending money on defence lets send ships to mars![/QUOTE] What rock have you been living under?
[QUOTE=chernisreal?;51571436]I don't get it, Canada is buying super hornets.. the USSR isn't really building any stealth fighters en masse yet and China is mass producing the Su-35. So why not build super hornets? Instead of spending money on defence lets send ships to mars![/QUOTE] Instead of spending money on maintaining 3-6 different types of aircraft why not develop one that can effectively perform the jobs of all of them???
[QUOTE=cccritical;51571485]Instead of spending money on maintaining 3-6 different types of aircraft why not develop one that can effectively perform the jobs of all of them???[/QUOTE] there's some good argument against having 1 do it all plane but there's certainly no reason to try to make another plane that wasn't even designed to do all those roles either
[QUOTE=Sableye;51571501]there's some good argument against having 1 do it all plane but there's certainly no reason to try to make another plane that wasn't even designed to do all those roles either[/QUOTE] agreed on both fronts but it's VASTLY more efficient to whittle our attack/fighter fleet down to 2-3 aircraft instead of the current 6+ imagine how much time and money goes into training pilots for each different type of aircraft, maintenance, SOP, squadron manning, TERPS procedures, etc
The F-35 isn't even THAT expensive when you consider how long they're going to be in service, how many there are, and how much it would cost to maintain our current fleet for the same number of years the F-35 will be in service. And the total cost of the program that everyone loves to quote is the cost of All the airframes, the R&D, The maintenance and parts through the year 2055, the ordinance and fuel, any retrofitting (Of which there is very little because they did few runs until most everything was set in stone). On top of that we're going to sell them to NATO countries that want them. Hell each one costs less than a Eurofighter, and F-22. And are about the same price as an EA-18 Growler And it's not even a bad aircraft
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51571293]How to solve their issue: HANS device. Boom, pay me pls US government.[/QUOTE] They already have extensive neck stabilisation, including 2 airbags that deploy next to the neck. Problem is for light pilots the chair pulls up to 18 g for 3 or 4 seconds and at low flying altitudes thats immediately followed by 6 gs IN THE OTHER DIRECTION as the chair has to forgo drogue chutes. Some chairs have thrust vectoring or in flight stabilising to counteract this but for the f35 there is simply no room for this combined with the problem being far worse then ever experienced in an aircraft so close to its finalisation. [editline]23rd December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=cccritical;51571485]Instead of spending money on maintaining 3-6 different types of aircraft why not develop one that can effectively perform the jobs of all of them???[/QUOTE] Because thats realistically unfeasible... Imagine in ww2 a bomber thats also a fighter and also a long distance escort and also a ground attack and also... If you do pull it off somewhat (f35) it will be mediocre at best at all tasks... The f35 is a flying truck and loses consistently against an f16 in a dogfight, even long range... Its stealth capabilities can be beaten by low tech broadband active radar freely available on the 'old soviet' market and only require minimal low tech adaptions to relay positions and targetting to the f16. So you have essentially a really cool aircraft that cant be used above 3th world army airspace. Are there solutions? Yes, but the fact that these things need to be solved while its already massively over budget is telling... And again anyone saying this aircraft is cheap have not calculated in development costs. Its easy to shift numbers around but in the end the taxpayer pays... Eurofighter is vastly superior in that it tries to be far less at once and actually pulls off what it does do reasonably well, even if its more expensive per unit since it has a far smaller projected production volume.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51571888]They already have extensive neck stabilisation, including 2 airbags that deploy next to the neck. Problem is for light pilots the chair pulls up to 18 g for 3 or 4 seconds and at low flying altitudes thats immediately followed by 6 gs IN THE OTHER DIRECTION as the chair has to forgo drogue chutes. Some chairs have thrust vectoring or in flight stabilising to counteract this but for the f35 there is simply no room for this combined with the problem being far worse then ever experienced in an aircraft so close to its finalisation. [editline]23rd December 2016[/editline] Because thats realistically unfeasible... Imagine in ww2 a bomber thats also a fighter and also a long distance escort and also a ground attack and also... If you do pull it off somewhat (f35) it will be mediocre at best at all tasks... The f35 is a flying truck and loses consistently against an f16 in a dogfight, even long range... Its stealth capabilities can be beaten by low tech broadband active radar freely available on the 'old soviet' market and only require minimal low tech adaptions to relay positions and targetting to the f16. So you have essentially a really cool aircraft that cant be used above 3th world army airspace. Are there solutions? Yes, but the fact that these things need to be solved while its already massively over budget is telling... And again anyone saying this aircraft is cheap have not calculated in development costs. Its easy to shift numbers around but in the end the taxpayer pays... Eurofighter is vastly superior in that it tries to be far less at once and actually pulls off what it does do reasonably well, even if its more expensive per unit since it has a far smaller projected production volume.[/QUOTE] In fairness, the technology available in WWII would've made a multi-role craft such as that pretty much entirely impossible. What makes a multi-role craft like the F-35 viable these days is that you don't have to carry thousands upon thousands of bombs in a fleet of bombers to reliably hit a handful of targets anymore, because guided munitions allow for "one and done" sorts of operations. Same with ground support, guided missiles and bombs make it a much easier role than WWII's dive-bombers and ground-attack craft with dumb bombs and unguided rockets. Engine and airframe technologies would've also made a multi-role craft with long range prohibitive, unless you planned on making a flying gas tank.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;51571934]In fairness, the technology available in WWII would've made a multi-role craft such as that pretty much entirely impossible. What makes a multi-role craft like the F-35 viable these days is that you don't have to carry thousands upon thousands of bombs in a fleet of bombers to reliably hit a handful of targets anymore, because guided munitions allow for "one and done" sorts of operations. Same with ground support, guided missiles and bombs make it a much easier role than WWII's dive-bombers and ground-attack craft with dumb bombs and unguided rockets. Engine and airframe technologies would've also made a multi-role craft with long range prohibitive, unless you planned on making a flying gas tank.[/QUOTE] Sure, but that still does not fix that different roles have different and contradictory desirable traits. A dogfighter is light and agile with a fast rate of climb A bomber has a high carrying capacity, heavy payload capability and stable airframe profile. If you want to combine these, you need to make massive compromises
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51571888] Because thats realistically unfeasible... Imagine in ww2 a bomber thats also a fighter and also a long distance escort and also a ground attack and also... If you do pull it off somewhat (f35) it will be mediocre at best at all tasks... The f35 is a flying truck and loses consistently against an f16 in a dogfight, even long range... Its stealth capabilities can be beaten by low tech broadband active radar freely available on the 'old soviet' market and only require minimal low tech adaptions to relay positions and targetting to the f16.[/quote] Except the F-16, F-15 and F/A-18 already perform multi-role and do so flawlessly. They are the literal example of multi-role aircraft working. The claim of the F-16 beating out the F-35 is also garbage: [url]https://tacairnet.com/2016/03/01/f-35-can-dogfight-says-norwegian-test-pilot/[/url] [url]https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/[/url] To claim stealthy aircraft can be defeated by simple radar modifications is also garbage. The US has previously fielded several stealth aircraft to massive success and many other antions like China and Russia are following with their own stealthy aircraft. If it was as simple as you claimed they wouldn't be doing it. [quote]So you have essentially a really cool aircraft that cant be used above 3th world army airspace.[/quote] Citation needed. [quote]Are there solutions? Yes, but the fact that these things need to be solved while its already massively over budget is telling... And again anyone saying this aircraft is cheap have not calculated in development costs. Its easy to shift numbers around but in the end the taxpayer pays...[/quote] Yes, it's over-budget, but it's also half the cost of every 3.5 gen aircraft. It should also be noted that the very large figure quoted for the entire program is for about ~4000 aircraft, every engine the aircraft will burn through over the 60 year life of the program, every bit of maintenance, two 1/3rd life electronics upgrades, weapons expended during training and every drop of fuel expended during training. [quote]Eurofighter is vastly superior in that it tries to be far less at once and actually pulls off what it does do reasonably well, even if its more expensive per unit since it has a far smaller projected production volume.[/QUOTE] Citation needed. The Eurofighter is a last generation fighter with no stealthy characteristics. To quote your previous comment "So you have essentially a really cool aircraft that cant [sic] be used above 3th world army airspace." The F35 has so far had a similar sized production run and the cost per unit keeps going down, so before long it will be far below the price of the Eurofighter. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;51572116]Sure, but that still does not fix that different roles have different and contradictory desirable traits. A dogfighter is light and agile with a fast rate of climb A bomber has a high carrying capacity, heavy payload capability and stable airframe profile. If you want to combine these, you need to make massive compromises[/QUOTE] You sound like Pierre Sprey. Every previous generation aircraft including your fabled Eurofighter has the carrying capacity to haul bombs and so does the F22 and F35: F-35 - 8,100 kg F-22 - ~10,00 kg F-16 - 7,700 kg F-15 - 7,300 kg F-15E - 10,400 kg Eurofighter - 9,000 kg F/A-18 - 6,200 kg F/A-18 Superhornet - 8,000 kg The rest of your comments are also garbage.
[QUOTE]Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet![/QUOTE] No problem mr Trump we here at Boeing were waiting for this day for a long time now. But instead of the F18 we got something a bit more 5 gen. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/tXf0qwg.png[/IMG] The X-32 smile makes a lot more sense now.
[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51572572]No problem mr Trump we here at Boeing we were waiting for this day for a long time now. But instead of the F18 we got something a bit more 5 gen. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/tXf0qwg.png[/IMG] The X-32 smile makes a lot more sense now.[/QUOTE] Except the X-32 was garbage
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51572116]Sure, but that still does not fix that different roles have different and contradictory desirable traits. A dogfighter is light and agile with a fast rate of climb A bomber has a high carrying capacity, heavy payload capability and stable airframe profile. If you want to combine these, you need to make massive compromises[/QUOTE] As I said, with modern tech, you don't even necessarily need a high bomb capacity any more, just enough precision munitions to take out key targets. Hell, F-16s did a lot of bombing runs in their time, and they're hardly what you'd consider fit for a bomber's role from a design perspective.
I just have to ask, if he wants a cheaper stealth fighter... just get this outta storage [IMG]https://media.defense.gov/2008/Sep/04/2000682180/-1/-1/0/080904-F-1234S-001.JPG[/IMG] aka the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23"]Northrop / McDonnell Douglas YF-23[/URL]. This was the other fighter plane that went against the F-22 in the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Tactical_Fighter"]Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF)[/URL] competition in the 1980's. Hell, Boeing probably has the blueprints for this thing as they bought out McDonnell Douglas in 1997.
[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51572572]No problem mr Trump we here at Boeing were waiting for this day for a long time now. But instead of the F18 we got something a bit more 5 gen. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/tXf0qwg.png[/IMG] The X-32 smile makes a lot more sense now.[/QUOTE] Hehehehe
[QUOTE=Anders118;51570270]That's the problem. A comparable Super Hornet cannot exist. The design is inherently unstealthy, and wasn't designed to be stealthy. You can't just give it a coat of [I]Stealth Paint Supreme[/I] and expect an effective stealth aircraft. There's also literally no point to making a modernized Super Hornet at this point. The Marines still require a new VTOL aircraft and the Air Force isn't going to want a Navy fighter. Most of the F35s cost overruns are behind it at this point, and the plane is finally producing results. Cutting it at this point, when most of its teething problems are behind it, just like the F22, would be asinine.[/QUOTE] Godfuckingdammit! Now what am I supposed to do with this can of Stealth Paint Supreme I got on Craigslist?
C'mon Donald, upgraded F-4 Phantom when
Isn't the F35 program a direct influence on the technology that produced the latest generation of VR headsets tho?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.