Jump to content

F35 Shitbird, F22 Badass and similar


Parliament
 Share

Recommended Posts

Saw a B-17 flying late yesterday afternoon.  It was very loud and you could see that big tail clearly from the ground.
CSB?

Regarding the F15EX, yeah. Who didn't see this coming. We shoulda built more F22's (like we originally planned) and never tried to make STOVL variant of the F35. (The Marines need to work off of Nimitz/Ford carriers.)

Had we done both of those, a light bomber (like the F15EX) would still be necessary. Stealth aircraft are absolutely irreplaceable when you need stealth. When you don't? They're just too expensive to run. There are inherent operating expenses that you can't get around.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that our acting Sec. of Defense is a Boeing guy.  

Maybe, but the problem remains the same:  The f-15 is crucial bomb delivery platform, and the air frames are literally wearing out.  They need to be replaced.  The F-35 was supposed to fill this role, but it clearly can not.   Personally, I think this is a sign the Pentagon might be ready to move on and start thinking about a Gen 6 fighter, and how that integrates with the all drones, all the time world.

It can work in conjunction with the F-22 as a stand off missile boat as well, as the F-15EX is designed to carry a fuck ton of AMRAAMS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I read its payload capacity list like 2x that of previous variants. Boeing seems like they're so mad about their X32 losing to the X35 they're putting all kindsa effort into this thing. And one of those articles suggests the price they'll offer the Air Force is gonna be REAL attractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Did I read its payload capacity list like 2x that of previous variants. Boeing seems like they're so mad about their X32 losing to the X35 they're putting all kindsa effort into this thing. And one of those articles suggests the price they'll offer the Air Force is gonna be REAL attractive.

If we need bombers, Boeing has some currently-idle birds that it can make REALLY attractive on price....

3.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

https://taskandpurpose.com/f35-readiness-rate-esper

The F-16 fleet is expected to meet the readiness goal this year, Esper told the Senate. The Navy and Marines have reported that the F/A-18 force also will meet the goal.

But the Air Force's small fleet of F-22 stealth fighters, like the F-35 fleet, likely will fall short of Mattis's benchmark, Air Force brigadier general Heath Collins, the service's program executive officer for fighters and bombers, said in June 2019.

The failure wasn't for a lack of trying. The Air Force in 2018 and 2019 shifted $750 million into maintenance accounts for the F-22 and F-16 fleets in the hope of meeting Mattis's goal.

The flying branch also temporarily withdrew F-22s from the Middle East, ending five years of continuous F-22 operations in the region. Older F-15C fighters for several months took over for the F-22s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t have the article in front of me, but I read yesterday that the Marines are doing away with the weapons officer on the F-18.

Anybody already in the job will keep it for the duration of their career, but they won’t be training any new ones. The pilot will be riding with an empty backseat.

The Navy has no plans to do away with weapons officers on their aircraft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

The F-22 is an incredible plane.  Wouldn’t mind seeing it go back full production that way dad can milk them for all they’re worth on consulting fees since he told them the 35 wasn’t going to work the same.  (Dad built on board systems for the 22) 

 

he could name his price and work 2 days/wk 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They destroyed most of the tooling for the F22 when the AF cancelled the rest of the order. It would take years and billions of dollars to restart production. I don't know who okay'd the destruction, but they should be kicked in the nuts until they cough them out of their fat pie-holes. 
Why did they do that? To guarantee no spies got ahold of it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Now what the heck is this? Goes from a cocktail napkin to a flying prototype in a year only? Another thread says they musta uses a lotta off-the-shelf components (engines, radar and such) but is that so bad? That stuff is upgraded all the time on existing machines.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-air-force-has-built-and-flown-a-mysterious-full-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/

4d6b960441550806515bf0f0c3c71367.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2020 at 10:46 AM, BabaYaga said:

Bring this old gal back

61op9qBk6hL.jpg

I've read that there's actually a movement within the military to bring back either a prop driven, or simple jet platform for the majority of our ground support missions. We spend billions a year to drop bombs on people that don't have an air force, or anything more substantial than machine guns pointed at the sky. The thought is you could build a fleet of support weapons platforms for less than we spend on one F35. It would likely be more effective because of loiter times, and it would save a ton of wear and tear on the more expensive platforms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I've read that there's actually a movement within the military to bring back either a prop driven, or simple jet platform for the majority of our ground support missions. We spend billions a year to drop bombs on people that don't have an air force, or anything more substantial than machine guns pointed at the sky. The thought is you could build a fleet of support weapons platforms for less than we spend on one F35. It would likely be more effective because of loiter times, and it would save a ton of wear and tear on the more expensive platforms. 

The A-29B.  Last I saw the Air Force cancelled the program, but IIRC the Navy is looking at them for some different things like special operations air support. They run like $25-30m each though.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The A-29B.  Last I saw the Air Force cancelled the program, but IIRC the Navy is looking at them for some different things like special operations air support. They run like $25-30m each though.
Less than that, but I don't know how it compares to a new A10. I bet it's somewhat cheaper, as it's somewhat less capable.

3f26373fa93b99a8009a671eeda3135a.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Parliament said:

Now what the heck is this? Goes from a cocktail napkin to a flying prototype in a year only? Another thread says they musta uses a lotta off-the-shelf components (engines, radar and such) but is that so bad? That stuff is upgraded all the time on existing machines.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-air-force-has-built-and-flown-a-mysterious-full-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/

4d6b960441550806515bf0f0c3c71367.jpg

Not that unusual. Most prototypes cannibalize parts from existing planes for the stuff under the fuselage skin, and start using more personalized tech once the proof of concept and selection period is done. 

It also helps that the Air Force isn’t trying to work within the constraints of a plane that’s built with VTOL and carrier ops in mind.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Less than that, but I don't know how it compares to a new A10. I bet it's somewhat cheaper, as it's somewhat less capable.

3f26373fa93b99a8009a671eeda3135a.jpg

Yeah, we charged Afghanistan $18m for them two or three years ago (depends on when that decision was made too).  They were also something like double the operational cost on that page at that time too.  We're going to hit $25-30m a pop.  They're WAY less capable than a "legacy" A-10, let alone a new one.  

E:  WE bought the 20 Afghan ones for $427m, so like $23m each, then sold them for $18m/ea.  Not a bad deal for the Afghans, especially since it also included training and probably support for them.  A new A-10 would be hideously expensive.  

Edited by MadBurgerMaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now what the heck is this? Goes from a cocktail napkin to a flying prototype in a year only? Another thread says they musta uses a lotta off-the-shelf components (engines, radar and such) but is that so bad? That stuff is upgraded all the time on existing machines.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-air-force-has-built-and-flown-a-mysterious-full-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/

4d6b960441550806515bf0f0c3c71367.jpg
When lockheed isn't involved shit gets done.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I've read that there's actually a movement within the military to bring back either a prop driven, or simple jet platform for the majority of our ground support missions. We spend billions a year to drop bombs on people that don't have an air force, or anything more substantial than machine guns pointed at the sky. The thought is you could build a fleet of support weapons platforms for less than we spend on one F35. It would likely be more effective because of loiter times, and it would save a ton of wear and tear on the more expensive platforms. 

They can loiter longer on FOBs, require shorter runways that can be much more uneven in remote areas to operate, require less maintenance, and cost less.  Problem is they are slow and much easier targets.  Not sure what the defense requirements would be to have the operate?  They would be good in a "stack" over targets, right behind helicopters, but before the fast movers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

They can loiter longer on FOBs, require shorter runways that can be much more uneven in remote areas to operate, require less maintenance, and cost less.  Problem is they are slow and much easier targets.  Not sure what the defense requirements would be to have the operate?  They would be good in a "stack" over targets, right behind helicopters, but before the fast movers.   if they are much less expensive, the defense contractors make much less money. Thus a pipe dream, regardless of the legitimacy of the concept.

Lobbyists will see to that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 months later...

Article might be cliclbait, or at least the rendering. Intriguing just the same.

This thing looks to be more of a missile sled than a dogfighter, ntawwt. The speculation that it'll be able to function as an escort fighter is intriguing for sure.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a36122339/air-force-secret-new-fighter-jet-concept-art/cbc6d2479c867a1d5b3d8fe5523960c2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Maybe the F35 Shitbird has turned the corner.  Finland just picked it over 3 competitors, including two Eurpeans.  In.  Your.  FACE!

 The Finnish government has picked the F-35 as the replacement for the country’s F-18 Hornet fleet, known as the HX program, according to a Ministry of Defence statement.

Lockheed’s plane beat out four other competitors: Boeing’s F-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab’s Gripen. The evaluation process saw the F-35 “pass” the selection criteria of security of supply and industrial participation and affordability, according to the MOD statement. It also scored highest in the military capability area.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/12/10/finland-picks-the-f-35-as-its-next-fighter-continuing-the-us-warplanes-inroads-in-europe/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the things I am reading now say that the program has turned the corner and that the kinks are mostly worked out.

The other thing I am reading is that the C version for the Navy is the best performing version because of the larger wing surface area and it also holds more fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...