xcraftllc Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 Last I heard, LockMart wanted about $120M for one Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat..... Guess this isn't your father's fighter jet market anymore. I'm sure with an economy of scale you could slash that a bit but there's no way that's gonna happen. I guess Lockheed played it's cards pretty well with having a monopoly, and having the next best alternative to the F-35 which they charge too much for to be practical anyway. From what Brabus is saying, the threats out there are just too good to not have an LO air frame, and reliance on EA pods alone won't be enough. Looks like we're gonna have to go all-in on the F-35 for the time being. I just hope we learn a lot from all the mistakes so when WWIII hits, we can produce a new fighter without all the flaws.
dvlax40 Posted May 4, 2015 Posted May 4, 2015 Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat..... From what Brabus is saying, the threats out there are just too good to not have an LO air frame, and reliance on EA pods alone won't be enough. Looks like we're gonna have to go all-in on the F-35 for the time being. I just hope we learn a lot from all the mistakes so when WWIII hits, we can produce a new fighter without all the flaws. Brabus is a smart guy but the navy seems to think that not having ea pods is a huge mistake. I think LO is fine for first strike aircraft. But pouring the money we are into an LO multiple fighter? What next an LO transport ? Oh wait LockMart is working on that too.... /s
brabus Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 We're fighting to get better EA, AESA and a lot of other shit on 4th gen fighters to increase effectiveness/survivability into the future; these are necessary things, but they aren't the ultimate solution by themselves is all I'm trying to say. There are good dudes well above me arguing for this stuff right now, and there is some light at the end of the tunnel, but unfortunately not near as much as you and I would like. We can thank the colossal fuck up the F-35 acquisition process has been for that one.
xcraftllc Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Does anybody have a good accurate number on how much the flyaway cost is for a brand-spankin new F-16E/F with an F-110-GE-132 engine? Basically what the UAE is buying? Looks like this Fighter Sweep article actually addresses my question: "...If we’re talking dollars, it’s a pretty simple answer. Lockheed-Martin is more than willing to sell the Block 60 Viper to the USAF at its full price-tag of 80 million (ish) dollars apiece. Think about that for a second. A bigger, meaner F-16 with all its bells and whistles at a price that is roughly (ish) the equivalent of what the per-unit cost of the F-35 will be by the time the end of the current Lightning II buy is reached. Yes, that is assuming the current JSF order will go unchanged, but you see my point. Even though it’s the most capable, survivable, lethal variant, it’s still an F-16..." - https://fightersweep.com/2038/the-a-10-warthog-debate-a-fate-worse-than-death/ It's a pretty long, opinionated, and heated article but a very good read. It addresses a lot of the topics we've asked here and makes some interesting points.
HU&W Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Lockheed-Martin is more than willing to sell the Block 60 Viper to the USAF at its full price-tag of 80 million (ish) dollars apiece. So, the AF lists the constant dollar (1998) cost of a Viper at $18.8M. Corrected for inflation at CPI, that's about $27M in today's dollars. The block 60 must have some serious upgrades to cost three times as much.
StoleIt Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 So, the AF lists the constant dollar (1998) cost of a Viper at $18.8M. Corrected for inflation at CPI, that's about $27M in today's dollars. The block 60 must have some serious upgrades to cost three times as much. Considering an E/F model Super Bug is $60.9M each (source: Wikipedia) while the C/D model is listed at $29M in 2006 dollars, I don't think just taking the 1998 cost and correcting for inflation is a realistic metric of what a Block 60 should cost.
HU&W Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Considering an E/F model Super Bug is $60.9M each (source: Wikipedia) while the C/D model is listed at $29M in 2006 dollars, I don't think just taking the 1998 cost and correcting for inflation is a realistic metric of what a Block 60 should cost. Valid. I was sourcing off of af.mil factsheets and didn't get as far as wiki. Still, seems pretty insane.
HU&W Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 How is this news? Air Force's newest fighter gets first female pilot (CNN)The F-35 is the Air Force's newest fighter plane, and the service says it needs some of its most experienced aviators in the cockpit of the jet. One of them is Lt. Col. Christine Mau, who flew combat missions in the F-15 Strike Eagle in Afghanistan. This week, she became the first woman to fly the Lightning II jet. Despite her experience in Afghanistan, Mau, the deputy commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing Operations Group at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, said completing her first flight in the F-35 was a special moment. "It wasn't until I was taxiing to the runway that it really struck me that I was on my own in the jet," Mau said in an Air Force press release. Lt. Col. Christine Mau navigates her F-35A through the "bird bath" after returning from her first flight on Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, on Tuesday. EXPAND IMAGE "It felt great to get airborne. The jet flies like a dream," she added. Col. Todd Canterbury, commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing, said Mau fills a critical role at the unit, which is charged with training pilots, maintenance and support crews for the F-35 in all its variants. In addition to the Air Force, the Navy, Marine Corps and U.S. allies around the world will use versions of the F-35. "We need battle-tested pilots to help us put the F-35A through its paces and ensure we have a trained and ready force of F-35 pilots to feed into our combat air forces," Canterbury said in the Air Force statement. Mau's experience includes being part of the first all-woman combat mission in Afghanistan in 2011. The pilots and weapons officers aboard two F-15s, as well as all the planners and maintainers, were women, according to the Air Force. But Mau says gender makes no difference in flying combat aircraft, something women have done in the U.S. military for more than two decades. "The plane doesn't know or care about your gender as a pilot, nor do the ground troops who need your support. You just have to perform. That's all anyone cares about when you're up there -- that you can do your job, and that you do it exceptionally well," she said in the Air Force statement. Mau is the 88th person to fly the F-35 in the four years since training began at Eglin, according to the Air Force. The Air Force's variant of the F-35 will eventually replace F-16s and A-10s in the Air Force fleet, the service says. The single-seat, single-engine jet can reach a speed of 1,200 mph with a ceiling of 50,000 feet and a range of 1,350 miles on its internal tanks, according to the Air Force.
Flaco Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 "The plane doesn't know or care about your gender as a pilot, nor do the ground troops who need your support. You just have to perform. That's all anyone cares about when you're up there -- that you can do your job, and that you do it exceptionally well," she said in the Air Force statement. Oh, the irony.... 1
tac airlifter Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I remember the big deal when she flew the first female 2 ship of strikes in OEF. We all said the same thing then: who the F cares? no one whose opinion I respect.
Steve Davies Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 For whatever it's worth, I met her a long time ago when she was at Captain and she gave zero impression that she wanted media attention. I expect that she is simply a 'victim' of an Air Force that feels it needs to get this sort of stuff out there.
Flaco Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 For whatever it's worth, I met her a long time ago when she was at Captain and she gave zero impression that she wanted media attention. I expect that she is simply a 'victim' of an Air Force that feels it needs to get this sort of stuff out there. Sorry Steve, not buying it. If she really meant what she said, she wouldn't have done the article(s) in the first place. Don't want special treatment for being a (insert group here)? Don't participate in the story. Last time I checked, it's not mandatory to talk to the media.
dvlax40 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Sorry Steve, not buying it. If she really meant what she said, she wouldn't have done the article(s) in the first place. Don't want special treatment for being a (insert group here)? Don't participate in the story. Last time I checked, it's not mandatory to talk to the media. Flac im with ya, but with all the bullshit around the F35 maybe they are trying to pimp people out hard to show it in a good light?
Clark Griswold Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Flac im with ya, but with all the bullshit around the F35 maybe they are trying to pimp people out hard to show it in a good light? Ditto, I hate shit like this too and have never met her but my spider sense and cynical nature makes me suspect that some good idea fairy in PA and A1 volun-told her to do this.
Flaco Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Ditto, I hate shit like this too and have never met her but my spider sense and cynical nature makes me suspect that some good idea fairy in PA and A1 volun-told her to do this. Of course they did. I don't think for one second the idea was hers. It's unfortunate she allowed herself to be a spokesperson for an agenda she ostensibly disagrees with. Just remember, you can't be pimped by the Air Force / media if you refuse to be their prostitute. No one ever said doing the right thing would be good for your career.
Clark Griswold Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Of course they did. I don't think for one second the idea was hers. It's unfortunate she allowed herself to be a spokesperson for an agenda she ostensibly disagrees with. Just remember, you can't be pimped by the Air Force / media if you refuse to be their prostitute. No one ever said doing the right thing would be good for your career. I don't think we are actually in too much disagreement on this but realize the position the PC corps puts her in, I read the article it was innocuous and she slipped the "jet nor troops doesn't care if you're a woman" quote in there, I interpret that as her saying "quit mentioning and focusing on the fact that I am woman even though that is the reason for this article" Most lady aircrew I've met (civilian or military) didn't have a chip on their shoulder about the fact they were a minority in the aviation community and the ones I did were no more or less annoying than some of the dudes i had the misfortune to work with who were nuclear powered ass-bots Hate the press not the pilot. 1
Flaco Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 I don't think we are actually in too much disagreement on this but realize the position the PC corps puts her in, I read the article it was innocuous and she slipped the "jet nor troops doesn't care if you're a woman" quote in there, I interpret that as her saying "quit mentioning and focusing on the fact that I am woman even though that is the reason for this article" Most lady aircrew I've met (civilian or military) didn't have a chip on their shoulder about the fact they were a minority in the aviation community and the ones I did were no more or less annoying than some of the dudes i had the misfortune to work with who were nuclear powered ass-bots Hate the press not the pilot. No hate for her. It was unfortunate she chose to be interviewed for it. As for the article, it is anything but innocuous. The in-your-face agenda pushing is yet another shining example of how the Air Force has gone full retard.
Clark Griswold Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 No hate for her. It was unfortunate she chose to be interviewed for it. As for the article, it is anything but innocuous. The in-your-face agenda pushing is yet another shining example of how the Air Force has gone full retard. Copy all, agree to slightly disagree.
Flaco Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Copy all, agree to slightly disagree. Fair enough. Also, I hope you won't take offense if I incorporate "nuclear powered ass-bots" into my lexicon. That shit's funny right there.
Majestik Møøse Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 The few woman flyers I've worked with that had a chip on their shoulders also sucked at flying. The good ones were a non-factor and got along with everyone. Big surprise. 4
Clark Griswold Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Fair enough. Also, I hope you won't take offense if I incorporate "nuclear powered ass-bots" into my lexicon. That shit's funny right there. Use liberally - unfortunately they are out thereThe few woman flyers I've worked with that had a chip on their shoulders also sucked at flying. The good ones were a non-factor and got along with everyone. Big surprise. Checks with my homework Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MD Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) I don't think we are actually in too much disagreement on this but realize the position the PC corps puts her in, Hate the press not the pilot. People that do these articles and similar stuff, do so because they want to. To some degree and for some reason, however small. It's still their choice ultimately. It's nothing right or wrong, but lets just not sugar coat that part of it and try to polish it up to somehow they are forced in some way. Because then we are playing PC ourselves if we do that. It is what it is. Edited May 9, 2015 by MD
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now