Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-35 price tag holding steady..........

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest

    #41
    Originally posted by AlphaChi1989


    Nice drawing but the lift fan doors don't look right???

    Comment

    • bring_it_on
      2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
      • Jun 2004
      • 12480

      #42
      Originally posted by Scooter View Post
      Nice drawing but the lift fan doors don't look right???



      Last edited by bring_it_on; 11th April 2008, 15:41.
      Old radar types never die; they just phased array

      Comment

      • Guest's Avatar
        Guest

        #43
        Originally posted by bring_it_on View Post






        I stand corrected..........

        Comment

        • djcross
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jan 2000
          • 5456

          #44
          The lift fan doors were changed from bi-folding butterfly doors to a single aft hinged door to reduce lift fan inlet distortion as the jet flies into transition in preparation for vertical landing. The aft hinged door does create some distortion/lift loss in pure jetborne lift (vertical ops), but reduces a significant nose down pitching moment as the jet slows to a hover.

          Comment

          • Schorsch
            Severely Transonic
            • Aug 2005
            • 3843

            #45
            How often does the US Navy operate aircraft carriers in the Port of New York?
            Or did Hillary promise the NYPA its own carrier in case she wins elections? :diablo:



            -----
            NYPA: New York Port Authority, some kind of a police of its own.
            EDIT: I am just reading that it abbreviates itself as PANYNJ, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
            Last edited by Schorsch; 11th April 2008, 18:50.
            Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

            Comment

            • djcross
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jan 2000
              • 5456

              #46
              Originally posted by Schorsch View Post
              How often does the US Navy operate aircraft carriers in the Port of New York?
              Or did Hillary promise the NYPA its own carrier in case she wins elections? :diablo:



              -----
              NYPA: New York Port Authority, some kind of a police of its own.
              EDIT: I am just reading that it abbreviates itself as PANYNJ, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
              Queen Hillary has promised big defense cuts, so I doubt the USN will be able to afford to leave port.

              Comment

              • bring_it_on
                2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                • Jun 2004
                • 12480

                #47
                Originally posted by djcross View Post
                Queen Hillary has promised big defense cuts, so I doubt the USN will be able to afford to leave port.
                Or maybe hillary stopped all ship building and we needed to re commision the USS intrepid
                Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                Comment

                • bring_it_on
                  2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                  • Jun 2004
                  • 12480

                  #48
                  Originally posted by Schorsch View Post
                  How often does the US Navy operate aircraft carriers in the Port of New York?
                  Or did Hillary promise the NYPA its own carrier in case she wins elections? :diablo:



                  -----
                  NYPA: New York Port Authority, some kind of a police of its own.
                  EDIT: I am just reading that it abbreviates itself as PANYNJ, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

                  About as much as several supersonic jets buzz pass the kronborg castle



                  I particularly like this aussie drawing , it appears that artists from these countries have sent these drawings , they can be found at the team Joint strike fighter website

                  Last edited by bring_it_on; 11th April 2008, 21:10.
                  Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                  Comment

                  • Guest's Avatar
                    Guest

                    #49
                    Originally posted by bring_it_on View Post
                    About as much as several supersonic jets buzz pass the kronborg castle



                    I particularly like this aussie drawing , it appears that artists from these countries have sent these drawings , they can be found at the team Joint strike fighter website



                    Oh, man ........... what happened to the F-35C's?

                    Comment

                    • Guest's Avatar
                      Guest

                      #50
                      Originally posted by bring_it_on View Post
                      Or maybe hillary stopped all ship building and we needed to re commision the USS intrepid
                      I doubt Hillary would be a pro-Military? Unless, it is to her benefit???

                      Comment

                      • Guest's Avatar
                        Guest

                        #51
                        Originally posted by Schorsch View Post
                        How often does the US Navy operate aircraft carriers in the Port of New York?
                        Or did Hillary promise the NYPA its own carrier in case she wins elections? :diablo:



                        -----
                        NYPA: New York Port Authority, some kind of a police of its own.
                        EDIT: I am just reading that it abbreviates itself as PANYNJ, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

                        Well, if the Republican win in November than Mayport has good odds of getting a Carrier. If, the Democrats win the USN will be lucky to have Aircraft Carriers at all..........

                        Comment

                        • ELP
                          ELP
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2000
                          • 2333

                          #52
                          Based on Hillary's demonstrated bravery in the ex-Yugo, we won't need a military if she gets in charge.

                          Comment

                          • bring_it_on
                            2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                            • Jun 2004
                            • 12480

                            #53
                            Originally posted by ELP View Post
                            Based on Hillary's demonstrated bravery in the ex-Yugo, we won't need a military if she gets in charge.


                            It would cost much less if she could pull of a Rambo -

                            Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                            Comment

                            • Schorsch
                              Severely Transonic
                              • Aug 2005
                              • 3843

                              #54
                              Originally posted by ELP View Post
                              Based on Hillary's demonstrated bravery in the ex-Yugo, we won't need a military if she gets in charge.
                              Or she copies the early Truman: "A few bombs is all we need."
                              And the USN carrier force was never in charge in delivering the bomb ... or not really (yeah I know, the A-2 Savage, but that aircraft sucks!).
                              Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

                              Comment

                              • Jon James
                                Senior Member
                                • Jan 2008
                                • 780

                                #55
                                Originally posted by Schorsch View Post
                                Or she copies the early Truman: "A few bombs is all we need."
                                And the USN carrier force was never in charge in delivering the bomb ... or not really (yeah I know, the A-2 Savage, but that aircraft sucks!).
                                Not really a bad thing at all in todays casualty adverse America, even if the next war is a 'just war' (sniggers) the American people still arn't going to like casualties one little bit and the media will no doubt play the death toll game repeatedly banging it into the publics heads everytime a soldier so much as stubs a toe whilst crying out quagmire - even if its no where near a quagmire. So yeah in short as long as the bombs are atomic sounds like a great plan, of course there would be no holding and taking ground without an army in theatre but who needs that when your target country is just a pile of smoldering radioactive ashes eh.

                                Comment

                                • Ozzy Blizzard
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Mar 2008
                                  • 54

                                  #56
                                  Originally posted by Jon James View Post
                                  Not really a bad thing at all in todays casualty adverse America, even if the next war is a 'just war' (sniggers) the American people still arn't going to like casualties one little bit and the media will no doubt play the death toll game repeatedly banging it into the publics heads everytime a soldier so much as stubs a toe whilst crying out quagmire - even if its no where near a quagmire. So yeah in short as long as the bombs are atomic sounds like a great plan, of course there would be no holding and taking ground without an army in theatre but who needs that when your target country is just a pile of smoldering radioactive ashes eh.
                                  I'm not sure if the US is as casualty adverse as we all think. The iraq death toll is 4000+ and still rising. Allthough the public is quite clearly iraq war adverse they're putting up with it for the minet. Your not seeing vietnam esk demonstrations and civil unrest and i guess the death toll would have to rise a tad more before that started to happen. (hopefully you guys can bring your people home soon, but it may be a tad longer than we all would like ).

                                  Comment

                                  • swerve
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jun 2005
                                    • 13610

                                    #57
                                    I just compared the December 2007 SAR, i.e. the one with the famous $1bn cost reduction for F-35, with the September 2007 SAR. Interesting. At constant 2002 prices, the predicted cost actually went up $600 mn - and the number planned went down by two aircraft. Predicted unit cost at constant prices therefore increased by about 0.4%, instead of decreasing.

                                    The apparent decrease in cost seems to be due to 1) changed assumptions about future inflation, & 2) cutting two airframes.

                                    $mn
                                    September 2007 SAR - 2458 aircraft
                                    Then-year 299,824.1
                                    2002 209,401.6
                                    Unit - then$ 122.0
                                    Unit - 2002$ 85.2

                                    December 2007 SAR - 2456 aircraft
                                    Then-year 298,842.8
                                    2002 210,014.5
                                    Unit - then$ 121.7
                                    Unit - 2002$ 85.5


                                    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2...071119sars.pdf
                                    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2...080408sars.pdf
                                    Last edited by swerve; 16th April 2008, 20:01.
                                    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                    Justinian

                                    Comment

                                    • Rogerout
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Mar 2007
                                      • 459

                                      #58
                                      Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                      The apparent decrease in cost seems to be due to 1) changed assumptions about future inflation, & 2) cutting two airframes.
                                      Thanks Swerve, I sensed there was something fishy with the supposed cost reduction but I didn't think they had already started cutting numbers.

                                      The viability of the JSF program has always been to have a big number to divide the cost ove a long production run. If they have started to cut costs by reducing airframes it could be the start of a downhill movement. Now two less isn't much, but it could be the start and it's not like it hasn't happened before.
                                      "The wise man thinks of what he says.
                                      The fool says what he thinks"

                                      Comment

                                      • bring_it_on
                                        2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                                        • Jun 2004
                                        • 12480

                                        #59
                                        JSF Program Improving, Still In Crosshairs

                                        While the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programs recent Selected Acquisition Report points to some cost stability within the program, the program still faces some serious challenges ahead, a recent Teal Group report says.

                                        Industrial greed abroad and program commitment at home continue to put the F-35 in the crosshairs, according to the report.

                                        The industrial situation has degenerated into a beg-a-thon, the report says. For a program that was supposed to break the cycle of offset demands, F-35 has actually engendered nothing but industrial greed, fueled by implied promises and aggressive salesmanship.

                                        Foreign interest

                                        The report continues: There appears to be no way to reconcile best value contracts and strategic sourcing contracts. As third-tier contracts continue to trickle down, there should be enough work to keep international partners happy, but if there isnt and if the competition provides some aggressive offers there could be one or two defectors.

                                        Still, foreign interest remains high.

                                        So far, the international dimension looks great. By the end of 2002, there were more European countries committed to F-35 than there were to Eurofighter, the report says. Notably, two key Eurofighter partner countries (representing more than half of the partnerships total defense spending) have joined F-35. But Eurofighter has been revitalized by the Saudi buy. And Saab is promoting the heavier Gripen E/F, which might find appeal in Scandinavia.

                                        U.S. commitment

                                        The only concrete sign of international partnership concern, Teal says, is Australias 24 F/A-18F order, which marks the first export success for the Super Hornet, and to a JSF partner.

                                        Of greater worry is the question of commitment at home. Reiterating earlier comments, Teal Group says the Navy embraces the JSF as much as it would a proposal to go drink bleach. They arent sold on stealth, and they seem unwilling to pay a premium for it in price or payload.

                                        The Navy also is no fan of a single-engine plane, especially one that could actually threaten the linchpin of the services survival: the aircraft carrier. Theres also the unpleasant prospect that the STOVL F- 35 version (U.S. Marine Corps version) could be nearly as effective as the CTOL naval variant, making large nuclear carriers relatively less appealing.

                                        The Navys biggest problem with the F-35, the report says, seems to be that it is a joint plane. Joint planes threaten the Navys hope of ever getting a purely Navy combat aircraft again.

                                        But the real JSF test is the U.S. Air Force, which would rather have F-22 Raptors but faces opposition to more Raptor buys.

                                        Given a funding choice of the two, Teal Group says, the JSF doesnt have much of a chance. But there may be little choice, which could be the JSFs saving grace.

                                        Still, prime contractor Lockheed Martin has to keep the unit price down. The basic A models unit recurring flyaway cost needs to stay in the $50 million-$60 million range, Teal says. If costs rise higher than $70 million, the qualities that make the F-35 unique will diminish.
                                        http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=defense
                                        Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                        Comment

                                        • zero
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • May 2007
                                          • 271

                                          #60
                                          BAE Systems starts manufacture of the first F-35 Lightning II production aircraft

                                          BAE Systems has cut metal on its first component for the F-35 Lightning II production aircraft. This opening cut, on a component part of the aft fuselage, signifies a major milestone for the F-35 Lightning II programme.

                                          The metal cut is for the first production F-35 Lightning II aircraft which will enter into service with the US Air Force (USAF) in 2010 and follows the production contract announcement made in December last year. The contract - a Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract - is worth 25m to BAE Systems and will see the production of two conventional take off and landing variants.

                                          F136 high-altitude tests completed

                                          The GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team has successfully completed a high-altitude afterburner testing program at the US Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tennessee, including common exhaust hardware for the F-35 Lightning II aircraft.
                                          Military/Spy fiction - The two headed Cobra

                                          My preferred Defence News

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X