JediMaster 451 Posted March 19, 2009 Actually, due to the economics of ramping up production the early JSFs will cost MORE than F-22s do now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gunrunner 313 Posted March 19, 2009 1) The F-35 is not a "true" stealth fighter, IIRC it's optimised for minimal frontal RCS. 2) The quote specifically cites the export F-35, supposed to have lowered specs, especially in the stealth department. What bugs me is that I thought we were March 19th, not April 1st... how time flies Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,861 Posted March 19, 2009 1) The F-35 is not a "true" stealth fighter, IIRC it's optimised for minimal frontal RCS.2) The quote specifically cites the export F-35, supposed to have lowered specs, especially in the stealth department. What bugs me is that I thought we were March 19th, not April 1st... how time flies Quote: "Boeing says the F-15SE can match the frontal-aspect stealth performance of the export version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter" Considering the 35 doesnt exist yet in any final form it sounds like a pathetic sales pitch and I seriously doubt its anywhere near - and until proved otherwise I will keep laughing - i thankyou. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gunrunner 313 Posted March 19, 2009 MigBuster> My point exactly... I was just pointing out that the F-35, export or US, was not designed to be true stealth, and that the export F-35 will be even less so due to export restrictions. Yet it is a pathetic sales pitch and/or a grim omen for JSF partners if the claim ends up anywhere close to the truth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hokum 0 Posted March 19, 2009 I pretty much wish we weren't buying the JSF. I think some good british ingenuity, and maybe (just maybe) a true british aircraft for the first time in 40 years... I just hope we dont end up in the same situation as with the chinooks... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 144 Posted March 19, 2009 The UK should just go for the Gripen The aircraft does deserve export sales success. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkippyBing 8 Posted March 19, 2009 The UK should just go for the Gripen biggrin.gif The aircraft does deserve export sales success. For what? If we didn't need something to put on the two new carriers we'd be going for an all Typhoon fleet, we ordered enough! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Caesar 305 Posted March 19, 2009 Well, what I'd like to know is: how is this any stealthier than any other F-15/equal to the F-35? It's a Strike Eagle with canted tails! Its range will be impaired because it can only carry internal fuel and weapons to lessen its radar signature, leaving it with 4 AIM-120's or AIM-9's or some combination of the two, and a gun. The bubble canopy, FAST packs and engine intakes...hell the fuselage itself have not changed at all: that's not going to help its signature, and the canting of the tails isn't going to do much, either, especially front-on, where they're still visible. Putting some RAM on it might do something, but considering the F-35 is smaller, has a stealthy shape, has internal weapons in bays that don't bulge out of the aircraft and RAM, I just don't see how this "Silent" Eagle is going to compare to that. I'm also not an expert, so those perceptions don't mean a damn thing, but this really doesn't seem like the wisest way to spend money... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkippyBing 8 Posted March 19, 2009 Caesar, likewise. From what I know of radar they haven't done enough to change the shape. As to RAM, I'm guessing it's not an easy thing to replace sections of airframe with it without significant engineering changes. I'm not saying it can't be done, and may be why the price is so high for such an old design. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coolpilot 2 Posted March 19, 2009 Just wait until they unveil the new Stealthy Tomcat! I wonder how it would look like? Reducing the payload in half to get a slightly reduced RCS doesn´t sound too good to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eraser_tr 29 Posted March 19, 2009 The UK should just go for the Gripen The aircraft does deserve export sales success. SPINNERS! Here's a job for you! Yeah, thats exactly what I meant, there's no way it's as stealthy as boeing is trying to market it. It might do for replacing the aging F-15Cs that are all falling apart, but we'd be better off with all raptors for that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vanir 0 Posted March 20, 2009 Is this the F-15G Gay Eagle? Hot on the heels of the Joint Strike plagiarism, the Super-Seventees marketing exercise and the F-22 wishful thinking. C'mon USA, you're seriously slipping in the face of the Flanker. In terms of airframe performance the Raptor's only going to put you ten years behind. You actually want to go backwards? -_- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Caesar 305 Posted March 20, 2009 Considering both the current-gen C Eagle and the Viper can take the Su-30MKI, I don't think the Raptor is gonna have much difficulty, and is DEFINATELY not so much as a year behind the 25+ year old Flanker base. Not sure where you're getting that from. At the same time, this Eagle looks to me like nothing more than a marketing ploy and a waste of money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eraser_tr 29 Posted March 20, 2009 Best not to feed the Eels. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted March 20, 2009 Someone's buying Sukhoi's marketing on the cheap. I can't quite figure out how a plane from the late 70s is ahead of a plane from the mid 90s... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545 Posted March 20, 2009 technology, first lock first shot, first kill = ahead of the opponent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gbnavy61 1 Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) Dunno, this bird looks pretty queer. (Those flimsy, little landing gear also tickle me.) Head on it looks like a Super Eaglet (Horngle?). This concept seems a bit weird to me. I guess SH sales have slowed significantly, if not stopped, so Boeing is looking to keep busy in the strike-fighter market. It doesn't seem like a great idea. AFAIK, even the Mud Hens carry extra tanks, so the increased range from CFTs doesn't seem like a huge selling point - particularly when you're not making use of all that space for fuel, because in a half-hearted effort to be "stealthy" you're stowing weapons in there. Only interest I can see in this is countries, other than the US, that operate F-15s or may be looking to trade up without shelling out for a ridiculously overblown p.o.s. like the Joint Strike f***-up. And really, are export versions going to give the best of the US avionics? Without that, all you're really getting is a minimal upgrade in the RCS department and a younger airframe. I guess that arrangement may work for some. Maybe Boeing is covering as many bases as possible. Other thoughts... I've not flown a SH, so I can't comment from experience, but it seems like it too was an overblown idea that was hit-and-miss enough to make it only a mediocre upgrade for the legacy Hornets, and not enough of the complete package to adequately replace the F-14D. This Silent Horngle seems like the same concept. Boeing was thinking "What can we do for cheap that will keep our heads above water?" I don't know why anyone thinks this new F-15 is a good idea. How about some sign of originality? Whoever said earlier that the Brits ought to build their own jet was right. I don't know what should be done about Lockheed-Martin. Seems like they are a bunch of incompetent assholes (and great flim-flam men). IIRC, something like 15 countries have orders for a dinky little jet that is probably a lot less than it's cracked up to be, and still they keep f***ing it away and the project gets more and more delayed, with costs rising all the time. The only reason they haven't fallen flat on their faces is that it'd be in the US's best interest to keep some competition in military aircraft design, and that all of these other countries are banking on this turd to at least show up at some point. Everybody who bought into L-M's sales pitch is getting what they deserve, unfortunately. We need to get the competition beefed up again, at least among US companies (but, hey, overseas advancements might induce us to action). Northrup-Grumman needs to get in on the act, too. Personally, I think the carrier decks look a little sparse without a sturdy Grumman strike-fighter (emphasis on the fighter). Instead of the "good ol' days" when military-minded folks pushed for the proper warfighting equipment (cost was a concern, but not the driving factor), we're letting the politicians and businessmen drive things. The politicians want things to happen for less money, the military let's them dictate, and the businessmen see a way to capitalize ($$$). So, the military gets stuff that is cheaper, but "cost-effective" (commonality of parts, etc.). So, they go to war with a "Swiss army knife;" sometimes you just need a machete and a club. I think we have advanced far enough to build a great machete and a great club and not have to worry about how much cheaper it is to fix the adequate Swiss army knife. I don't know. Just my rant. Edited March 20, 2009 by gbnavy61 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+JSF_Aggie 1,291 Posted March 20, 2009 I don't know what should be done about Lockheed-Martin. Seems like they are a bunch of incompetent assholes (and great flim-flam men). IIRC, something like 15 countries have orders for a dinky little jet that is probably a lot less than it's cracked up to be, and still they keep f***ing it away and the project gets more and more delayed, with costs rising all the time. The only reason they haven't fallen flat on their faces is that it'd be in the US's best interest to keep some competition in military aircraft design, and that all of these other countries are banking on this turd to at least show up at some point. Everybody who bought into L-M's sales pitch is getting what they deserve, unfortunately. Wow, I've never been called an incompetent asshole before. This is based on what information? Are you briefed onto the program, or just talking out of your ass? I sit through every outbrief after a simulation event for USAF, USN, USMC, UK, the other partner, or soon to be partner, countries. Each group brings in 10-20 pilots, and 10-20 analysts. Analysts whose job it is to pick through, and require us to prove, everyone of our algorithms and data, for the F-35, and the simulation enviornment (weapons, threats, etc.....) In every outbrief, both pilots and analysts leave with their jaws on the floor, and this is just with a Block 3.0 jet, the first mission ready software load. Are everyone of them incompetent as well? Have we flim-flam'ed everyone of them? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+331Killerbee 840 Posted March 20, 2009 Got to agree with Aggie here. Kelly Johnson's Ole' Company failed to deliver when? At least not in My lifetime...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest pfunkmusik Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) Must be why Lockheed-Martin continues to be one of the largest employers in the DFW area. Because, as we all know, those guys do absolutely nothing over there. Boeing should quit trying to sell outdated airframes to people. The Air Force didn't want a 30-year-old design for a tanker for good reason. pfunk Edited March 20, 2009 by pfunkmusik Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+GrinchWSLG 24 Posted March 20, 2009 Must be why Lockheed-Martin continues to be one of the largest employers in the DFW area. Because, as we all know, those guys do absolutely nothing over there. Boeing should quit trying to sell outdated airframes to people. The Air Force didn't want a 30-year-old design for a tanker for good reason. pfunk The Boeing tanker fit the contract requirements to a T. If the Air Force didn't want exactly what they put in the requirements then what the hell were they looking for? Contract requirements don't just set a minimum bar, they set a max as well. Going above and beyond the requirements isn't always the right thing, especially when you're supposed to be saving tax payers' money while getting the most out of the product. Its the standard contract bidding process, meet the requirements for the lowest price. Boeing did that, Airbus did not. The GAO came to this conclusion and that's why the Northrop Grumman/Airbus win was thrown out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gbnavy61 1 Posted March 20, 2009 Aggie, I apologize for some of the comments I made, I was out of line. As someone close to the project, presumably, perhaps you can better explain why most of what I hear in regards to the project - apart from how great the JSF is going to be - is how massive the costs and delays are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+JSF_Aggie 1,291 Posted March 20, 2009 gbnavy, I don't know what it is you've heard, or more importantly, who you heard it from. Most of what I've read from both the positive or negative extremes has been more politically based than factually based. Costs have gone up some, and there have been some delays. I believe first flight went off close to a year late, but I don't have the whole schedule in my head. Some of the cost/delays have been the fault of Lockheed, some the US Gov, some beyond anyone's control. A good chunk of the delay in flight test has been made up by the gov signing off on us doing more of it in the simulator. However, we're building two less flight test AC than planned, because money was taken away. A biggy was the weight problem, primarily with the STOVL variant. That was solved over two years ago, and it's now under weight and we're getting more out of the engine than was originally specced. However, I still read that we're having weight problems. The latest is that the DOD wants us to speed up production from what was originally planned. The GOA says this is going increase costs, the DOD says it won't. I haven't seen an "official" LM opinion. I see things from the worker-bee level, so a lot of the cost stuff is above my paygrade. However, I work with the end-users constantly and never have I heard anyone think this isn't going to be a more than capable aircraft. I wish I could get into more. We'll see where we're at by the end of '09. There's tons we're suppose to do before the year is over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted March 22, 2009 Is this the F-15G Gay Eagle? C'mon dude. You can do better than that. Seriously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted March 23, 2009 Remember any senators or other gov't officials from WA or other Boeing-related areas are going to blast the F-35 because it's NOT Boeing. That's just how it is. Also, any from TX and GA are going to love it, just because it's from Lockheed. The sticky point is the whole F-22/F-35 balance since they're the same company. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
