What are the experts saying after reading this report???
Engine costs are, as predicted, rising.If this was any other program, this report (and several before) would have doomed the plane to the scrap heap of history. As it stands, extreme cost will accomplish what military planners lack the courage to do....say enough is enough and start looking for alternatives.
Once the F-16C/D costs as listed are adjusted for single seat only, the F-35 O&S costs per flying hour are hovering around 1.4 times those for the F-16C with costs under the heading of "Maintenance" double those for the F-16.
Then there are the real costs for engine O&S.
And the list goes on......
A bad news for Solomon.
ReplyDeleteCanada's first option is said to be the continuation of the F-35 purchase as is. Canada's second option is said to be an open bid competition where the F-35 is the sole qualified bidder. The third option is said to be relaxing the requirements to allow other fighter jets in. Damn.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/f-35-remains-top-military-replacement-option/article18063309/
not really bad news at all for me. if i went by press reports coming out of Canada then i'd believe that the F-35 was already selected. as a matter of fact if what the article is saying is true then the airplane would be being bought now...while Canada can get more manufacturing out of a program that appears to be spread so thin that i'd surprised i'm not building parts of the wings myself.
Deleteso no. i don't care what media says...especially since lockheed martin has proven that it has the ability to buy and pay for favorable press.
This would mean Boeing would have to exit the manned tactical aircraft business once the last Super Hornet/Growler is delivered to the US Navy, unless Boeing wins the T-X.
DeleteA Lockheed Martin tactical aircraft industry monopoly would doom the US airpower, since Lockheed Martin would surely ask half a billion dollars per copy of its F-X fighter jet.
question. if the Japanese and S. Koreans WHO HAVEN"T BUILT A HOMEGROWN FIGHTER IN DECADES can work on new stealth programs then why will Boeing get shut out of future fighter programs?
Deleteconventional wisdom can sometimes be stupid.
Solomon
DeleteJapanese and Korean fighter jet programs are funded by their respective national governments, so Mitsubishi and KAI could keep their engineering talents intact.
Boeing with no firm commitment from the Pentagon on the F/A-XX by late this decade will have to shut down its tactical aircraft division, and shift personnel to its heavy military/civilian aircraft divisions and lay off those who cannot be shifted. And the US Navy will not be able to win funding for the F/A-XX project before the Super Hornet production shuts down.
you're not making any sense and you're definitely not addressing the issue. the issue is simple. you're saying that because their is a gap in the building of the next US fighter that Lockheed Martin will have a monopoly. you ignore the fact that Japan and Korea haven't built a homegrown fighter in decades (have the S. Koreans ever built one?) yet they're embarking on stealth programs. if they can do it from scratch then so can the largest airplane corporation in the world.
DeleteSolomon
DeleteBefore asking if Boeing could return to manned tactical aircraft business after decades of hiatus, ask if Northrop Grumman or General Dynamics could; they can't. You lose the industrial capability and that's it. It's gone. At least Boeing has made it clear they have no intention of funding to sustain its tactical aircraft capability once the order dries up.
"Boeing spokeswoman Karen Fincutter urged Congress to add funding for the Growlers to keep the production line going.
"The Super Hornet and Growler are the backbone of the Navy's carrier air wings today, and will be through at least 2040. If funding to extend production of those aircraft isn't provided, unique industrial capabilities will be lost and the U.S. will be solely dependent on one tactical aircraft manufacturer for years to come," she said."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-usa-fiscal-boeing-fighter-idUSBREA2603U20140307
have you heard of the UCAV? have you heard of the MASSIVE American black project list? have you seen or rather heard of all the top secret UAV projects the US has going on? and you're trying to tell me that Boeing is going to be locked out for decades? additionally General Dynamics was going gang busters until the A-12 screwed them and even with that the industry was downsizing and they got divided up and bought out.
Deletelastly you forget the other side of the Pentagon strategy. to protect the industrial base. that means more than one fighter builder.
sorry cowboy. YOU"RE WRONG!
Solomon
DeleteUCAVs are more like shrunken bombers and aren't required to meet the maneuverability and A2A capability of a manned tactical fighter jet. Sukhoi can build an airliner(Not a very good one, but still a cheap civilian airliner), but Bombardier and Embraer can't build fighter jets. Boeing will be like Embraer than Sukhoi once its tactical aircraft divisioni shuts down.
Boeing itself warns that Lockheed would be the sole fighter jet maker in the US once the Super Hornet production shuts down, so why are you disputing Boeing on what Boeing could and couldn't do?
sounds about right.
DeleteCanada will go F-35, they just want to push the decision until after the election.
why are you disputing the Pentagon on protecting the US industrial defense base? you have your opinion, i have my fact. Boeing just wants to sell more F/A-18E/F/G's. its not that difficult to understand. one thing about UCAVs though. who says that UCAVs aren't required to maneuver aggressively? who says they won't in the future? i'm not saying dogfighting but simply evading ground launched missiles?!
ReplyDeleteour industrial capacity is doing quite well thank you. i'll be interested to see if the S. Koreans can catch up with the Japanese in the race for the Pacific.
Solomon,
ReplyDeleteThe US Navy is interested in protecting Boeing's fighter jet industrial base but Secretary Hagel isn't, who cut all funding for additional Super Hornet/Growler fundings and denied the US Navy's request to take a vacation from F-35C orders for 3 years.
And the UCAVs are like cruise missiles that could land, and the AI technology will not advance fast enough for UCAV to take on manned fighter jets for another half a century at the earliest. The AI deficiency is the very reason why F-X and F/A-XX jets still have cockpits.
you do know UCAVs and UAVs were once called REMOTELY PILOTED VEHICLES! even today with the exception of the Global Hawk and the X-47, they're all remotely piloted!
Deletejust stop dude. you're not winning.
Solomon
DeleteThere is a satcom bandwidth limit on how many remotedly piloted drones you could put in each sector, and it is less than 10s, not in the hundreds. Not to mention that remote piloting is prone to jamming.
The only way to beat this satcom bandwidth limitation is to have drones controlled by a human operator flying alongside drones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAq3UMYkvlI