Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
salttee wrote:How nice of our air force to give the Russian radar operators actual USAF stealth fighters to practice on.
salttee wrote:Now they've even allowed the Ruskies to practice with their SU-25 airborne radars.
salttee wrote:And to top it all off, they have been playing bumper tag down low with SU-24s which will eventually leave pieces of an F-22 scattered all over the Syrian desert so that the Ruskies can get a better analysis of the stealth coating.
salttee wrote:How nice of our air force to give the Russian radar operators actual USAF stealth fighters to practice on.
Note: this is the same airforce that "won" both the Iraq and Vietnam wars and is on an extended outing in Afghanistan.
The spirit of Curtis LeMay lives on.
salttee wrote:I meant to say Now they've even allowed the Ruskies to practice with their SU-35 airborne radars.
You may have a point, if they have reflective devices mounted they may not be giving up their complete radar signature. But they can't be reflecting from all possible directions. They're still giving up more than I would want to give them. I see no need to put them under a magnifying glass for the Russians.
salttee wrote:I meant to say Now they've even allowed the Ruskies to practice with their SU-35 airborne radars.
You may have a point, if they have reflective devices mounted they may not be giving up their complete radar signature. But they can't be reflecting from all possible directions. They're still giving up more than I would want to give them. I see no need to put them under a magnifying glass for the Russians.
salttee wrote:That's how I see it too. In Syria the F-22 abandons it's two greatest strengths, its stealth and its BVR capability. And if things "went south" the SU-35s would have an advantage in that they could get their missiles off faster because they are hanging under the wings in the airstream already.
The entire launch sequence (door opening, AVEL ejecting the missile, missile ignition and flyout, door closing) takes just seconds.
JetBuddy wrote:Aren't F-22s stationed in Alaska anyway? They must have been scrambled to meet Russian flights multiple times?
Spacepope wrote:salttee wrote:I meant to say Now they've even allowed the Ruskies to practice with their SU-35 airborne radars.
[...]
I think the USAF would absolutely LOVE if an SU-35 lit up its radar in just about any mode. I doubt either side is tipping its hand much.
FW200 wrote:
If I recall correctly, the Russians don't have any Su-35s in Syria, but Su-30SM.
virage wrote:If there's any substance to all that, I'm sure you'll be right back with detailed explanations and links to sources to back your argument up.In the age of modern radar and non-radar sensor technologies only Northrop's stealth know-how retains some residual value.
Lockheed Martin's stealth philosophy has been rendered obsolete and LM and USAF know that. That's why no worries exposing these platforms.
Specifically, the F-35 is a tremendously expensive joke, with LM management and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank.
virage wrote:In the age of modern radar and non-radar sensor technologies only Northrop's stealth know-how retains some residual value.
Lockheed Martin's stealth philosophy has been rendered obsolete and LM and USAF know that. That's why no worries exposing these platforms.
virage wrote:Specifically, the F-35 is a tremendously expensive joke, with LM management and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank.
Ozair wrote:Do you happen to know what the government mandated profit is that LM gets from the F-35? It is 7%. It is a fixed profit margin and is significantly less than LM gets from pretty much the rest of its Government or foreign military business.
Did you also know that LM doesn’t even own the factory where the F-35, and the F-16, F-111, B-36 and B-32 before it, is manufactured? It is Air Force Plant 4 that is leased to LM.
Ozair wrote:virage wrote:Specifically, the F-35 is a tremendously expensive joke, with LM management and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank.
Do you happen to know what the government mandated profit is that LM gets from the F-35? It is 7%. It is a fixed profit margin and is significantly less than LM gets from pretty much the rest of its Government or foreign military business.
virage wrote:Ozair wrote:virage wrote:Specifically, the F-35 is a tremendously expensive joke, with LM management and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank.
Do you happen to know what the government mandated profit is that LM gets from the F-35? It is 7%. It is a fixed profit margin and is significantly less than LM gets from pretty much the rest of its Government or foreign military business.
This is a naive argument if offered sincerely, and a misleading one otherwise. Corruption and fleecing don't have to be implemented through artificially high profit margins. An overinflated base program cost is far more lucrative in the final account. I'll take 7% of $2 trln over 20% of $200b any day.
Planeflyer wrote:That doesn't appear to be so in this case. In the situations described here, the F-22 has abandons it's greatest advantage (stealth), its number two advantage (longer range sensors), and in fact puts itself in the position of being outgunned as the SU-35 carries a much bigger load than an F-22 can carry if the F-22 depends on internal stores only.Overkill is a lot better than underkill if shooting starts
ThePointblank wrote:usually has a operating margin in excess of 20%.... so it is actually more profitable to supply gravel than it is to build fighter jets.
virage wrote:This is a naive argument if offered sincerely, and a misleading one otherwise. Corruption and fleecing don't have to be implemented through artificially high profit margins. An overinflated base program cost is far more lucrative in the final account. I'll take 7% of $2 trln over 20% of $200b any day.
WIederling wrote:If true that'll more like indicate that "The Market" is not working.
Ozair wrote:virage wrote:This is a naive argument if offered sincerely, and a misleading one otherwise. Corruption and fleecing don't have to be implemented through artificially high profit margins. An overinflated base program cost is far more lucrative in the final account. I'll take 7% of $2 trln over 20% of $200b any day.
You might not like the argument but I see nothing to refute it, nor do I see anything to support your original claim. If you want your comment to be taken seroiusly, provide some evidence that LM is rorting the Government on the F-35 program as you have claimed.
virage wrote:When the cost of its nearest competitor, the super hornet is at 70 million, the 85 million price tag of the F-22 seems reasonable. For 15 million you get more range, stealth and the advanced systems integration among other things.the F-35 LM has produced a grossly overpriced
salttee wrote:virage wrote:When the cost of its nearest competitor, the super hornet is at 70 million, the 85 million price tag of the F-22 seems reasonable. For 15 million you get more range, stealth and the advanced systems integration among other things.the F-35 LM has produced a grossly overpriced
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/ ... per_Hornet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II
The rest of your post isn't worth responding to.
virage wrote:My point is that you erroneously attempt to use LM's F-35 profit margin as the proof of the programme's efficiency and cost justifiability.
virage wrote:The truth is that in the F-35 LM has produced a grossly overpriced and underperforming platform. Trump's administration has recognized this, thankfully.
How far is the F-35 over budget? Well the initial cost estimates were approximately US$200 billion for SDD and procurement in 2001 dollars. If we adjust that for inflation we get a total of US$259 billion in 2012 dollars. The SAR lists a total cost of SDD and Procurement at US$313 billion in 2012 dollars. Hence we arrive at a cost at 21% over budget. That 2001 procurement total factored in a greater number of aircraft though, approx 2900 compared to 2440 today, but that equates to an extra US$40 billion and adjusts the over budget calculation up towards 35%. While 35% is terrible and ugly and should never have happened, it could have been a lot worse and other programs have been a lot worse... For example, Typhoon and Rafale were both over budget more than that by percentage.
"With the Air Force we're ordering a lot of planes, in particular the F-35 fighter jet, which is almost you know like an invisible fighter. I was asking the Air Force guys how good is this plane, and they said 'well sir you can't see it,' I said yeah but in a fight, you know a fight, like I watch on the movies, the fight, they're fighting, how good is it? 'Well it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it, even if it's right next to it, it can't see it.' I said that helps, that's a good thing.
"Amazing job, and amazing job. So amazing that we're ordering hundreds of millions of dollars of new airplanes for the Air Force, especially the F-35. Do you like the F-35? I said how does it do it in fights, and how do they do in fights with the F-35. He says we do very well, you can't see it. Literally you can't see. It's hard to fight a plane you can't see right? But that's an expensive plane you can't see. And as you probably heard we cut the price very substantially, something other administrations would never have done, that I can tell you."
virage wrote:There are numerous evidence and reports of that, I can't list them all. This is the worst kept secret in the military aviation community.
virage wrote:The latest Russian A-G radars can pick it up.
virage wrote:Its stealth methodology and technology are obsolete.
virage wrote:Its payload in full stealth is woefully limited.
virage wrote:Its current envelope limitations exceed the operators' requirements.
virage wrote:Its life support systems remain unreliable.
virage wrote:Its maintenance is very complex and expensive. LM's ALIS system and subsystems are unnecessarily overengineered and complex.
WIederling wrote:ThePointblank wrote:usually has a operating margin in excess of 20%.... so it is actually more profitable to supply gravel than it is to build fighter jets.
If true that'll more like indicate that "The Market" is not working.
Ozair wrote:virage wrote:My point is that you erroneously attempt to use LM's F-35 profit margin as the proof of the programme's efficiency and cost justifiability.
No, I used the profit margin to demonstrate that there is not a great amount of contractor fat within the program.
Ozair wrote:As for your Trump claims, you need to catch up with the latest news, he now loves the jet! Direct Trump quotes below"With the Air Force we're ordering a lot of planes, in particular the F-35 fighter jet, which is almost you know like an invisible fighter. I was asking the Air Force guys how good is this plane, and they said 'well sir you can't see it,' I said yeah but in a fight, you know a fight, like I watch on the movies, the fight, they're fighting, how good is it? 'Well it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it, even if it's right next to it, it can't see it.' I said that helps, that's a good thing."Amazing job, and amazing job. So amazing that we're ordering hundreds of millions of dollars of new airplanes for the Air Force, especially the F-35. Do you like the F-35? I said how does it do it in fights, and how do they do in fights with the F-35. He says we do very well, you can't see it. Literally you can't see. It's hard to fight a plane you can't see right? But that's an expensive plane you can't see. And as you probably heard we cut the price very substantially, something other administrations would never have done, that I can tell you."
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16375/trump-just-provided-more-evidence-that-he-thinks-the-f-35-is-actually-invisible
Ozair wrote:virage wrote:There are numerous evidence and reports of that, I can't list them all. This is the worst kept secret in the military aviation community.
How many of those reports are actually based in fact? Given you have quoted the National Interest I’m inclined to believe most of them have little to no intellectual rigour.virage wrote:The latest Russian A-G radars can pick it up.
And you know this because National Interest said so? How about you read a peer reviewed scientific paper published in the Journal of Computations and modelling to determine how it functions against low band radars. http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf That takes a worse case analysis of F-35 RCS and shows that the F-35 still demonstrates a 90% reduction against engagement radars and a 50-70% reduction against low band early warning radars. Despite what Trump says, the F-35 is not invisible, nor is the F-22 or B-2 or any other stealth airframe. The point of stealth is to significantly reduce the detection distance and the above journal article correctly shows how much of an impact F-35 stealth features can have on detection.
Ozair wrote:virage wrote:Its payload in full stealth is woefully limited.
Compared to what? The B-2, the F-22, the Su-57? The F-35 can carry up to a 2,000 lb weapon internally, as well as a A2A weapon, in each bay. The F-22 is limited to one 1,000lb weapon internally in eac bay. The F-35 currently can carry four AIM-120 internally but that will move to six in either blk 4 or blk 5 upgrades. The internal payload is fine, especially as we move towards smaller munitions such as SDB II (of which the F-35 will be able to carry 8 internally), and the external payload is terrific.
Ozair wrote:virage wrote:Its current envelope limitations exceed the operators' requirements.
The current envelope restrictions are related to finishing the SDD program. The Blk 3F software load is now hitting the fleet and sees all restrictions for F-35 flight removed. The irony is that even restricted the F-35 has already demonstrated, as discussed by a Norwegian pilot, to be better WVR against the F-16. https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/
Ozair wrote:virage wrote:Its life support systems remain unreliable.
Not quite. While a number of US aircraft have had issues with OBOGS, that has not been verified on the F-35 and apart from a small spate in incidents at Luke AFB which is the training establishment, the F-35 life support systems have been rock solid. The Luke AFB incidents are likely to be the result of poor training, or attempts to shortcut tasks or refine or alter procedures within a training wing.
Ozair wrote:virage wrote:Its maintenance is very complex and expensive. LM's ALIS system and subsystems are unnecessarily overengineered and complex.
I agree that ALIS is a complex system but the intent of ALIS has always been to spend the time up front to save the time, and money, later on. The system is approaching its promised potential and will allow the global partnership to better manage their fleets and maintain less local spares holdings, significantly reducing total ownership costs. even with the complexity of ALIS, the F-35 SDD program has remained on time and on budget since 2011.
virage wrote:Again, the LM's game here is sheer volume, not the margins...
Ozair wrote:As for your Trump claims, you need to catch up with the latest news, he now loves the jet! Direct Trump quotes below"With the Air Force we're ordering a lot of planes, in particular the F-35 fighter jet, which is almost you know like an invisible fighter. I was asking the Air Force guys how good is this plane, and they said 'well sir you can't see it,' I said yeah but in a fight, you know a fight, like I watch on the movies, the fight, they're fighting, how good is it? 'Well it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it, even if it's right next to it, it can't see it.' I said that helps, that's a good thing.Ozair wrote:virage wrote:There are numerous evidence and reports of that, I can't list them all. This is the worst kept secret in the military aviation community.
How many of those reports are actually based in fact? Given you have quoted the National Interest I’m inclined to believe most of them have little to no intellectual rigour.virage wrote:Well.... the "scientific journal" you reference above is not admissible in the US civilian and military academic communities. Its contributors in vast majority come from unaccredited research organizations in third-world countries. The HAF report in question is certainly no more credible than the NI article I have quoted (which is in turn based on the POGO findings). The HAF were never (and unlikely ever) be able to see the actual USAF or Russian PVO/PKO numbers.
It's editors are from major educational institutions or research organizations, and is a peer reviewed journal. Review the list of editors:
Ali Bulent Usakli, The NCO Academy, Turkey
Boris S. Verkhovsky, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA
Chuming Chen, University of Delaware, USA
Daoxiong Gong, Beijing University of Technology, China
Dimitri Kanevsky, Watson Research Center, USA
George Kaimakamis, Hellenic Army Academy, Greece
Huiru Zheng, University of Ulster, N. Ireland
Ilie Marcel, University of Central Florida, USA
Innokentiy V. Semushin, Ulyanovsk State University, Russia
I-Shyan Hwang, Yuan Ze University, Taiwan
Ivan Ganchev Ivanov, Sofia University, Bulgaria
J. N. Singh, Barry University, USA
Jaime Lloret Mauri, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain
Jose M. Barcelo-Ordinas, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain
Lapo Governi, University of Florence, Italy
Marco Mussetta, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Minea Alina Adriana, Technical University Gh. Asachi, Romania
Monika Neda, University of Nevada Las Vegas, USA
Rocco Furferi, University of Florence, Italy
Sultan Aljahdali, Taif University, Saudi Arabia
Tang Yi-Fa, Academy of Mathematics & Systems Science, China
Tzung-Pei Hong, National University of Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Youlian Pan, National Research Council Canada, Canada
Zoltan Adam Mann, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary
Are you telling me that the National Research Council of Canada is an illegitimate scientific organization, even though it is the primary national research and technology organization of the Canadian government? Are you also telling us that IBM's Watson Research Center is an illegitimate scientific organization?virage wrote:Oh yes, the Norwegian guy... When the report came out people in the know rolled their eyes and smirked.
Which people 'in the know' are they? Name names. Our Norwegian pilot is named, and has verifiable credentials.
And the recent performance at Red Flag earlier this year, and again at Checkered Flag 18-1 demonstrates the capabilities of the F-35 against the aircraft it is replacing in a realistic environment.virage wrote:I surely hope you are right, because my knowledge and understanding point to causes that go beyond any personnel training deficiencies.
virage wrote:Again, the LM's game here is sheer volume, not the margins...
virage wrote:Well.... the "scientific journal" you reference above is not admissible in the US civilian and military academic communities. Its contributors in vast majority come from unaccredited research organizations in third-world countries.
virage wrote:The HAF report in question is certainly no more credible than the NI article I have quoted (which is in turn based on the POGO findings). The HAF were never (and unlikely ever) be able to see the actual USAF or Russian PVO/PKO numbers.
virage wrote:Oh yes, the Norwegian guy... When the report came out people in the know rolled their eyes and smirked.
virage wrote:I surely hope you are right, because my knowledge and understanding point to causes that go beyond any personnel training deficiencies.
virage wrote:Any attempt to build a future-proof complex system won't work when technologies develop rapidly. What you do is build a highly modular, logical and straightforward architecture, and replace modules as they approach obsolescence.
Planeflyer wrote:For those that believe that stealth cannot destroy the emitter before being detected why are the Russians, who know a fair bit about radar spending so much time and money developing their own 5 th gen AC?
Ozair wrote:...and most Russian fighters don't have A2A refuelling capability.
checksixx wrote:Ozair wrote:...and most Russian fighters don't have A2A refuelling capability.
Care to explain that? Almost EVERY one has the capability.
Ozair wrote:Planeflyer wrote:For those that believe that stealth cannot destroy the emitter before being detected why are the Russians, who know a fair bit about radar spending so much time and money developing their own 5 th gen AC?
And the Chinese, the Koreans, the Japanese, the Turks, the Indians and the new European aircraft being floated by Airbus all clearly exhibit stealth features.
Ozair wrote:virage wrote:Again, the LM's game here is sheer volume, not the margins...
So what difference does sheer volume make? One of the defence contractors was going to win the award. All of them vied for it in the late 90s, LM won and yet now you claim they are rorting the US Government because the contract value is high?
virage wrote:By "volume" I meant the cost base, upon which the profit margin is bestowed. I have explained this in my earlier post. LM bilks us, American taxpayers, of hundreds of billions of dollars by designing a platform that was and is unnecessarily costly to develop, field and maintain.
virage wrote:Oh, and one more thing (apologies to Peter Falk): http://www.janes.com/article/76503/uk-b ... me-updates
virage wrote:Nothing there except obviously misguided opinion decorated with hyperbole and none of it is substantiated anywhere.In the age of modern radar and non-radar sensor technologies only Northrop's stealth know-how retains some residual value. Lockheed Martin's stealth philosophy has been rendered obsolete and LM and USAF know that. That's why no worries exposing these platforms. Specifically, the F-35 is a tremendously expensive joke, with LM management and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank.
virage wrote:Your attack on American business practices have no place in a discussion of the utility of stealth aircraft. If you want to take on the "military industrial complex" you need to start a thread of your own.This is a naive argument if offered sincerely, and a misleading one otherwise. Corruption and fleecing don't have to be implemented through artificially high profit margins. An overinflated base program cost is far more lucrative in the final account. I'll take 7% of $2 trln over 20% of $200b any day.
virage wrote:Pure insult with no rebuttal.You would be well advised to extend your knowledge base beyond the Mickey Mouse sources such as Wikipedia. I recommend public government committee findings, industry journals and magazines, and talking to the actual people on the ground. True, some of these sources are not directly quotable due to privacy and security reasons, but they do exist and do amount to the industry and operator opinion of the F-35 programme.
virage wrote:More strawman talkAgain, the LM's game here is sheer volume, not the margins...
virage wrote:When one of your claims is flatly rebutted, you call the evidence "amusing". Add arrogance to your other less likable features.Amusing Thanks for this info.
virage wrote:An empty phrase if I ever heard one, but it probably sounds brilliant to you.The latest Russian A-G radars can pick it up.
virage wrote:Well you could always look at the footnotes at Wikipedia. maybe there will be something there that you'll accept (but only if it supports your position).Well.... the "scientific journal" you reference above is not admissible in the US civilian and military academic communities. Its contributors in vast majority come from unaccredited research organizations in third-world countries. The HAF report in question is certainly no more credible than the NI article I have quoted (which is in turn based on the POGO findings). The HAF were never (and unlikely ever) be able to see the actual USAF or Russian PVO/PKO numbers.
virage wrote:It'll put 2,000 lns of HE in your lap and be gone before you know its there.Its payload in full stealth is woefully limited.
virage wrote:Next you'll complain that there's no ashtray.Its current envelope limitations exceed the operators' requirements.
virage wrote:So you recommend "talking to the people on the ground", but reject the opinions of people who have flown it through the air?Oh yes, the Norwegian guy... When the report came out people in the know rolled their eyes and smirked.
virage wrote:And you disagree with the recommended tire pressure?Its life support systems remain unreliable.
virage wrote:You sound like one of those guys who claim Ford blew it when they abandoned the flathead V8.Its maintenance is very complex and expensive. LM's ALIS system and subsystems are unnecessarily overengineered and complex.
virage wrote:Unless the best solution to a particular problem is to build a highly integrated product.Any attempt to build a future-proof complex system won't work when technologies develop rapidly. What you do is build a highly modular, logical and straightforward architecture, and replace modules as they approach obsolescence.
salttee wrote:Only someone severely wanting in reading comprehension would misconstrue my argument as an "attack on American business practices".virage wrote:Your attack on American business practices have no place in a discussion of the utility of stealth aircraft. If you want to take on the "military industrial complex" you need to start a thread of your own.This is a naive argument if offered sincerely, and a misleading one otherwise. Corruption and fleecing don't have to be implemented through artificially high profit margins. An overinflated base program cost is far more lucrative in the final account. I'll take 7% of $2 trln over 20% of $200b any day.
salttee wrote:That's not a lot of payload, so just you know.It'll put 2,000 lns of HE in your lap and be gone before you know its there.
salttee wrote:First glimpse of automotive analogies. More to come...Next you'll complain that there's no ashtray.
salttee wrote:That's an opinion of one person from a secondary operator.So you recommend "talking to the people on the ground", but reject the opinions of people who have flown it through the air?
salttee wrote:Auto analogies continue...And you disagree with the recommended tire pressure?
salttee wrote:The third car mechanic parable is the charm. Altogether, they help shed the light on the origin and depth of your knowledge.You sound like one of those guys who claim Ford blew it when they abandoned the flathead V8.
salttee wrote:Functional and architectural integration are two different and frequently orthogonal approaches. How should I put it in car mechanic terms for you? How about this: you shouldn't have to replace half of the engine just to upgrade the alternator? Nah, that doesn't sound right. I give up.Unless the best solution to a particular problem is to build a highly integrated product.
virage wrote:All of which proves that its the bickering that interests you, not the F-35. Ozair is wasting his time treating you as a rational debater...............
Planeflyer wrote:Virage, you seem sure of yourself so maybe you can explain why Russia is spending scarce resources on developing their own 5 th generation capabilities.
Ozair wrote:checksixx wrote:Ozair wrote:...and most Russian fighters don't have A2A refuelling capability.
Care to explain that? Almost EVERY one has the capability.
No actually they don't. Neither the Su-27, the MiG-29 or the Su-30 in their initial variants had AAR probes fitted but many export Flankers and Fulcrums had AAR fitted. This has changed with new build Su-27/30/35 for the Russian Air Force, Su-27SKM upgrade, MiG-29SMT. MiG-31 had AAR from the start, MiG-25 didn't, Su-24 only had AAR added with the M version.
Russia also lack a decent sized fleet of AAR tankers and a tanker variant of the IL-476 is high on the priority list.
checksixx wrote:Ozair wrote:checksixx wrote:
Care to explain that? Almost EVERY one has the capability.
No actually they don't. Neither the Su-27, the MiG-29 or the Su-30 in their initial variants had AAR probes fitted but many export Flankers and Fulcrums had AAR fitted. This has changed with new build Su-27/30/35 for the Russian Air Force, Su-27SKM upgrade, MiG-29SMT. MiG-31 had AAR from the start, MiG-25 didn't, Su-24 only had AAR added with the M version.
Russia also lack a decent sized fleet of AAR tankers and a tanker variant of the IL-476 is high on the priority list.
Yes, actually they do. You want to go back 20 years, by all means go ahead. They've had probes for many years now.