Comments on: The Cloudy Future of the JSF

By: gljevbxebde

gljevbxebde — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:23:47 +0000

By: Nuwan

Nuwan — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:14:40 +0000

Way to go guys! Because of you snoeome at the dump gets to eat a hot meal on wednesday. Thank you all for being a great example!

By: sea

sea — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:15:46 +0000

ed hardy
ed hardy hoody
ed hardy swim trunks

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:49:42 +0000

RE: The Navy variant has issues with its wings.
Sorry but no, it doesn’t.
Followed the link and Found Bill Sweetman postulating on F-35C design drivers. Surprisingly for Sweetman, he does not draw conclusions about the design, but writes:
–“Meanwhile, the wing is sized for the approach case, and larger than is really needed for other missions — this can cause penalties, for instance, in transonic drag”—
Observe the careful use of the words “CAN cause”. Since the airplane must meet range and speed requirements (and passed CDR), one can only deduce that the combined brainpower of Lockmart/NorthGrum/BAE has somehow ‘lucked-out’ and came up with a workable solution.
Please also note the lead in Sweetman’s post: the F-35C PASSED the Navy’s Critical Design Review.
In his bread-and-butter writing, Sweetman frequently ventures far into the speculative range and pushes incorrect deductions that no one in authority can debunk without leaking classified information. This time Sweetman presents a pretty informative little backgrounder at the link provided. He discusses design challenges and presents a snapshot of the design solutions.

By: dude

dude — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:14:31 +0000

Buy more A-10s for CAS. Everybody loves the A-10.

By: WWA

WWA — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:52:40 +0000

The Navy variant has issues with its wings:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3af8cdf63d-e706-409e-9ab5-0be0b200c7de

By: jessmo24

jessmo24 — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 06:27:47 +0000

Costs of proposed aircraft
F-16A/B: US$14.6 million (1992)
F-16C/D: US$18.8 million (1998)
F-16E/F: US$26.9 million (2005)
F-16I: ~US$70 million (2006)
F-16I and block 60
Global hawk ( a new strike UAV with a significant strike load would be similiar)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hawk#Cost_overruns
The Global Hawk costs about $35 million USD each[2] (actual per-aircraft costs; with development costs also included, the per-aircraft cost rises to $123.2 million USD each[3]).
Yes since we are adding in the jsf developement cost lets add in the global hawks.
F-35 cost
Produced 2003-present
Unit cost F-35A: US$48 million
F-35B: US$62 million
F-35C: US$63 million[1]
F-15 c +
Unit cost US$43 million in 1998
Developed from F-15 Eagle
So as you can see a Upgraded F-16/F-15 would be less capable and still wouldnt be able to fly over the Taiwan straight and take out missiles bases without creating pows.

By: jessmo24

jessmo24 — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 06:05:21 +0000

This argument is silly.
1. If you need to fly a Cap over the Taiwan straight, would you want to do it in a F-35/F-22 or a F-15.
2.If you where going to fly that mission with a mass uav fleet wouldnt you worry about the security of the network?
3. Isnt it arrogant to think that if we dont mass produce a next generation aircraft someone else wont?
4.What will be the complaint when all you have are a few f-22s fighting in multiple theaters against masses of cheap stealthy Russian Uavs and manned fighters. and trust me, they are coming!
Russian fighter concept:
http://www.janes.com/images/news/p1169017.jpg
Chicom fighter concept
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3003/jxx025da1edcxc1.jpg
5. The combination of the tor M-1 missiles (which can intercept cruisemissiles and other smart weapons + the SA-300 series is a game ender for non stealthy aircraft The can SA-300 can fire out to 150+ miles That even puts aircraft with slammers or harpoons in trouble. and Like I said befor the tor can hit cruise missiles. you need to get close enough to rain small diameter bomdbs on it. you can do this in a lagaecy aircraft.
6. So yes lets scrap all manned aircraft and tie every thing (even cargo aricraft) into a sat controlled netwrok, then lets pray all of those uavs dont go down in a sat kill first strike or a emp type attack. >:0
gooday sir.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:53:26 +0000

If the Marines are a part of the Navy, and the Navy has F/A-18E/F, doesn’t that make more sense for the Marines as well? By the way, Marines occassionally land on the boat as well, not sure how well the F-22 will hold up to that.

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:36:22 +0000

Obviously nobody cares that the Iran military is coming up with new arsenal, if everyone is complaining of how much this JSF is going to cost so early in the game, drop this JSF idea concentrate on the F-22 and make it for all the armed forces, especially the Marines since the could use some new jets now. Navy already has their F/A-18 E/F, the Marines are the ones that are going to need all the help they can get if this Iran escalation is going to happen.