[OFN?] Pentagon Approves production of F-35
- Thread starter HeLLrAiSr
- Start date
Inquisitor[Inq]
Veteran X
We don't need to 'replace' the A-10 in terms of its entire feature set. The original intent of A-10 (killing a lot of tanks using its BFG) isn't really needed anymore. The 'hordes of Soviet T-72's rolling into west germany' scenario really isn't on the table anymore.
Like most new airplanes the secret to the -35 isn't in any immediately obvious whiz bang feature like maneuver thrust vectoring, but in what is under the hood - namely it's avionics and electronic/software systems. The Raptor (F-22) will be fun to fly but otherwise new planes won't really be, because 90% of the time they will be on autopilot.
Like most new airplanes the secret to the -35 isn't in any immediately obvious whiz bang feature like maneuver thrust vectoring, but in what is under the hood - namely it's avionics and electronic/software systems. The Raptor (F-22) will be fun to fly but otherwise new planes won't really be, because 90% of the time they will be on autopilot.
Only not, since the F-15C can manage only a bit better than a 1:1 kill/death ratio vs. a Su-30. The F-16 and F/A-18 are lower. The Rafale is slightly higher and the Eurofighter is somewhere around 9:1.dooster said:
I wonder which would be more intimidating? 16 bombs or 100,000 bombs?
And... uh...
<$100,000 is nowhere near $2,200,000,000
Inquisitor[Inq]
Veteran X
Kurayami said:
And a B-2 is nowhere near 2,200,000 either. More like 800-900 million.
If you keep things in slightly saner orders of magnitude I'd take a single B-2's 80 500 lb smart weapons over say 20 B-17 Flying Fortresses (320 unguided 500 lb bombs).
According to published data, the cost for procurement of the B-2 fleet worked out to 2.2B a pop.Inquisitor[Inq] said:
GS says 2.1.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-2-specs.htm
I think that goes without saying. He asked about "intimidation" factor, though.
I have no idea why he would have chosen the weakest of the WW2 heavies. The B-24, B-29, and Lancaster all had much larger practical payloads. The B-17 could haul a whopping 4,000lb payload from the UK to Germany.
Inquisitor[Inq]
Veteran X
Kurayami said:
2.1 is the official cost when you include cost for primary engineering, EMD, and other low rate of initial production (LRIP) fees. The problem is they were supposed to order two hundred B-2's, they cut it to 20. THe actual incremental cost would have been a lot lower if they had ordered anywhere near the initial volume they planned.
Kurayami said:
A B-24 still only hauls about 800 lbs more than a B-17. B-29 you are starting to get there - half the payload of a B-2.
Because the US has used about 5 designation schemes since the Army first started flying aircraft in a cohesive manner in the '20s. They Army/AF generally used a (role)Model(revision) scheme (ex: P-38J (and that can be carried into blocks and whatnot)) while the navy did (role)Manufacturer's model #(manufactuer letter code)revision (ex: F4U-1D. U = Vought.)K-Rex said:
In the '60s, they decided to standardize this. A lot of aircraft were renamed. Since then, they have been using numbers in sequence, which probably confuses people because of projects that aren't widely known (A-9 and A-12, for example.) There are relics like the B-52 that retained their original designations.
Inquisitor[Inq]
Veteran X
K-Rex said:
They are nominally in order, or have been for quite a while. Skips happen when programs get dropped. The jump from F-22 to F-35 happened though because someone high up in the pentagon who was in charge of the acquisition made a dumb mistake as to what the last number produced actually had been =p
CombatWombat
Veteran XV
Kurayami said:
How many nations out there have an over-abundance of Su-30's and skilled pilots to fly them? And the electronic warfare support?
You know damn well the F-15's dont go in there alone...they have Prowler/awacs/etc support skewing things in their favor.
I'm not against the developement of new military hardware. It's better then sending the money to inner city school niglets anyways. Makes for better desktop wallpaper. But there isnt much out there the current airforce can't handle when you figure we dont really fight wars anymore, but rather bullshit policing actions where you dont need to blow up a squadron of migs but rather Ahkmed in an outhouse.
El Mariachi
Veteran XV
what are they retrofitting on A-10's... just the avionics packages?
Would be nice if they could give them a huge overhaul and make them fly by wire
Would be nice if they could give them a huge overhaul and make them fly by wire
CombatWombat
Veteran XV
El Mariachi said:
A huge part of their survivability is in the redundant physical control systems.
That depends entirely upon what figure you use. The B-17 could fly a 17,000lb payload over very short distances. For all intents and purposes, though, it was limited to ~4,000 pounds for long range activity.Inquisitor[Inq] said:
The B-24 could haul almost ~13,000 pounds with considerably less difficulty. The longer the range, the lower the payload, but the B-24 could be tasked to put more bombs on target than the B-17 if all things were equal.
Of course, the B-24 was less survivable in general.
India, China, and Russia at the moment.CombatWombat said:
Nor would any country with enough money to field Su-30s.
The figures I cited came from an international test using actual pilots provided by each country and fought under realistic conditions.
With the Russians selling high end gear to anyone that will buy it and various other countries pirating technology (China's J-10, which incorporates a boat load of F-16 tech thanks to the Israelis, for example) and developing things internally, you had better believe there is a threat. Don't forget Europe. The French sold the Mirage to anybody that would buy it and they have been shopping the Rafale around. The Swedes also have a very solid and modern contender in the Gripen, which is making a lot of headway in poorer nations (including Africa.)
Americans have this bizzare misconception that American equipment dominates everything. It's like they completely forget WW2 (where American technology trailed far behind the Germans and even British,) and the early cold war (where the Soviets were kicking NATO's ass and doing it cheaply. MiG-15s over Korea? T-64s?) People only seem to remember the last 30 years or so where the US pulled ahead of everyone else in military tech because it had the deepest coffers.
They also fail to realize that most of the first world has all but caught up within the past decade. Leo 2A6 vs M1A2? Eurofighter vs F-22? Hell, the Swedes have submarines that have penetrated American carrier group defenses.
