some F35 info

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

the sexier the technology, the more expensive the hardware. Im not trying to be completely accurte here, but simply illlustrate a point. Tiger tanks cost RM 780000 per copy when first produced in 1942, as the production run matured, those unit costs gradually came down, such that by 1944 each tank was costing about 200000 as they rolled out the front door. Panthers cost nearly 300000 per copy when first produced, but had reduced to just over 150000 per unit by mid-44. If a piece of hardware has lots of new goodies, the cost per unit will be high, as the production run progresses that proportion of cost per unit can reduce.

Ive no doubt the cost for the F-35 is greatly influenced by the impressiveness of its technology.

what is worrying is whether the costs have been jacked up by a bit of old fashioned gouging. are there bolts and rivets costing $50000 per item in this aircraft? Has ther been much oversight of the budget for thios aircraft. One would have to think so....
 
parsifal said:
the sexier the technology, the more expensive the hardware. Im not trying to be completely accurte here, but simply illlustrate a point. Tiger tanks cost RM 780000 per copy when first produced in 1942, as the production run matured, those unit costs gradually came down, such that by 1944 each tank was costing about 200000 as they rolled out the front door. Panthers cost nearly 300000 per copy when first produced, but had reduced to just over 150000 per unit by mid-44. If a piece of hardware has lots of new goodies, the cost per unit will be high, as the production run progresses that proportion of cost per unit can reduce.

Ive no doubt the cost for the F-35 is greatly influenced by the impressiveness of its technology.

what is worrying is whether the costs have been jacked up by a bit of old fashioned gouging. are there bolts and rivets costing $50000 per item in this aircraft? Has ther been much oversight of the budget for thios aircraft. One would have to think so....
Click to expand...

How come that this doesn't work on women??
 
Perfect!

So now ive seen the deck and landing/take off characteristics of both the B and the C, and i cant seen anything wrong with the way it does that part of the job. if it can get on and off the carrier that well, it will have a low attrition rate at sea.

And these were the pre-op trials undertaken by the USS Wasp end of May this year. aircrew and ground staff were all service personnel, not test pilot and company people.

These are near perfect manouvres as well


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAFnhIIK7s4
 
Last edited:
parsifal said:
Id say they are cheap.....
Click to expand...

I assume the creator is just an enthusiast at home - like the rest of us. Hiring a voice actor for something like this probably wasn't in the cards.

On top of that most of us have shockingly bad presentation/narration voices (and/or audio recording equipment) after listening to professionals all day.

'Robot voice' is a reasonable way to go. A lesser of two evils to keep people watching.
 
I keep looking at this thread from time to time, and I have yet to feel 10% better about this bird in any variation except the proposed conventional T/L version, nor its abilities being able to match the marketing hype that was spieled to investors/states/nations before the greatest monetary scam (since the bankers crash) for it was conceived.

Lockheed Martin and asociated fiddlers, give us all our money back for this sham, enough is enough, they lied, they prevaricated, they're ripping all involved off.
 
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ said:
"The F-35A is an agile aircraft, it has speed and can pull a 9G turn like an F-16," said Mr Linstead. "It would be trite to say dogfights are over. But if an F-35 got into a dogfight situation then the pilot would have probably done something wrong."

Have we heard that before?!?!?!?
Click to expand...
Yep...something really familiar about that observation... :lol:

razor1uk said:
...Lockheed Martin and asociated fiddlers, give us all our money back for this sham, enough is enough, they lied, they prevaricated, they're ripping all involved off.
Click to expand...
Can you provide facts and figures to support this?
 
No, fact and figures are not available in the UK due to information restrictions from the DoD MoD about specific info apart formthose already shared upon the Lockheed Martin website, which could be suggested as possibly truthful, yet are unable to be cross checked reliably.

..its my opinion and gut feeling on what its is as well, a naturally nationalistic job and skill retention with a hope it will work if it those involved keep at it long enough.

Its taking long enough already - has the conventioanl version been worked on or is all effort only being used on the VTOL/STOL versions?

Meanwhile Eastern Middle-Eastern problems are developing more strongly and in ways not though of a few years ago (I'd imagine they thought of), let alone as they are going now, plus things are very likely to go wrong with two rival airforces in the same regional airspace - I'm sure the prospect for some ad hoc military engaugement/loss has been though of by at least one side, and the testing is still ongoing with no clear idea when full production and service usages will actually be.

I do hope things in those currently warming up areas will remain as is or cool intime before thses birds can fly the coup to their operators en-mass, as I have a haunch that if something would brew up, Mr V.V.Crapbox would endevour/hope/wish it to happen before that time is near.
 
Last edited:
In all fairness, any time a next generation peice of equipment is being developed, there will be delays as it's being perfected.

As it stands, NATO and allies still have very competitive hardware, but the F-35 will set the bar a little higher. The USMC is happy with the F-35's performance and we'll start seeing feedback from other branches as it starts deliveries and trials.

Now, let's spin the clock back to the 1930's, when Willy introduced the Bf109. It was the first of the next generation of fighters, and it went through a good deal of development before it emerged as a world-class fighter. In the early stages, there were a good many detractors who said it was a waste of time and money, etc. etc. and will never amount to much. Ten years later, it was still considered one of the more formidable fighters in the world and held it's own in the face of rapidly advancing fighter technology.
 
razor1uk said:
I keep looking at this thread from time to time, and I have yet to feel 10% better about this bird in any variation except the proposed conventional T/L version, nor its abilities being able to match the marketing hype that was spieled to investors/states/nations before the greatest monetary scam (since the bankers crash) for it was conceived.

Lockheed Martin and asociated fiddlers, give us all our money back for this sham, enough is enough, they lied, they prevaricated, they're ripping all involved off.
Click to expand...

you're entitled to your opinion but in the mean time their aircraft is maturing and silencing the nay-Sayers. The contract is firm fixed price to the government (at least the US government) approves anything that is outside the scope of the contract or anything that impact the budget. If LMCO screws up its now on their dime (and for the most part has been so for some time). So unless you could come up with some current and credible evidence to show this program is a failure, please post, I'm all ears!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Venomstick121
Gulf of Sidra 1981 Info wanted
Replies
7
Views
1K
Barrett
B
F
Allison J33 -A-24 Info
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
WARSPITER
SR-72 Darkstar info
Replies
8
Views
1K
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
M
Some Interesting Vietnam Shots
Replies
5
Views
1K
Gnomey
Gnomey
Dronescapes
Experimental Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base. Some rare, unclassified footage
Replies
2
Views
691
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
Back