Dash119
Senior Airman
To be fair, the term "Bleeding Heart" strikes me as being somewhat political...
Respectfully,
Kim
The F-35 Is Now the World’s Most INSANE Stealth Fighter: Here's Why
- Thread starter johnbr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Respectfully,
Kim
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
To be fair, your opinion. I suggest just carry on.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Might want to look up the definition of that term and then you may understand why a Mod applied it to a warning post...
F-111, B-1; the list goes on and on like a Captain & Tennille song...
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Just saw that link GrauGeist. Let's get a metric buttload of F-35's!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The only reason why I don't like the F-35, is because it will eventually put the A-10 out of business.
Dash119
Senior Airman
Since you jumped in to reenforce the Mod, and the Mod rated your post with a 'Like', I feel I justified in exploring this just a little more...
From the Merriam-Webster website:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bleeding heart
Is there some other source I should be looking at, because none of those definitions helps me understand...
Just my opinion, but there was a lot of criticism of the press contained herein, and it seemed to me N33 took another view and offered a defense of the press. In my opinion, it is either all political or it's none of it is.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
So you UNDERSTAND, it's going to be "none."
There will always be criticism of the press by many on this forum because 9 times out of 10 they (the press) report WRONG (either by ignorance or on purpose) information with regards to aviation matters. This has been shown on this forum many times by those of us close to the source or in industry. This is not political, but a fact.
Now it's my call and I told you to carry on once. There will not be a third time!!!
Last edited:
A long ways off.
We just got the contract at Boeing to build new A-10 wings to keep her going. I don't work the A-10 program so I do not know the details though.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think there will be a continued need for an A-10 type aircraft until some of the F-35's battlefield integration systems continued to get refined and tactics are developed on how to use them. Even when this happens I think there will always be a need for some type of forward field support aircraft, be it fixed or rotor wing.
While I could be wrong, I'm not sure when the proposal was conceived. Was this before the F-22's were tested at Nellis (2003) or after?
I'm not sure what you mean by growth capability, but he F-23 had a bigger weapons bay from what I recall -- that said, what was the cost?
The claim I heard was that the problem was that Northrop was building both the B-2 and if it won the F-23 program it would be producing too much of the USAF's stuff.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
This was after and I think the program office for this was at Edwards. As mentioned, it died on the vine
Growth doesn't always mean size - the ability to place more systems and capabilities on the airframe. It was determined the F-22 was better suited.
BS - All major contractors are involved in airframe construction so even though Northrop would have been the prime, other contracts have a piece of the pie. For example, the B-2 you had Northrop, Boeing, LTV and Hughes. Boeing and LTV built most of the aircraft, Northrop built the cockpit nose area. There was a time on the program where there more Boeing people assembling the B-2 than Northrop folks.
I have heard of the idea of using the B-1 for that purpose because it had the ability to fly supersonic. I'm not sure what their odds of getting through for a nuclear strike would be so it might be a predominantly cruise missile strike anyway.
Didn't it have the ability to operate in air-to-air and air-to-ground modes simultaneously? If so, it could designate targets to other airplanes while carrying out ground attacks.
The only real question is whether the modifications are actually required.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
NOOOOOO!!!!!!
Exactly, take the F-22. Lockheed is the prime contractor, but Boeing designed and built the aft fuselage and wings. The two companies still work together today on the program.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It does but it's primary purpose was/ is to drop bombs
I've worked on government contracts a great portion of my 40 years in aviation, I've asked myself that questions many times!!!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I know the A-10 will be around for a while yet, but the question is "for how long?".
In this age of high-tech, it's a beautiful anachronism, but it can't shake off the repeated calls for retirement (as well as it can battle damage) for very much longer.
In this age of high-tech, it's a beautiful anachronism, but it can't shake off the repeated calls for retirement (as well as it can battle damage) for very much longer.
N33
Airman
Wow - what I wrote, above, has no political content at all. It violated no forum rules. It was a direct response to the opinions offered in previous posts. And I never referred to people who disagree with me as "ill-informed naysayers," which is much more political than what I wrote.
This is clearly not the community for me. I apologize to all for politely offering a viewpoint that is apparently not welcome here.
As my last post, I offer the following facts for whomever has a mind open enough to consider them: The alleged $80 million cost per F-35 is not at all close to what each aircraft actually costs the taxpayers. That's the cost of only the engine and airframe. It excludes the R&D costs (many billions), the costs of initial sets of spare parts for each aircraft, the costs of the flight training simulators, the costs of the ALIS support system, and other accessories. It also excludes the costs of fixing the problems still associated with the aircraft, and the approximately $2 billion a year Lockheed Martin is paid to keep the fleet of F-35's flying. Finally, it should be acknowledged that the F-35 costs $44,000/hour to fly.
Foreign aid was brought up by another poster, which seems a lot more political than my comments directly addressing the subjects in previous posts. The return on the investment the USA gets from foreign aid is huge. The US spends less than one percent of its budget on foreign aid. In return, the goodwill generated helps the US accomplish all of its foreign policy goals, keeps many countries stable and helps ward off military conflict that would be bad for our country, and keeps diseases and other problems at bay before they can afflict the citizens of the US.
The average percentage of GNP from western industrialized nations devoted to foreign aid is 0.4%. The US gives 0.2%, ranking the US near the bottom.
We don't know what the return on the investment will be for the F-35 program.
This is clearly not the community for me. I apologize to all for politely offering a viewpoint that is apparently not welcome here.
As my last post, I offer the following facts for whomever has a mind open enough to consider them: The alleged $80 million cost per F-35 is not at all close to what each aircraft actually costs the taxpayers. That's the cost of only the engine and airframe. It excludes the R&D costs (many billions), the costs of initial sets of spare parts for each aircraft, the costs of the flight training simulators, the costs of the ALIS support system, and other accessories. It also excludes the costs of fixing the problems still associated with the aircraft, and the approximately $2 billion a year Lockheed Martin is paid to keep the fleet of F-35's flying. Finally, it should be acknowledged that the F-35 costs $44,000/hour to fly.
Foreign aid was brought up by another poster, which seems a lot more political than my comments directly addressing the subjects in previous posts. The return on the investment the USA gets from foreign aid is huge. The US spends less than one percent of its budget on foreign aid. In return, the goodwill generated helps the US accomplish all of its foreign policy goals, keeps many countries stable and helps ward off military conflict that would be bad for our country, and keeps diseases and other problems at bay before they can afflict the citizens of the US.
The average percentage of GNP from western industrialized nations devoted to foreign aid is 0.4%. The US gives 0.2%, ranking the US near the bottom.
We don't know what the return on the investment will be for the F-35 program.
I believe into the late 2030's, possibly 2040's. Here is why. The previous re-wing contract was to extend the life into the late 2030's. The new Boeing contract is for an additional 112 sets of wings and support and runs into the 2030's.
Everyone, just calm down and relax. Sometimes it is hard to convey intent and context on a message board.
