It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lockheed reported near F-35 block buy

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Reports have come out that Lockheed is nearing a deal for 440 F-35s, for 11 nations, including the US. The MoU would cover FY18-FY20. The deal would be for 135 aircraft in FY18 and ramping up to 150 tee next two years.

This deal would drop prices to the lowest prices seen for an F-35, and slightly lower than forecast. The first batch of aircraft would be approximately $88M per aircraft, dropping to $85M, then $80M or even below by FY20.

mobile.reuters.com...




posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I hope the RAF buys a few more. Our airforce has saved our arss and its a shame its hasn't got any love recently.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

They've sill got quite a few to actually buy. They're part of this plan.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I notice all the F35 haters still have nothing positive to say about the plane even know it's getting cheaper and cheaper especially compared to prices of F15s I've seen floating around.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Imagine if they build hundreds of new F-15s. The price would fall too. Just ask the Navy, the last Super Hornets they bought were dirt cheap.



edit on 20-6-2017 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Why not build more F-4s? They'd be cheap too. And about as effective.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woody510
a reply to: Zaphod58

I notice all the F35 haters still have nothing positive to say about the plane even know it's getting cheaper and cheaper especially compared to prices of F15s I've seen floating around.


Yes but you are comparing apples with oranges no? Are you comparing flyaway costs versus say system costs? Because if you look at the total cost of the aircraft its not what they are quoting. Factor in the 57 billion USD's for development and its alot more.

This points the need to huge reform in the way we buy our military gear. The development time was too long. There was to much feature creep, and too many reaches in terms of revolutionary performance to ever be able to build this in an on budget and timely fashion. Oh and the F-35B pretty much doomed it from the get go

Feel free to add me to the hater camp. Much like Airbus, I do not dislike the planes per say, but rather the process by which they are developed. In this case instead of illegal subsides etc, this used outright lies, misinformation, and a total lack of accountability for billions of pissed away dollars that were desperately needed elsewhere in the military

Third Edit: Many of the issues with the F-35 are just part and parcel of the development process of a complex system. But again the lies, misinformation by both the prime and the Pentagon, makes me unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt.
edit on 6/20/17 by FredT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mightmight

Why not build more F-4s? They'd be cheap too. And about as effective.

To throw bombs at sheepherders? Undoubtedly so. /s
Thing is, even against formidable enemies like Iran or Saudi Arabia on day you'll need stealth only in the first phase of a conflict. Once you have knocked out their area denial capabilities it really doesnt matter if a F-35 or modern legacy jet carries external ordnance to its target.
And against China ... the US doesnt have the airfields and tanker capacity to deploy hundreds of Air Force Jets in the Western Pacific Region. A longer range platform like PCA will be much more suitable than any multirole jet, 5th Gen or Legacy.
I'm not against the F-35 per se (although its yet another f** up program) but i dont think theres an actual need to procure two thousand airframes. Nor do i think it will happen.
edit on 20-6-2017 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Find me a program that could have done as much for less.The B is going to change the game and the A and C are going to give the Pentagon a lot of flexibility in a high end conflict.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: Woody510
a reply to: Zaphod58

I notice all the F35 haters still have nothing positive to say about the plane even know it's getting cheaper and cheaper especially compared to prices of F15s I've seen floating around.


Yes but you are comparing apples with oranges no? Are you comparing flyaway costs versus say system costs? Because if you look at the total cost of the aircraft its not what they are quoting. Factor in the 57 billion USD's for development and its alot more.

This points the need to huge reform in the way we buy our military gear. The development time was too long. There was to much feature creep, and too many reaches in terms of revolutionary performance to ever be able to build this in an on budget and timely fashion. Oh and the F-35B pretty much doomed it from the get go

Feel free to add me to the hater camp. Much like Airbus, I do not dislike the planes per say, but rather the process by which they are developed. In this case instead of illegal subsides etc, this used outright lies, misinformation, and a total lack of accountability for billions of pissed away dollars that were desperately needed elsewhere in the military

Third Edit: Many of the issues with the F-35 are just part and parcel of the development process of a complex system. But again the lies, misinformation by both the prime and the Pentagon, makes me unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not adding you to the hater camp you seem to hate the procurement system more than the plane itself. But that issue is widespread with a lot of governments look what we did to the new nimrods they were practically built and we scrapped them leaving us in the lurch in that department and it still hasn't been properly replaced. How was the B doomed from the start though? We're using them in the Navy and I'm pretty sure the Marines are buying them aren't they?



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

The B has been one of the airframes that caused the problems with development. It added a lot of complexity to the aircraft, and has caused several delays.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caughtlurking
a reply to: FredT

Find me a program that could have done as much for less.The B is going to change the game and the A and C are going to give the Pentagon a lot of flexibility in a high end conflict.


A separate program for each. The insistence on one plane to rule them all really screwed this up. It was tried with the F-111 and it took a fall on their sword effort by several Admirals not to get stuck with the Vark. This did not happen this time.

The complex engineering required to fit 3 models with distinct differences in terms of function etc forced compromises in all models A, B, and C. The V/STOL B forced the most changes to the air-frame because the USMC has too much lobby power.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Correct me if I'm wrong and I probably am but hasn't the B model been operational for two years now compared to one year for the airforce version? Will the lessons learnt good and bad with the F35 not provide a stepping stone going forwards for the next generation of planes?



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

Yes, but the different services have different requirements for IOC. The Marines standard isn't the same as the Air Force, because their operations are so different. The Air Force chose to wait for specific software to be available, and the Navy is waiting for a different software before they declare IOC for the C model. The Marines chose to go with an earlier version of the software.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

This may sound really stupid and it probably is but how hard is it to update the software to the planes?



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

They also proofed the airframe with a series of highly controlled shipboard test that involved a ton of contractor support and a logistics chain that did not represent real world conditions.

I suspect the early declaration of IOC was also a hedge against the cancellation of the "B" model...........



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

Not that hard. They do them when they go through the Depot for routine work. It's similar to upgrading anything else, where they plug a specialized system into the aircraft and load the new software.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Any idea if and when Canada will decide they are buying F35's?



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Not until they decide to hold a competition.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: D8Tee

Not until they decide to hold a competition.
Yea, thats what I thought. Canadas track record speaks for itself as far as speedy military procurement goes.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join