Posted on 02/28/2013 12:59:19 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
The Boeing Prologue Room in St. Louis, Missouri showcases models of the number-two U.S aircraft maker's signature planes, including the new F/A-18E or Super Hornet. Canada's current fighter jets are an earlier model of the F-18. (Sara Brunetti/CBC News)
As it stands, the official estimate for a fleet of 65 F-35s is that they will cost $9 billion to buy and almost $37 billion to operate over the next 42 years. So, a total of just under $46 billion. If Boeing’s figures hold up, the Super Hornets would cost about half that.
***F-35s are designed to shoot down 10 planes for every one lost. That means that it would cost 5X times as much to use Boeing compared to the F-35 to achieve the same kill ratio.
We will have full blown 'battle bots' operating long before then, and without the equipment on board for human environmental needs they should be even cheaper.
We already have full blown ‘battle bots’ operating. Perhaps one of the next gen aircraft fighters will be battlefield command & control center for drones.
Probably already is ~
As long as they have arabs and obamoids in the production lines, *anywhere*, things will be falling apart.
Very simple.
***F-35s are designed to shoot down 10 planes for every one lost. That means that it would cost 5X times as much to use Boeing compared to the F-35 to achieve the same kill ratio.
I’d find this hard to believe and in reality if this was true then you’d have to look at a war where we’re shooting down hundreds of enemy aircraft which hasn’t even come close since Vietnam so the cost factor per aircraft and maintenance cost to make up for numerous years you’re not involved in a massive war would be far greater.
An aircraft is an asset with losses expected in war. Quantity of a proven asset at a cheaper cost is better and the $110m listed for the F-35 will grow significantly and it’s currently close to three times that if you include test.
I’d find this hard to believe
***What part do you find it hard to believe? That they are designed to shoot down 10:1? F-15s were designed to shoot down 6:1 and they have a 300:0 kill ratio AFAIK. Of course, they were never presented with the scenario of overwhelming numbers coming over the borders at 7:1 or 5:1 or whatever the soviets had at the time. So these guys proceeded with the numbers they had.
And Block 60 F-16 would be even cheaper.
10:1 against what? I depends on what you go up against and like any statistic you choose the one you want.
From an USAF story on he F-22: (I’m ex-Navy.. I’m using this as an example http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371)
During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 proved its mettle against as many as 40 “enemy aircraft” during simulated battles. The Raptor achieved a 108-to-zero kill ratio at that exercise. But the capabilities of the F-22 go beyond what it can do. It is also able to help other aircraft do better.
And, unfortunately, both don’t actually have any real tactical stealth - they’re pretty easy meat for IR homing missiles.
Strategic stealth is overrated - it can be defeated by a very large multilocation array. But tactical stealth is still an enormous multiplier as well as a massive morale killer for the other side. It’s tons of fun to watch the reaction (in online sims) when you fly in with an aircraft that can be seen with the eye but none of your opponents have any missiles that can get and hold lock. They have to close to gun range and as long as you’ve got missiles that’s just not going to be happening.
10:1 against what? I depends on what you go up against and like any statistic you choose the one you want.
***To hear what the designers say about it, it’s 10:1 against the board, basically against what the enemy claims to be capable of in 5 years or so.
During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 proved its mettle against as many as 40 “enemy aircraft” during simulated battles.
***Simulated battles. I’ve already been through this on the harrier vs. F-14, F-15, and F-16 simulated battles. The F-15 achieved a 102:0 kill ratio in battle, and the harrier achieved a 28:0 ratio in battle at the time of this thread. The F-15 managed to move forward with even better air-to-air kill ratios, all the way to 300:0. That’s because it was designed to be a fighter, while the harrier was designed to be a close-air support bomber. That’s like comparing racing results of a van versus a Ferrari.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1342535/posts?page=49#49
Hard to shoot a plane down when you’re grounded.
Thanks sukhoi-30mki.
You would think that a country with the land mass Canada and Australia have they would Select a larger fighter Air Craft like an F-15C or F-15E.
Both of those Aircraft have much greater range than the Super Hornet.Though at the same time neither of those Aircraft are Stealthy in their present configurations.
Though Boeing had planned on developing a stealth eagle a while back.
“It’s tons of fun to watch the reaction (in online sims) when you fly in with an aircraft that can be seen with the eye but none of your opponents have any missiles that can get and hold lock. “
I sat on top of the HQ building at Kunsan AB, ROK watching 32 f-16s take off in groups of 4. Then they spent the 45 minutes doing a mock airbase attack dropping flares instead of bombs. The absolute best show I have ever seen. Seeing two F-16s go vertical and corkscrew side by side was incredible.
In real life you can’t see the planes from the ground until they are overhead. In an air to air action visibility is even worse.
Yup - but fighter-mounted radar and IR can see the 15/16/18 series fighters with pretty decent clarity. The pilots don’t have to put eyes on the planes to lock them up and launch on them.
With the various stealth designs, fighter-borne radars and IR can’t see them well enough to get a consistent track let alone a lock. So the enemy fighters have to close to visual range to do any damage.
They have to close to gun range and as long as you’ve got missiles that’s just not going to be happening.
ya might wanna talk to some F-4 drivers about that there comment...
F-4 Phantom, physical proof that if you put big enough engines in a brick it will fly...
Canada ping
If the stealthy fighter has modern missiles that can lock on to you and nothing you have can lock on to him, you’re in for a very bad day - and he’s not.
I’d also point out that our missiles actually work regularly now, unlike the RandomMissiles hung on the old F-4 back when.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.