kalvasflam

1 hour ago, sh9000 said:

Oh no, not that picture of the dead wife again.... someone burn it, quick, it'll piss him off.  

13 minutes ago, badboy00z said:

I wan to see him beat someone to death with a cheese grater. 

I want to see this guy with his belt full of kitchen utensils that he then uses to serve people.

yeah well, Nick ain't above B&E.  But no Stark this time.

I haven't watched the current Trek, so I wouldn't know, but I think it would be a nice counter point to the original TNG and even DS9.  Which is, the Federation is a force for good (propaganda), it's worth preserving (self importance), and sometimes, we need to get dirty to face the threats both external and internal that can tear it apart (finally, some truth)

Also, TOS was not all sunshine and unicorn, there were some pretty dark situations that just happened to be dealt with by a living legend.  (That and the fact that Roddenberry realized NBC needed stuff that had conflict for prime time, because near Utopia just doesn't sell as well.  Sure, he put in a lot of hints about Federation being a utopia, but not really on the frontiers.)

One final point, Yeoh should be pretty good in the role considering that she did a fair job portraying the devil mother in law to be in Crazy Rich Asians.  (You can see the ruthlessness oozing out of her)

now that's something I'd actually watch.  the dirty side of the trekverse.  where we screw our enemies and not care about the consequences.

Ha ha, I wonder if his specialty will be assorted kitchen utensils used to kill people, those paring knives can be quite deadly, although i would have to assume his deadliest weapon will be a spoon, used to carve other people's heart out, as the immortal Alan Rickman so eloquently reasoned: "Because it's dull, you twit! It'll hurt more!"

10 hours ago, F-ZeroOne said:

Few guesses; for one thing the A-4 which is the lowest cost plane on that chart was probably a lot simpler, even given that jets were kind of the New Big Ticket Thing back then. Economy of scale is another. They only made 57 F-117s, and although they made a lot of F-15s, they've only made 225 F-15Es (and theres significant changes between a F-15C and E, it wasn't just a case of strapping more bomb shackles on). The F-111 and F-14 were arguably among the most technically sophisticated aircraft of their day, and thus costly. The A-6E was a developed variant of an earlier model, and therefore some of the cost had already been "sunk" (compare to the F-111, which is listed as a single model when there were several different variants). The F-22, well, they only made 187 compared to the originally planned several hundreds; its cost would probably be less overall (though still probably upper tier) if that had happened. By most accounts the F-18E was essentially a new aircraft, and in that context accounting for inflation its cost isn't that that much higher than the F-15.

Avionics almost certainly makes a difference; the A-10 is one of the lowest cost aircraft on that chart but also the most basic avionics-wise (in its original form).

This is all supposition and "gut" feeling just from looking at that chart though.   

I think the F-15E cost difference wise (if you believe this pop mech chart) is not that significant from the F-15C.  I found this chart while looking at costs for the F-15X, and it was a little astounding that that thing actually costed $100M a pop.  You could've said that there was a lot of sunk cost on the F-15 air frame, so I am really wondering where that cost is coming from.  Actually, I would also be curious on how much the avionics on these things actually cost.  Because it isn't as if each time you start a new combat aircraft, the avionics comes from a fresh sheet of paper, there has got to be a lot of commonalities here.  Given how much military procurement wants to go with off the shelf stuff, I wonder how much more money is invested here.  I suppose there is a consideration of the environment that you have to put these things through, but even then, the costs are sky high.

Also, I wonder if Boeing had to build the A-4 in volume today, what the cost would be?  I mean if you stuff in a bunch of new electronics and such, would it double the cost to $20M 2017 dollars?

Interesting, I would be really curious to know what's driving the cost.  The F-15X is running at that price from a quick check.  It seems odd that in 1998, the F-15E costed about $31.1M, but the cost 20 years later is triple.  Has the air frame changed that much?  Or is this just inflation, but 300% seems to be a lot.  Could be just because it's a small lot order on a production line that's not running at full speed any more.  Interesting.  I wonder what the cost of development on the F-15s were back in the days.  My other thought is that the F-15X isn't that much of an improvement over the old F-15Es.

Anyway, found an old article on Popular Mechanics that talked about this a little: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a25678/the-cost-of-new-fighters-keeps-going-up-up-up/

Then there was this chart.  It was an entertaining read, not that it really explained why the cost has skyrocketed to such an extent.

Does anyone expect the LM guy to say anything bad about about their primary breadwinner? 

Seriously, I wonder if they could somehow get that engine into the F-16  C block 50s; it seems to have significantly more thrust.  Although the -Cs might not have stealth, it carries just as much weapons if not more.  And probably costs less.  But it does make me wonder if structurally the F-16s can accommodate such an engine.  

A total side note, I wonder how much it would cost to rip out the avionics and upgrade it to modern standards.   To be more precise, take something like an F-15 airframe, but stuff in the electronics of the F-35, compensated of course of the right frameworks.  I'm not sure what the difference would be between the F-15E and the F-15X in terms of the avionics, computers, and other capabilities.  Then how much of a difference there would be between the -35 and the 15X.  Anyone know?

1 hour ago, Vifam7 said:

The hardware is easy to cross-compat. The software is much more difficult (maybe impossible) to cross compat. However, the biggest hurdle and cost multiplier is politics and budgets.

So, let Microsoft handle all the software, and then every plane in the US arsenal will experience periodic unwanted crashes.  Ha ha.

Seriously though, the aerospace industry has been in some ways decimated through consolidation.  So, we get basically too big to fail.  Unless some upstart comes and shake things up.  Right now, in the US, there is just Boeing doing commercial airliners, and a hand full of other giants doing military aircraft.  What we need is like a Space X for the aircraft industry.

2 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

 

But isn't that exactly what they did? They simply kept upgrading the 80's vintage Legacy Hornets and purchased new build suped up Hornets.

It's also understandable why the USN's capability stagnated. When the Cold War ended, the big bad main threat was gone. As part of the peace dividend many systems were retired or simply not purchased and military spending went downhill. It's only now that some of gaps are being felt due to fears of the rapidly expanding Chinese military.

The truth of course is that even with the bloviating by our idiotic leaders, the US military is still far ahead of the nearest competitor.  There will be rude surprises, but the strategic situation overall still hasn't turned enough for the nearest peer to be directly competitive.  It may change in another two decades, but for now, the weakness isn't in its body, rather in its heart and mind.  

35 minutes ago, Vifam7 said:

 

The F-35 with its stealth and AESA radar combined with AEGIS is far better than anything the Navy had before. The AIM-120D AMRAAM with its 100mile range will finally fill the gap left by the retirement of the AIM-54 Phoenix

The gap left by the retirement of the S-3 is a much bigger issue IMHO.

What you said about the F-35 with AMRAAM Ds might be true.  And yes it's newer technology, but realistically, it tells you how far US naval aviation has regressed.  Those capabilities were already available in the mid to late 80s, and more.  (by which I mean, the capability to hit aerial targets 100 miles out, to strike targets with lots of ordinance from more than just a few hundred miles away, to have significantly ranged ASW platform from carriers)

That in 30 years, the USN has not advanced beyond those capabilities, and have in fact retarded their long range strike as well as their anti submarine capabilities from the carriers tells you just how dire things are.  I suppose you can blame good parts of this on the Clinton drawdown, which was follow by budget being diverted to the wars in the middle east., and the wasteful expenditures in the Pentagon.  If they had just incrementally advanced the capabilities of the aircrafts from the 80s, the US Navy would have been in much better shape over all.  All this fighting against the paper tigers in the middle east has basically taken the edge off of the USN capabilities, to a point where it is possible for there to be a near peer compared to the USN.  How sad.  

The day the F-14s were retired from the USN is more or less the day most Macross fans gave up hope of ever seeing a transforming VF-1.  

44 minutes ago, Chronocidal said:

Only problem with that idea is that you assume all of those platforms would use completely compatible hardware.  Like you say, airframes are cheap, and the F-35 probably isn't any different in that regard, at least as compared with the cost of the internals and their development.  Just in general though, I hope we do go back to another cycle of more specialized platforms, rather than multi-role fighters.

The problem though is that aircraft are becoming overwhelmingy software driven, and you could easily drive the analogy that Lockheed Martin is a PC, Boeing is a Mac, and Northrup Grumman would be some kind of Android platform, while each military service is some oddball UNIX platform that doesn't play nicely with the others.  Universal components like weapons, radars, and engines, sure, those will be cross-platform compatible, once they standardize the interfaces.  But aircraft software?  That's an entirely different can of worms.

The X-35 was a great X-plane, and you're probably right about the idea that it should have remained a tech testbed, but I don't even think the internal systems are what's driven the program into the ground.  It's just that the combined complexity of building an aircraft to meet the demands of over a dozen military services spead across nearly as many countries has snowballed into a red tape singularity so utterly massive that no productivity can escape.  

If they were making the aircraft for any singular service?  The plane would have been done years ago.  Requirements wrangling between all the countries and services involved in the development is like trying to run a triathalon with a 747 strapped to your back.  Combine all this with your usual government inefficiency in getting anything done on budget or in a timely manner.. and well, there you are. 

Not to forget that the plane has been in development so long, the hardware it's running on is probably 20 years old, and every time anything gets upgraded, everything needs to be rebuilt to work with the new hardware.

In a word, they should've made the damned thing for the USAF first, gotten it all done, and then signed up the other countries and services.  Well, too bad we let a bunch of whack jobs in the Pentagon dictate how all of this should go, and now, basically, what you have is the worst of all worlds.  The F-35 was designed to be the jack of all trades, and instead it became the jack of no trades.

1 hour ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

"Shanahan reportedly called the F-35 stealth fighter "f---ed up,' saying that Lockheed Martin "doesn't know how to run a program.""'If it had gone to Boeing, it would be done much better,'" a former official recalled Shanahan saying, Politico reported."

Ha, with the X-32 being what it was? I would bet fair money it would've been even WORSE.

I don't know about that, all I know is that the Aussies sure know what to do with their surplus gear.  The most entertaining part of the note, those aircraft were of the same vintage as the CF-18s.  But then, it's not that much money, not enough for a new F-35.  Which could wipe the floor with those 25 F-18s if it had enough weapons.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canberra-confirms-sale-of-25-hornets-to-canada-at-a-454867/

2 hours ago, Shadow said:

Plus it would still have taken a bit to get to get down as I'd imagine they needed to maintain a safe speed in their decent.

I heard the audio, I'm not sure how much of it was cut, but it seemed like the decent and landing was pretty quick.  My bet is some of it was cut.

Anyway, going back to my favorite whipping boy, the F-35.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-new-pentagon-chief-said-the-1-trillion-f-35-is-f-2019-1 

My only comment here is: OMG.  Not because of the fact what Shanahan said was true, but because of the fact a Boeing exec made that comment.  Now I question whether Boeing would've done any better, (hello KC-46) but Boeing was stuck with a firm fixed price contract, there is no question that the -35 was a crap show that kept ramping up costs.  Either way though, the acting SecDef isn't doing himself any favors, and now the procurement decisions involving the F-15X is going to get questioned, and it won't matter if he signed a pledge, his soul, or his firstborn on recusing himself from Boeing related matters.  This is what happens when defense consolidation gets too far.

8 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

Btw, on a separate note, did anyone see the news about an Israeli F-15 losing it's canopy at 30,000 feet and the pilot bringing it down safely?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25780029/canopy-flies-off-f-15-landing/

I read that, and it was nothing short of a miracle.  At,that altitude, even ejecting is very iffy.  That they managed to land the plane was just amazing.  Although I believe this wasn't the first  time for a canopy failure at altitude.  Fortunately they had oxygen, but can't imagine the thermal shock the two must have gone through.

1 hour ago, captain america said:

Make no mistake sir, there's a whole lot more that I'm bad at than good at. You've obviously never seen me try to fold sheets, dance, do calculus or build a time-machine. Staying on-topic with the Tomcat, I had ideas on a more advanced version of the Tomcat 21 that would incorporate stealth-like F-23 intakes and all-moving vertical stabilizers and a few more interesting gizmos. She may be gone, but I think the Tomcat was just starting to reach its true potential before being axed. Oh, whatcould have been...

You mean like transform?   I agree.

It is sad, that they retired the F-14.  I think part of that had to do with the demise of Grumman and it being folded into Northrop.   And let's face it, Northrop Grumman hasn't built much in the way of combat aircraft as of late.  Sure, there is the B-21 coming up, the only thing we can hope for is that there won't be the same B-2 cost overruns which ended production at 21 units.

Ok, just a random thought to move away from the good v evil debate here.

Would it be too much to hope for a follow on of Frontier?  Or heck, revisit 7.

2 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

 

You might be thinking of the F-15SE Silent Eagle concept.  As for the F-15X, it was recently reported that the Pentagon might request to buy 12 of them in the 2020 budget.

https://about.bgov.com/blog/pentagon-billion-new-boeing-fighters/

Oh man, I see the Boeing hand could be problematic,  Shanahan, the former Boeing exec, I wonder if he has divest all of his interests in the company.  Don't get me wrong, I think having a 4th gen missile truck loaded for bear is an excellent thing.  It could replace some of the existing F-15C, and possibly fill in the gaps for the F-22s in some ways.  I just hope they don't mire this in some dirty politics.  I hope they end up with a fleet of a few hundred.

I do have to say, all the talk about command and control platforms when they talk about the F-35s does leave me to wonder where the shooters are going to come from in the future.

But from what I remember, the F-15X is not ever happening, didn't the USAF already reject this concept?

No, it is in the episodic format.  It was just mind bogglingly disjointed in a lot of ways, I'm going to reserve final judgement until the subs come out, but it felt pretty horrible in terms of the actions.  We'll just have to see.

Be warned, below is a long rant, if you love Yamato 2202, don't click it, it's better for everyone involved that way.

You know, if the perp had any brains, he would have gone to ground, and no one will ever hear from him again.  Hopefully he'll be stupid and post this crap on social media, and then the law throws the book at him.  I think he should get jail time, the amount of time should be equal to the manhours that are wasted by all the travelers at Gatwick, may be divided by ten (just so we can show that the law can be lenient).

Speaking of anti drone drones...  what they need is this Aeroguard.  The funniest thing though are some of the experts they got on the news media, one of them actually said that having a surface to air missile to shot down a drone was a bad idea.  (geez, do you actually even have to say that?  thanks Captain Obvious)

But realistically, this is one hell of a way to screw up things, imagine a more nefarious organization doing something of this kind, except with dozens of drones around the country all at once.  No casualties, but still makes a horrible point of inconveniencing people and showing them how helpless they are.  I suppose you could call this civil disobedience or non-violent protest.

Updated: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/22/uk/gatwick-airport-drone-arrests-gbr-intl/index.html

If they got the right people, I hope they throw the book at them.  In fact, several books.

ha ha, a classic.  Right up there with Bambi vs Godzilla.

Well, if only Neeson was in the Marvelverse, this would be like a reunion.

Actually, it would be a reunion if Neeson turned into Ruffalo or Hiddelston or Hopkins

But here is my question... CAN IT FLY?

Somehow I think we need a Kevin Bacon emoji here.