F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[IndianHawk]

A few vehicle??? Stop BS about stuff that you know nothing about. Just counting Navy aircraft alone these one are EMP hardened

So no warship or carrier is certified against nukes. Like I said.
Total 6 aircraft singular are certified that too a very limited standard.

Bwahahaha you are just proving my point.

 

[IndianHawk]

F-35/ F-18 combat radius approximately 1300 km
XQ-25 can increase that by 45-55%
JASSM-XR range is 1600 km
HCSW range is 3700 km
Do the maths.

I love how after being debunked so many time, now you resort to name calling because you know if yourepresent your argument again, it will get debunked and you just look more idiotic. And yes submarine don't need protection, in fact, ballistic missiles submarine are literally expected to operate on their own and supposed to be the last thing that will survive in a nuclear war. Because unlike anything else, you cant attack or detect submarine from very long range.
Want to prove me wrong? Ok name a single weapon that give you the ability to attack a submarine from 2000 km then. Come on, go ahead.


Kalbir is similar to AGM-86 (2400 km) and AGM-129 (3700 km) both enter service decades ago, agm-129 even got withdrawn from service, there is nothing particularly specially about it. The main power of a carrier is projection. It can attack from long range but with much higher number of missiles and much better versatility than submarine or bomber launched cruise missiles.
Just because you hate that now your supersonic missile combo doesn't work due to carrier engagement range doesn't change that fact one bit. In fact, that how carrier has always been intended to use. In the past the initial wave of strike are always done by Tomahawk from destroyer to weaken enemy defense, now that technology actually allow fighter to strike from even longer range, they will do the same.


Well no, it is not just a few military vehicle that get NEMP protection. The standard I mentioned earlier are actually applied to most destroyer and navy aircraft. The fact that you think they dont have a countermeasure in place for something they designed over 60 years ago is a bit laughable
MIL-STD-4023, Maritime EMP Standardestablishes performance metrics, test protocols, and hardness margin levels for HEMP protection of military surface ships that must function when subjected to a HEMP environment
MIL-STD-3023, HEMP Protection for Military Aircraftestablishes design margin, performance metrics, and test protocols for HEMP protection of military aircraft with nuclear EMP survivability at three hardness levels. This MIL-STD may also be used for aircraft that support multiple missions. Subsystems of the aircraft required to fully comply with the provisions of the standard are designated as Mission-Critical Subsystems having a HEMP survivability requirement. This approach also allows for consideration of platforms not yet addressed in this standard, such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

More bullshit again:bs:
You are a joke . Why not just sent all usa carrier to junk yard because ASM will do the job ?? Idiot.​

 

[IndianHawk]

How can the fleet protect its submarines when they don't know where it is in the oceans or at least very few in the high command knows where it is, and those who know will not divulge info to anyone?

Second, the presence of surface assets and maritime aircrafts above sumarines will only give away the subs location.

So subs are essentially on their own when they sail.

Ever heard of anti submarine warfare. An attacking navy need to clear all enemy anti sub capabilities both ship based and air based before moving subs in.
For that carrier need to move closer to enemy which it can't. So submarine can't move in either.

Why am I debating with children . God it's exhausting. Why do you pathetic fanboys learn a thing about warfare before make a fool of yourselves .

 

[IndianHawk]

And yes submarine don't need protection, in fact, ballistic missiles submarine are literally expected to operate on their own

You pathetic fool. Ballistic missile submarine are not for war they are for deterrence. War is fought by attack submarine which absolutely need protection from anti submarine aircrafts like p8i and anti sub ships and hello.

But idiots like you just keep on typing bullshit all day long.

Do you even know difference between deterrence and attack submarines?

Were you born yesterday. Ever heard about anti submarine warfare !!

Go home kid you are way out of your depth here.

 

[WolfPack86]

#Poland to buy 32 F-35s in 4.6 Bln USD https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN1ZQ0UO?__twitter_impression=true… #Singapore some days ago announced to procure 12 F-35B in 2.75 Bln USD https://flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/usa-approves-singapore-to-buy-up-to-12-f-35b-stealth-fighters/136072.article… #Greece also to buy 24 F-35 from 2024 in 3-3.3 Bln USD including infrastructure https://keeptalkinggreece.com/2020/01/09/f35-greece-us-acquisition-mitsotakis/

 

[StealthFlanker]

So no warship or carrier is certified against nukes. Like I said.
Total 6 aircraft singular are certified that too a very limited standard.
Bwahahaha you are just proving my point.

Firstly, those only count Navy aircraft, not including Air force or Marine aircraft.
Secondly, aircraft carrier are harden against EMP according to MIL-STD-464 standard. So again, as I said earlier, stop babbling about stuff which you nothing about

More bullshit again:bs:
You are a joke . Why not just sent all usa carrier to junk yard because ASM will do the job ?? Idiot.

Again, because:
1- aircraft carrier are not limited by radar horizon like others ship so they can acquire target from very long range by themselves
2- These ASM are launched by aircraft on aircraft carrier. Sure you can make strategic bombers which can carry long range missile but you cant make as many of them as small aircraft, and you cant hold position indefinitely like a carrier
3- carrier and its air wing can perform multi role: SEAD/DEAD, deep strike, support jamming, ASW, close air support..etc

Ever heard of anti submarine warfare. An attacking navy need to clear all enemy anti sub capabilities both ship based and air based before moving subs in.
For that carrier need to move closer to enemy which it can't. So submarine can't move in either.

Why am I debating with children . God it'sexhausting. Why do you pathetic fanboys learn a thing about warfare before make a fool of yourselves

Jesus you are like a retard.
No one say anti submarine warfare doesn't exist. But the key point is that most of the time you can't detect submarine from long range, and you can't attack them from long range either. There is not even a single weapon in existence or even in development that allow you to attack submerged submarine from 300 km let alone fucking 2000 km.

 

[StealthFlanker]

You pathetic fool. Ballistic missile submarine are not for war they are for deterrence. War is fought by attack submarine which absolutely need protection from anti submarine aircrafts like p8i and anti sub ships and hello.

But idiots like you just keep on typing bullshit all day long.

Do you even know difference between deterrence and attack submarines?

Were you born yesterday. Ever heard about anti submarine warfare !!

Go home kid you are way out of your depth here.

Omfg why the fuck do you think they use submarine as a deterrence and not anything else? Why do they load nuclear ballistic missile on submarine and not just some random surface ship?. Because submarine are so fucking hard to find and even harder to engage.

 

[Wisemarko]

Lockheed Martin starts production of Denmark’s first F-35 aircraft
Lockheed Martin has started the production of Denmark’s first F-35 fighter aircraft at its plant located in Fort Worth, Texas, US.

The front fuselage for the aircraft, which has arrived on the production line at the plant, will contain the cockpit.

Slated for completion by the end of this year, the F-35 aircraft will arrive at Luke Air Force Base next year.

There the fighter aircraft will be included in the training for the Royal Danish Air Force.

The interns will be in Fort Worth until June this year as part of a special training programme sponsored by Terma.

Denmark joined the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme in 2002 during the system development and demonstration phase and has influenced technical elements of the aircraft. It confirmed plans to procure 27 F-35As in June 2016.

Various Danish companies such as Terma and Multicut secured work related to F-35 and are manufacturing parts such as pylons, advanced composites, machine parts, radar components and horizontal tail edges on every single aircraft.

Since the early 1950s, Lockheed Martin and the Danish Armed Forces partnered for the T-33 Shooting Star, F-104 Starfighter, C-130 Hercules and the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

At present, Denmark is building parts and components for the projected 3,100 F-35 aircraft to be manufactured.

Earlier this month, Lockheed Martin won a $1.9bn contract from the Pentagon to support operations and sustainment of the global F-35 fleet and continue to improve readiness and reduce cost.

By 2025, the company continues to pursue 80% mission capable rates in the near term and aims to reduce the F-35 cost per flight hour to $25,000.

Danish trainees view a part of the front fuselage of the first F-35A fighter for the Royal Danish Air Force on the Lockheed Martin production line at Fort Worth, Texas. (LM photo)

 

[BON PLAN]

Bad luck !
RAF F-35B Lightnings Bound to Nellis AFB for Their First Red Flag Exercise Diverted To Lajes

https://theaviationist.com/2020/01/22/raf-f-35b-lightnings-bound-to-nellis-afb-for-their-first-red-flag-exercise-diverted-to-lajes/

 

[BON PLAN]

a very well informed swiss news paper : http://psk.blog.24heures.ch/archive/2020/01/28/la-pologne-va-commander-le-f-35 -868552.html

"Forte baisse de prix :

Pour s’assurer de la vente en Pologne, Lockheed-Martin a fortement cassé les prix. Au départ, la demande auprès du Gouvernement américain portait sur un montant de 6,5 milliards de dollars pour les 32 appareils. Au final, l’offre a été descendue à 4,6 milliards de dollars.

Que cache cette baisse de prix ?

Sans avoir tous les détails, il apparaît que l’offre ne comprend plus l’ensemble des systèmes connexes prévus au départ. L’armement, les pièces détachées, ainsi que les simulateurs ont donc été en partie exclu du protocole de vente. Seul, une petite partie va subsister.

On apprend que la Pologne va devoir en réalité investir près de 9 milliards de dollars pour ses futurs 32 F-35. Cela va comprendre, le complément des équipements connexes, ainsi que l’adaptation des bases aériennes qui seront équipées du nouvel avion.

Par ailleurs, la Pologne ne bénéficiera pas de compensations industrielles prévues au début des négociations."

=

Sharp drop in price:

To ensure the sale in Poland, Lockheed-Martin sharply cut prices. Initially, the request to the United States government was for $ 6.5 billion for the 32 aircraft. In the end, supply fell to $ 4.6 billion.

What is behind this lower price?

Without having all the details, it appears that the offer no longer includes all of the related systems originally planned. Armaments, spare parts and simulators were therefore partly excluded from the sales protocol. Only a small part will remain.

We learn that Poland will actually have to invest nearly $ 9 billion for its future 32 F-35s. This will include, complementing related equipment, as well as adapting the air bases to be equipped with the new aircraft.

In addition, Poland will not benefit from the industrial compensation provided for at the start of the negotiations.


9 billions for 32 birds : 281$ milions each. Affordable they said. But it was before....

 

[Bhurki]

9 billions for 32 birds : 281$ milions each. Affordable they said. But it was before....

Thats what you call pulling a number out of your ass..

 

[BON PLAN]

Thats what you call pulling a number out of your ass..

9 billion/32....

It's absolutely the same calculation than when some Rafale heaters divided the 7.9 billions of the indian Rafale deal divided by 36 units. deal inluded bases accomodation, multi year supports, weapons, training and offests.

 

[Bhurki]

9 billion/32....

It's absolutely the same calculation than when some Rafale heaters divided the 7.9 billions of the indian Rafale deal divided by 36 units. deal inluded bases accomodation, multi year supports, weapons, training and offests.

You can quote $18B if you want,
But it'll be hard for it to earn credibility if you dont back it up with details..
$9B for what?

The Polish Minister himselves quoted the number $4.6B for 32 aircraft, so thats what i'll go with..
Just as how Indian Minister had quoted EUR 7.8B for 36 rafale.

 

[BON PLAN]

You can quote $18B if you want,
But it'll be hard for it to earn credibility if you dont back it up with details..
$9B for what?

The Polish Minister himselves quoted the number $4.6B for 32 aircraft, so thats what i'll go with..
Just as how Indian Minister had quoted EUR 7.8B for 36 rafale.

Just read the swiss news. It's not a data from my own Bro.

I've made a translation :
"Without having all the details, it appears that the offer no longer includes all of the related systems originally planned. Armaments, spare parts and simulators were therefore partly excluded from the sales protocol. Only a small part will remain.

We learn that Poland will actually have to invest nearly $ 9 billion for its future 32 F-35s. This will include, complementing related equipment, as well as adapting the air bases to be equipped with the new aircraft.

In addition, Poland will not benefit from the industrial compensation provided for at the start of the negotiations."

 

[Bhurki]

Just read the swiss news. It's not a data from my own Bro.

I've made a translation :
"Without having all the details, it appears that the offer no longer includes all of the related systems originally planned. Armaments, spare parts and simulators were therefore partly excluded from the sales protocol. Only a small part will remain.

We learn that Poland will actually have to invest nearly $ 9 billion for its future 32 F-35s. This will include, complementing related equipment, as well as adapting the air bases to be equipped with the new aircraft.

In addition, Poland will not benefit from the industrial compensation provided for at the start of the negotiations."

Its quite obvious that the procurement prices don't include lifecycle costs since no country other than the US calculates them as such. (For ex- $1.5tr for F35 program)

I think this might be a projected figure for lifecycle costs of entire batch over its lifetime.
Otherwise, the single time costs are all bundled up into the procurement cost.($4.6B)

Also, it seems highly unlikely that the Polish Minister would quote half the amount that it actually cost, since that would qualify as treason.
Lets just believe what the Defense Minister says, just like we believe the Indian counterpart on his $9B for rafale.

 

[abhay rajput]

Its quite obvious that the procurement prices don't include lifecycle costs since no country other than the US calculates them as such. (For ex- $1.5tr for F35 program)

I think this might be a projected figure for lifecycle costs of entire batch over its lifetime.
Otherwise, the single time costs are all bundled up into the procurement cost.($4.6B)

Also, it seems highly unlikely that the Polish Minister would quote half the amount that it actually cost, since that would qualify as treason.
Lets just believe what the Defense Minister says, just like we believe the Indian counterpart on his $9B for rafale.

So do you think there was corruption in Rafale deal..?

 

[Bhurki]

So do you think there was corruption in Rafale deal..?

I didnt say that.

I said the most credible source of info on both of these deals are the Defense ministers of respective countries.

So, if we believe Indian DM stating the cost of 36 rafale as $9B,
Its only fair to believe the Polish DM quote as well, and not doubt it to be higher.

 

[Wolfhound]

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/a....6bn-deal-for-32-f_35-fighters-on-friday.html

So it seems Poland was approved for up to 6.5 billion with auxiliary equipment and services but chose to go with 4.6 billion instead. Also, I didn't know VAT also applied to military purchases.

 

[BON PLAN]

I didnt say that.

I said the most credible source of info on both of these deals are the Defense ministers of respective countries.

So, if we believe Indian DM stating the cost of 36 rafale as $9B,
Its only fair to believe the Polish DM quote as well, and not doubt it to be higher.

7.9 billions. Not 9.
including support, weapons, training, 2 air base accomodations, and offsets. All these items are not in the polish deal as presented.

 

[IndianHawk]

Firstly, those only count Navy aircraft, not including Air force or Marine aircraft.
Secondly, aircraft carrier are harden against EMP according to MIL-STD-464 standard. So again, as I said earlier, stop babbling about stuff which you nothing about

Again, because:
1- aircraft carrier are not limited by radar horizon like others ship so they can acquire target from very long range by themselves
2- These ASM are launched by aircraft on aircraft carrier. Sure you can make strategic bombers which can carry long range missile but you cant make as many of them as small aircraft, and you cant hold position indefinitely like a carrier
3- carrier and its air wing can perform multi role: SEAD/DEAD, deep strike, support jamming, ASW, close air support..etc



Jesus you are like a retard.
No one say anti submarine warfare doesn't exist. But the key point is that most of the time you can't detect submarine from long range, and you can't usa ack them from long range either. There is not even a single weapon in existence or even in development that allow you to attack submerged submarine from 300 km let alone fucking 2000 km.

No USA carrier can withstand nuke attack ! Just protecting some electronic components from some weaker emp waves doesn't protect AC from blast which can clear our cities and bring fucking tsunami in ocean!! But retards like you live in a fantasy world.

And again ballistic missile submarine are for deterrence. Attack submarine will need to close in on enemy ships to attack . If your keeping your attack submarine 2000km away then you are not fighting a war. They are useless that war.

But you are a moron who thinks USA will win war by keeping Carrier and submarine 2000km away from enemy .lol.

Normally I will block idiots. But you are far too entertaining.

Let's summarise your idioticy till now.
A) USA carried can stand nuke attack .lol.
B) submarine don't need protection. Lol.
C) ballistic missile submarine are used to attack .lol
D) USA can shoot down hypersonic missile. No proof but ok.lol.
E) from 2000 km away you can defeat all countries . Lol




Keep them coming . This is too good.