Like Fuchs or Walker?sferrin said:How the hell does somebody like this get a job in this kind of sensitive area?![]()
Like Fuchs or Walker?sferrin said:How the hell does somebody like this get a job in this kind of sensitive area?![]()
I don't recall those gentlemen being duel citizens with one citizenship being with a country we are practically at war with since 1979 (They with us anyway)? If they were please provide details.NilsD said:Like Fuchs or Walker?sferrin said:How the hell does somebody like this get a job in this kind of sensitive area?![]()
This. Hell, I recently had to provide proof of citizenship (TWO forms, including one with a photo) to prove I had a right to work, just because our company was bought out by another. Yet we employ a cleaning service that has free run of the place with nary an English speaker among them.bobbymike said:I don't recall those gentlemen being duel citizens with one citizenship being with a country we are practically at war with since 1979 (They with us anyway)? If they were please provide details.NilsD said:Like Fuchs or Walker?sferrin said:How the hell does somebody like this get a job in this kind of sensitive area?![]()
Israel is asking the United States for a squadron of advanced F-15 Strike Eagles and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors as part of a “compensation package” for lifting American sanctions on Iran. The package would be worth more than $3.1 billion according to reports.
Israeli defense minister Moshe Ya’alon presented Tel Aviv’s “shopping list” to U.S. defense secretary Ashton Carter last week when he visited Washington D.C. if reports are accurate. The arms package would help maintain the Jewish state’s qualitative edge over its Arab neighbors.
According to Flight International’s Arie Egozi, the Israelis didn’t just ask for ordinary F-15s. Instead, the Middle Eastern nation is asking for Boeing’s privately funded F-15SE Silent Eagle derivative which includes a number of radar cross section — or RCS — reduction features and internal weapons bays housed inside the jet’s conformal fuel tanks.
In previous years, Boeing officials would claim that the F-15SE had a frontal RCS that is equivalent to an export configuration Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. However, other defense and industry sources dismissed such assertions.
Israel wants to incorporate its own systems into the F-15SE version that it would buy. Those would most likely include the aircraft’s electronic warfare systems, helmet mounted cueing systems and communications suite among other items. It would probably also incorporate a host of Israeli-made weapons such as the Python-5 missile.
However — if the United States holds to past practices — the aircraft will likely retain a U.S.-made radar — either the Raytheon APG-63 (v)3 or APG-82 (v)1 active electronically scanned array radars.
However, while Israel might want the F-15SE, that version of the Eagle is largely a paper plane. The new variant would have to be developed from the F-15SA, which was developed for Saudi Arabia. That version of the Eagle incorporated a host of advances including a new digital fly-by-wire control system and a completely new glass cockpit with large format displays, both of which will be crucial to the Israeli project.
Thus, ironically, Saudi Arabia will be partly subsidizing the Israeli purchase. Unless Israel is paying to complete the rest of the developmental cost for the F-15SE, the American taxpayer will be on the hook for the remainder of the bill.
That’s not without precedent when it comes to Israel — the United States is subsidizing its purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter. Tel Aviv is paying for its first batch of 19 F-35s entirely out of the military aid that the United States provides it with. The country has thus far ordered 33 F-35s while securing a special deal to integrate domestic components onto those jets — a consideration that hasn’t been offered to any other nation participating in the program. It also has the option of buying 17 more jets under the contract.
Ultimately, Israel might buy as many as 75 F-35s.
But instead of buying additional F-35s, Israel is opting to boost its fleet of F-15s. Part of the reason for that might be because Tel Aviv has concerns about the F-35’s performance. In 2014, Israeli strategic affairs minister Yuval Steinitz cited misgivings about the F-35’s range, payload and maneuverability, which might not meet Tel Aviv’s needs.
But the fifth-generation jet’s astronomical price tag was also a deterrent because even with more than $3 billion in annual U.S. military aid, Israel is struggling to pay for the stealthy new jets.
Thus, the Israeli request for a new and developmental version of the F-15 might be an indication of just how deep those misgivings run. The Silent Eagle is not much cheaper than the F-35 since its costs roughly $100 million per plane or more. Further, there are developmental costs to consider, which add to the price tag. Therefore, Israel must be concerned about the stealthy fifth-generation jet’s performance.
You seem to be under the mistaken belief that posting an article on the forum is the same thing as endorsing its content.sferrin said:I thought that guy was your favorite writer? He knows planes and stuff ya know.
Nope. I'm commenting on the fact that some time ago I told you this author was questionable at best (not quite in the Tyler Rogway / David Axe category but certainly working on it) and you leaped to his defense. Looks like you've had a change of heart.Triton said:You seem to be under the mistaken belief that posting an article on the forum is the same thing as endorsing its content.sferrin said:I thought that guy was your favorite writer? He knows planes and stuff ya know.
The supporting evidence presented in this article just doesn't fit Majumdar's narrative that Israel has misgivings about procuring the F-35i Adir. I am not sure if USNI News or Flight Global would have accepted this article that is more opinion than news. Plus, the article by Arie Egozi published in Flight Global has not been confirmed by any other source. But authors seem to be confident about making all sorts of leaps of presumption. Based on the quality of his latest articles published on The National Interest and War is Boring, Majumdar seems intent on following David Axe as an example.sferrin said:Nope. I'm commenting on the fact that some time ago I told you this guy author was questionable at best (not quite in the Tyler Rogway / David Axe category but certainly working on it) and you leaped to his defense. Looks like you've had a change of heart.
The F-35 is going to eat up so much of the Air Force’s procurement budget going forward that the service will likely have to reduce the number of Joint Strike Fighters it buys to pay for other things, such as the Long Range Strike-Bomber, experts said on Tuesday.
As part of the Defense Department’s proposed budget for fiscal 2016, the Air Force would purchase 44 F-35s this fiscal year, 48 in fiscal 2017 and 60 each year from fiscal 2018 through 2020, budget documents show. The total procurement cost of the 1,763 F-35s is about $215 billion.
The Air Force also plans buy between 80 and 100 Long Range Strike-Bombers for up to $100 billion. The new bomber will replace the Air Force’s fleet of B-1s and B-52s.
In order to pay for the bomber, the Air Force will likely have to reduce the number of F-35s and other procurement programs, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst for the Teal Group.
“You’ve got so many competing requirements for the Air Force’s procurement budget, and on top of that, you’re inserting $4 to $5 billion a year for LRS-B – or more – I believe it peaks at a somewhat higher number than that. There’s no way right now to make that all work,” Aboulafia told Air Force Times after speaking at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.
Given the current budget situation, Aboulafia believes the Air Force has four options for the bomber.
“One: You could grow the topline [budget], which is not likely,” he said. “No. 2: You can create this national strategic priority line which comes out of somebody else’s budget – a lot of people tried that. It generally doesn’t work. Three: It can die and become a bill-payer for all for the other programs, which would be sad. Or four: The other programs have to give ground, either in terms of year-by-year procurement numbers or total procurement numbers, or both.”
Since the F-35 represents the lion’s share of other procurement programs, the Air Force’s stated goal of buying 1,763 Joint Strike Fighters has become “highly untenable,” Aboulafia said.
Right now, the Air Force is working on its portion of the president’s fiscal 2017 budget and “is exploring all options based on world events and financial constraints,” said Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek. More information about procurement programs will be available when next fiscal year’s budget is released, she said.
The Air Force may not want to reduce the number of F-35s it plans to buy, but by the mid-2020s the program will take up more than half of the service’s planned procurement dollars, and that means that unless the Defense Department budget goes up significantly, it will have to live with fewer F-35s, said Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.
Meanwhile, Canada plans to withdraw from the F-35 program and Norway may follow suit, and that will increase the cost of each F-35, said Eaglen, who also spoke at the Mitchell Institute.
$4 to $5 billion extra a year when the federal budget will be approaching $5 TRILLION/year.Triton said:"Experts: Bomber cost could upset F-35 plans"
by Jeff Schogol, Staff writer 4:11 p.m. EST November 10, 2015
Source:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/11/10/experts-bomber-cost-could-upset-f-35-plans/75528532/
The F-35 is going to eat up so much of the Air Forces procurement budget going forward that the service will likely have to reduce the number of Joint Strike Fighters it buys to pay for other things, such as the Long Range Strike-Bomber, experts said on Tuesday.
As part of the Defense Departments proposed budget for fiscal 2016, the Air Force would purchase 44 F-35s this fiscal year, 48 in fiscal 2017 and 60 each year from fiscal 2018 through 2020, budget documents show. The total procurement cost of the 1,763 F-35s is about $215 billion.
The Air Force also plans buy between 80 and 100 Long Range Strike-Bombers for up to $100 billion. The new bomber will replace the Air Forces fleet of B-1s and B-52s.
In order to pay for the bomber, the Air Force will likely have to reduce the number of F-35s and other procurement programs, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst for the Teal Group.
Youve got so many competing requirements for the Air Forces procurement budget, and on top of that, youre inserting $4 to $5 billion a year for LRS-B or more I believe it peaks at a somewhat higher number than that. Theres no way right now to make that all work, Aboulafia told Air Force Times after speaking at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.
Given the current budget situation, Aboulafia believes the Air Force has four options for the bomber.
One: You could grow the topline [budget], which is not likely, he said. No. 2: You can create this national strategic priority line which comes out of somebody elses budget a lot of people tried that. It generally doesnt work. Three: It can die and become a bill-payer for all for the other programs, which would be sad. Or four: The other programs have to give ground, either in terms of year-by-year procurement numbers or total procurement numbers, or both.
Since the F-35 represents the lions share of other procurement programs, the Air Forces stated goal of buying 1,763 Joint Strike Fighters has become highly untenable, Aboulafia said.
Right now, the Air Force is working on its portion of the presidents fiscal 2017 budget and is exploring all options based on world events and financial constraints, said Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek. More information about procurement programs will be available when next fiscal years budget is released, she said.
The Air Force may not want to reduce the number of F-35s it plans to buy, but by the mid-2020s the program will take up more than half of the services planned procurement dollars, and that means that unless the Defense Department budget goes up significantly, it will have to live with fewer F-35s, said Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.
Meanwhile, Canada plans to withdraw from the F-35 program and Norway may follow suit, and that will increase the cost of each F-35, said Eaglen, who also spoke at the Mitchell Institute.
Entitlements are what people are "entitled" to, because they've paid for them. It's like a paycheck. If you work, you get paid, because you're "entitled" to it. Savings accounts are entitlements. Unless you're offering yours up, since you're apparently against them.sferrin said:Yep. Compared to almost anytime in the past we're spending less on defense and more on entitlements. Gotta keep buying those low-brow votes ya know. Who cares about tomorrow?
I don't think you understand how welfare systems work.Sundog said:Entitlements are what people are "entitled" to, because they've paid for them. It's like a paycheck. If you work, you get paid, because you're "entitled" to it. Savings accounts are entitlements. Unless you're offering yours up, since you're apparently against them.
x2 ScarySpudmanWP said:
If you want "facts" use percentage of GDP rather than dollar amounts. Then add it the fact that say, an M-1 Abrams is proportionally more expensive than a Sherman tank, F-35s are more expensive than P-51s, today's soldier costs more to train than a WWII grunt, etc. etc. ... But hey, I get it, we need those Obama phones and all that other "free" stuff and "the Cold War is over, so gut the military. Perhaps you'd like to explain to us why we're using military equipment LONG past it's sell-by date if we're swimming in new hardware? As for your obligatory F-35 jab did you know the F-16 costs more than a P-51? Where were you when we were buying those wastes of money instead of P-51s?LowObservable said:Let's knock this imbecilic, innumerate argument about low defense budgets on its head.
So having a dummy-spit about entitlements is not only a complete political loser, but ignores facts.
Oh I'm sure. He paints the world as it is, not one viewed through rose-colored glasses. I'll bet you had a nice chuckle when Obama made his "the 80's called and want their Cold War back" comment didn't you? How's that workin' out?LowObservable said:No, Sferrin. I'm not a Mitt Romney fan, and there's no logical reason to tie defense to GDP.
Not at all. It would mean I get to keep more of my money instead of being forced to pay into the worlds biggest pyramid scheme (Social "Security"), the Dept. of Education would be gone (talk about a program botched in ways only the government could pull off), etc. etc. I'll take less government ANY day of the week.LowObservable said:And if I proposed using the same criterion for other government spending (Environment, Civil Rights enforcement, Dept of Education...) you'd have another giant spazz attack, wouldn't you?
Where did I say that? Oh right, I didn't. Just putting more words in my mouth.LowObservable said:Just because you think everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal doesn't make it a fact.
Yeah, that's the problem with giving the government a source of income. Once they get it you aren't EVER getting it back.LowObservable said:And go right ahead if you want to target Social Security. GLWT as they say.
Not really. There is still a finite budget to work with. Of course it does make it a lot tougher to fund fluff packages. (Like rewarding political sponsors, buying a voter base, etc.)LowObservable said:Actually, the "more money for defense!!!!" is a cop-out. People who say that, including the Mittster, know it's not going to happen, but by saying defense should be tied to GDP they duck the difficult job of making real-world decisions.
This made you sounds very unpatriotic, for a patriot would think at the national level, at which his description is fine.JFC Fuller said:I don't think you understand how welfare systems work.Sundog said:Entitlements are what people are "entitled" to, because they've paid for them. It's like a paycheck. If you work, you get paid, because you're "entitled" to it. Savings accounts are entitlements. Unless you're offering yours up, since you're apparently against them.
Nice. Of course it's completely impossible that one could be a taxpayer tired of paying for freeloaders to live on welfare as a lifestyle right? Or tired of the government taking an ever larger piece of their paycheck because "they know best how to spend your money"? Nah, couldn't be. :lastdingo said:So far the people who I've seen complaining about "entitlements" belonged to one of these groups
- employer-side lobbyists
- racists who wanted to keep dark people at the lowest level of society
- egoists who never ever seem to have grasped the concept of solidarity
Please take it up here as that's why he reopened the thread.I know it's "news only" but as for this particular comment...
After all, why would instantaneous g performance at cruise be an important metric of merit for an attack aircraft?
Of course it might be. But in the case of A-X it was traded against the ability to carry a permanently installed anti-tank cannon, low-altitude turn radius and time, and loiter performance.
It's still an integral part of the A-10's defensive counter against air and MANPADS/SHORAD threats.I know it's "news only" but as for this particular comment...
After all, why would instantaneous g performance at cruise be an important metric of merit for an attack aircraft?
Of course it might be. But in the case of A-X it was traded against the ability to carry a permanently installed anti-tank cannon, low-altitude turn radius and time, and loiter performance.