This is a public forum, people don't need to be asked for there opinion . I guess this simple concept is t too hard for your conservative mind. Instead of responding you attack the person.modi13 wrote:Do you actually think Boeing and Lockheed-Martin intend their fighters to be disposable? Compare the safety record of each generation of fighters to the one before and you'll find that fewer and fewer are crashing; the air forces of almost every country have shrunk dramatically, not just because of the end of the Cold War, but because their equipment is more reliable and capable. Engines, regardless of whether they're military or civilian, have become exponentially more reliable, as with extensions of ETOPS requirements. I didn't say anything about the 737, I said the 777 and A330, which are both modern designs using technology that's less than 30 years old.Mrs.Robinson wrote:"First, we have 103 F-18s left, not 80; 80 are in operational use. Second, the F-18s are 1970s technology, so assuming that the F-35s will become inoperable at the same rate is idiotic"
Assuming F-35's will not become inoperable at the same rate is idiotic again. Stuff happens and I don't think 65 will be enough for a 40 year life of the program. After 30 years we have 103 f-18's from 138 a loss of 35. or you can say 138-80 (which have the upgrades for modern combat) loss of 58
What will 7 f35 do for us in 30 years from now? Well it will not, we will buy another aircraft to replace it
Comparing modern airliners to military aircraft is a terrible analogy. first most modern airliners airframes are based on the same technology as 20 years ago, A 737 NG is more or less then same as an older one but has upgraded avionics and engines. When a commercially airliner is designed they three main considerations are 1. dispatch reliability, economics and safety.
When a military aircraft is built it has one priority , Mission parameters. Can is do the mission so required of it. Every thing else is built around this. This is why the V2 failed, it failed because safety was an after thought. I guess old reliably Russian migs are 6th generation fighters as they require less maintenance then newer ones.
Why did you think military jets have ejection seats? Because they have comprised safety so much that it is needed.
Military jets have ejection seats because it enhances safety, not because it's expected that they're going to crash. Try putting ejection seats in an airliner's cockpit which doesn't have a canopy; if you were designing passenger aircraft would you give the pilots the option of bailing out and leaving hundreds of passengers to die?
You have nothing on which to base the assumption that we'll only have 7 F-35s after three decades of service. Here's a little math for you: 138 F-18s purchased, 103 remain. That's 75% remaining. Even using a more conservative calculation based on the number which still remain operational, it's 58%. 7 of 65 is 11%, which is simply absurd. Even if the aircraft will spend more time in maintenance, which there's no reason to believe they will, that doesn't mean that they'll have to be permanently taken out of service. On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced. The F-35 will become obsolete before it gets worn out.
"Stuff happens and I don't think 65 will be enough for a 40 year life of the program." That's why no one asked you; your uninformed opinion is irrelevant. We should leave the decision up to DND and the people who actually know the specifications and capabilities of the aircraft under consideration.
So DND preplans how many aircraft will crash? You are the most uniformed, irrelevant poster I has ever seen. No one know how many will be left. I am just responding to your fud like " Our fighter pilot hove said the want and needthe f35", I ask if you can Back that UP. What do you say, " I never said that" You claim that a all modern aircraft are more reliable" basing this on civilian aircraft. Show me a statistic that a gen 5 fighter is more reliable then a gen 4. If it is more reliable how much more reliable is it.
"On the contrary, modern aircraft will have the potential to remain airworthy indefinitely, so long as they're properly maintained and parts are replaced"
Can you back up this statement. So an f35 can last forever. You can have an f35 pull 9 g's 20 hours a day for 40 years and it will still be good to go?
please back up this staement
