Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-35 news thread III
jessmo_24    1/12/2011 7:23:24 AM
BF-2s 1st vertical landing. *ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS3ngl1GcaI&feature=player_embedded NAVAIRSYSCOM 10 Jan 2011 "F-35B test aircraft BF-2 accomplishes its first vertical landing and conversion back to normal flight mode at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The integrated test team is testing both the STOVL and carrier variants of the F-35 for delivery to the fleet. Video courtesy Lockheed Martin."
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43   NEXT
keffler25       6/13/2015 7:03:01 PM
The troll should shut up. Citing a Lockmart propaganda page.and not reading the graphs that refute their lie and his.  
Please do not encourage Keffler. He clutters and misinforms. I am just nailing him on one of his "usual" this time about an LCS price... which is currently about $360 million dollars and he claims is a lot higher. Keffler just does not have a clue... and encouraging him does this site no favor. http://www.lmlcsteam.com/

 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       6/13/2015 7:13:57 PM
Also from Lockmart. Their tacit admission that the LCS is toast, burnt, kaput.
 
ROTFLMAO.
 
So much for the stupidity from the troll.
 
By the way, if the troll wants to know how Lockmart presented the alleged $360 MUSD figure program  cost as false data, all he has to do is MEAN the slope they projected on their graph and see that it is in FY 2007 dollars as their baseline The true numbers work out more like 440 MUSD by their lying projections..
 
You can make figures lie if you are the liar doing the figuring.  
 
That's why I stick to CBO and GAO  for LCS cost data. They include everything in the contract, including revisions and contract overruns.    
 
Quote    Reply

HR    keffler   6/14/2015 4:02:41 PM
My goodness... what part has you confused? That the ships are less than $380 million average per copy but the lead one was not? This is not that hard to understand... if you have a little education.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       6/14/2015 5:09:57 PM
Nothing has me confused, not even the fact that the troll is stupid enough to lie without attribution, or that he is so imbecilic that he can't see how Lockmart manipulated data a child could see through, or that he was cretinous enough to use Lockmart as a credible source for that source data in the first place.
 
 
 
My goodness... what part has you confused? That the ships are less than $380 million average per copy but the lead one was not? This is not that hard to understand... if you have a little education.

 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       6/14/2015 5:17:22 PM
 
Navy Buys Four More LCS for $1.4 Billion
By Richard Sisk | Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 4:27 pm
Posted in Naval
321519
The Navy on Tuesday committed nearly $1.4 billion to buy four more Littoral Combat Ships this year even as the viability of the program remains in question.

The Navy’s Program Executive Office for the LCS announced that $699 million would go to Lockheed Martin Corp. in Fiscal Year 2014 for two of the monohull LCS designs made at the Fincantieri Marinette Marine Corp. in Marinette, Wis.

Another $684 million will go to Austal USA for two of the trimaran LCS designs made at the Austal USA yard in Mobile, Ala.
 
The contract awards had been expected but they come as the LCS program increasingly has come under question within the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.

Last month, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced that the $34 billion LCS program was being scaled back from 52 to 32 ships.

Critics of the LCS have focused on costs and the survivability of the aluminum-hulled LCS in combat. Hagel said the Defense Department was now seeking “a capable and lethal small surface combatant, generally consistent with the capabilities of a frigate.”

Hagel added that “I’ve directed the Navy to consider a completely new design, existing ship designs, and a modified LCS.”

“We need to closely examine whether the LCS has the protection and firepower to survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the Asia Pacific,” Hagel said.

On Monday, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of Naval Operations, said he would appoint a new task force to consider recommendations for a re-design of the LCS.

In the release announcing the contract awards, the Navy continued to promote the shallow-water LCS as vital to U.S. power projection.

“The LCS is needed to fill critical, urgent warfighting requirement gaps that exist today,” the Navy said. “LCS is required to establish and maintain U.S. Navy dominance in the littorals and sea lines of communication choke points around the world.”

Four of the ships have been delivered to the Navy thus far. The LCS Freedom (LCS11) concluded its first deployment in December 2013 and is currently at its home port in San Diego.

The Independence (LCS 2) is undergoing Mine Countermeasures developmental testing in San Diego. The Fort Worth (LCS 3) is scheduled to begin initial operational testing later this month, and the Coronado (LCS 4) is scheduled to be commissioned on April 5 in Coronado, Calif.

In remarks that were considered aimed at the LCS last month, Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Christine Fox said that in the current cost-cutting climate the Navy had to take a second look at “niche platforms that can conduct a certain mission in a permissive environment.”

Fox did not name the LCS in her remarks to a San Diego conference of the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association and the Naval Institute, but she put a premium on survivability for future Navy ships.

“The threats to surface combatants continue to grow — not just from advanced military powers, but from the proliferation of more advanced, precise anti-ship munitions around the globe,” Fox said.

Earlier this month at a Bloomberg News defense forum, two senior members of the House Armed Services Committee said Congress was likely to go along with Hagel’s plan to cap the LCS program at 32 ships and also shelve any moves to kill the program entirely.

“You’ve got a lot of people who hate the LCS” in Congress, but “one of the things we want to do is give the Navy a fair shake” on the LCS, said Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., chairman of the House Seapower Subcommittee.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, agreed with Forbes that many of their colleagues would like to kill the LCS program but “that is not the consensus opinion in Congress.” 
 
That's more than $600 million a copy for ships now building in case the troll can't do math. And he can't.
 
ROTFLMAO. 
 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24       6/15/2015 2:55:33 PM
isn't there a surface war thread to post LCS news in? Can you two kill each other over LCS that way ---------------------------->
 
Quote    Reply

HR    jessmo   6/15/2015 5:37:05 PM
We are also posting on the thread bout the Carriers... the one that turned Keff purple when it contradicted maybe hundreds of threads of his with crazy or just simply old information about the importance of carriers. Here at this point Keff is just doing all he can to try to salvage his tattered reputation... I would say not very successfully! I have learned by now that instead of arguing with Keff if I just wait a little Strategy Page will call out many of Keff's worst inaccuracies... it is a wonderful resource!!!!
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       6/15/2015 6:32:01 PM
Be quiet, troll. Adults are talking. 

 
Quote    Reply

HR    Admiral Keff   6/15/2015 7:19:02 PM
I did not mentioned this to you earlier because I did not want to send your blood pressure steaming up but I feel a duty now... remember the Scorpion? The little plane that could? they have fitted a radar to it! Good news... right? I mean it is good news for us but not for you who said over and over again that it could not have a radar fitted to it... it is a ground and maritime radar but I am sure others will follow.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       6/15/2015 7:37:49 PM
Produce the credible evidence, liar. any damned fool can put a light radar (police type) into a plane, but that does not make the installation mission credible.   
 
 
I did not mentioned this to you earlier because I did not want to send your blood pressure steaming up but I feel a duty now... remember the Scorpion? The little plane that could? they have fitted a radar to it! Good news... right? I mean it is good news for us but not for you who said over and over again that it could not have a radar fitted to it... it is a ground and maritime radar but I am sure others will follow.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics