Youtube hearted comments of LRRPFco52 (@LRRPFco52).

Each F-35A now is running $77.9 million unit flyway, not $88 million. It’s been this way since Lot 14 started production in 2020, down from $79.2 million in Lot 13. Lot 12 was $82.4 million. Typhoon contract for Germany’s new 38 unit order of Tranche 4s was 5.4 Billion Euros, or 142.1 million Euros each, which is $162.25 million per Typhoon. So for the price of 1 Typhoon, you would get 2 F-35As with weapons.
18
F-35A current lot 14 is $77.9 million Unit Flyway, roughly $103.6 million Unit Program, depending on the weapons suite and support contract. The Finnish request for F-35A includes a massive list of weapons greater than most DSCA approvals I’ve ever seen. Lots of stand-off weapons including 500 Small Diameter Bomb IIs, 150 AIM-9X Block II+ (BVR capable/VLO coatings/structures), 100 AGM-154C-1 JSOW missiles, 200 AGM-158B-2 JASSM-ER missiles, 120 JDAM guidance kits, 150 GBU-38 guidance kits (500lb Mk.82 JDAM conversion), 120 BLU-117 2000lb bombs, 32 BLU-109 2000lb penetrators, 150 BLU-111 500lb bombs, EW equipment, test units, support equipment, ALIS/ODIN stations, training missiles, and tanker support. It’s interesting because there are no orders for AIM-120C7 or D AMRAAMs, because they already have ongoing contracts with those for their Hornet fleet, which they will still manage and sustain/upgrade over the next 3 years and transition them over to the F-35As as they come off the line.
11
I think those numbers are for uninstalled thrust with the GE motors. The F110-GE-400 in the F-14B/D would generate a lot more thrust than that installed, with at least 28,000lb in burner and rising as the mach number went up at certain air densities. The A model had a lot of installed thrust at lower altitude as well, not as shabby as it was made out to be with the -414A. TF30-PW-412A was the main problem child motor for the F-14A fleet, and was replaced with the -414A to deal with reliability issues. Even as a student of the Tomcat since the 1970s, I wasn’t reminded until a few years ago that the Navy spent some $300 million on the intended F-14 engine, which was the Pratt & Whitney F401-PW-400. There’s a GAO report on the F-14 with PW F401--PW-400 expenditures listed. It’s like reading one of the latest anti-F-35 reports if you go through it. They were working on the F-14B at the time, which was to have the F401, but it had a lot of the same problems as the TF30-PW-412A so the Navy just got left with the TF30 until the GE motors came into reality in the 1980s. They had them on the B-1A and B-1B, and did the F-14/F101 testbed if I recall correctly. It was painted red and white. There were several AvLeak articles on it at the time.
5
Started flying in 1970, whereas F-15 was 1972, F-16 1974, and Hornet in 1978. Carrier-borne operations increase wear-and-tear on them so it makes absolute sense to start retiring airframes, especially from the early production blocks throughout the 1970s. They crashed or dumped so many of them as it was, with 173 airframe total F-14 losses. Some of those simply fell off the carrier or got splashed with salt water, immediately dead-lined if they still had the airframe aboard. Of all those, even though it came later, the Hornet would be the next fastest airframe type to see boneyard storage due to carrier ops, saltwater, and just being run hard. They lost 100 of them in its first 10 years of service with 20 fatalities. They quickly started making changes to the Hornet with the C model even before Desert Storm, and put the A Models into Reserve units as fast as they could. F-16A had a pretty rough start too, with wiring harness chaffing, hydraulic issues, engine problems with F100-PW-200, EPU failures after engine failure, control surfaces popping up when they should be down, several GLOCs, and multiple fleet groundings in the A models from 1978-1985. It took a while to work out the Viper, but they got it ironed-out very well. F-15 is the unique 4th Gen fighter in terms of safety with very few total losses and fatalities. They also skimmed the absolute best pilots into Eagles, but that was also true with the Tomcat, with bringing it to the boat being the thing that separated pilots into other airframes that were much easer to bring back. The mishap rates are really eye-opening when you look at all of them. Harrier has the worst of all in the 4th Generation timeframe, even though it never gets mentioned as a 4th Gen aircraft.
3
@PilotPhotog There were 2 different F-14Bs. The first one was the intended Tomcat/engine with the F401-PW-400 that never got produced in the 1970s. The A models were supposed to be a stop-gap. The 2nd F-14B was the A+ re-named with the F110-GE-400 engines.
3
F-111F had PAVE Tack, not Pave Track. PAVE Tack was a FLIR and Laser Designator for LGBs, used extensively in Desert Storm. PAVE Tack was installed inside the weapons bay and would rotate out when in-use. Wings on the F-111C and FB-111A were longer. There were all sorts of engine upgrades and changes from F-111A to F-111D, F-111E, then F-111F with very focused participation from USAF with Pratt & Whitney on getting the engines more reliable. It is well-remember by anyone in USAF, RAAF from the era when it was in service. Probably one of the most-memorable aircraft if you’ve ever seen them do their flight demo.
3
As far as transitioning from Baby Hornet to Super Hornet, which one is easier? CF-188 to Block III Super Hornet CF-188 to F-35A Because US Navy Super Hornet pilots that transitioned to F-35C have already said that if they don’t ever see the inside of a SH again, they couldn’t care less. F-35 is just better across the board, easier to fly, way easier to start-up, configures on its own for T/O and landing, aerial refueling, far more lethal and survivable.
2
USAF CoS General Brown said, "Not an F-16.", which many have interpreted as "not Lockheed" so the industrial base will stay diverse. Boeing has lost so many contracts, and USN announced that last year was the final order for Super Hornets. That means Boeing (who now owns the fighter production line of McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis) is facing a future of running dry on large US DoD fighter orders. The former acting SECDEF Shanahan was a career Boeing rotary wing sales rep, and was relieved for ethics violations after pushing the F-15EX onto USAF. USAF never asked for more F-15s. F-16XL would have been nice in the late 1980s as a longer range multirole strike aircraft for USAF, but again, it would have threatened the F-15E production line, which was the follow-on to the F-15C/D line than ran from 1978-1985. By that time, USAF and USN had already recognized proliferation of Soviet IADS nets, and determined that all future designs really needed to incorporate VLO if they were to have a solid chance at surviving going into the MEZ. That's why we skipped over the 4.5 Gen designs we had for the F-15, F-16, & F/A-18 and invested in JAST & JSF. USN invested in A-12, but it was so mismanaged that they blew $2 billion and had no flying prototypes. That forced them to go back to a 4.5 Gen Hornet design with longer combat radius and some LO, new motors, more payload. It also contributed to the demise of McDonnell Douglas, who were acquired by Boeing.
2
@PilotPhotog At Edwards AFB Open House, they would have an F-111E take off without saying much, then announce the A-10A demo, which had all sorts of pyro and little re-attack maneuvers distracting everyone. While the A-10 was at its highest point in its flight demo, the F-111 would come screaming from behind the audience offset left at about Mach .95 with the wings swept back and shock everyone, set off all the car alarms, and make the babies cry while the special needs kids spastically bounced up and down with unrestrained glee. You would never forget the F-111 if you lived to see it flying.
2
Who is the main target market for large SUVs? 1. Larger families who need a grocery-getter that supports taking kids to sports functions, has a lot of cargo space, great for road trips. 2. People who like the space, want offroad capability and inclimate weather/snow/unimproved road performance with 4WD occasionally. Sequoia has been one of the best options since 2001 in that market. I prefer the styling, body, and width of the 2001-2007 models, but my wife and I like the rear seat folding of the 2008-2022 that turn into a flat rear compartment bed. I would like something that gets back to the 2005-2007 width and LC appearance, with the 2008 rear seat fold, crawl control, and proven tech updates without sacrificing reliability. I like the 2008 A/C controls interface better. I don't like either generation's shift columns. 1st Gen is steering column mounted, whereas the 2nd Gen center console position seems great, until you see how easy it is to knock out of gear. I would like driver instruments and screens like a Rivian.
1
Imagine losing ground for 1.5 years, and claiming superior casualty ratios.
1