Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
“the Worst I’ve Ever Seen.” - Air Force General  
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Posted (2 years 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13201 times:

F-35 deputy program executive officer:

"Air Force Major General Christopher Bogdan, on the job five weeks as deputy program executive officer, fired an unusual public salvo at the world’s largest defense contractor for what he described as a poor partnership in managing the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ckheed-martin-on-f-35-program.html

“We will not succeed on this program until we get past that,”

Take away:

“There is no more money and no more time in the development of this program,” he said. “That is it. We will not go back and ask for any more.”

In my view, the Pentagon is just as much to blame as they agreed with the high risk concurrency acquisition - and they are now harvesting the consequences as the risks they took which are manifesting themselves and coming home to roost. Somebody should take this turkey program out with a mercy shot and save taxpayers a fortune.

[Edited 2012-09-17 19:02:00]

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13139 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Thread starter):
Somebody should take this turkey program out with a mercy shot and save taxpayers a fortune.

I'm not convinced they'd save anything. When you cancel a large program like the F-35 you end up right back with the same problem and less time to solve it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13041 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
I'm not convinced they'd save anything. When you cancel a large program like the F-35 you end up right back with the same problem and less time to solve it.

Especially considering that there is no other in production fighter that can effectively replace whole sections of the USAF, USMC, and USN combat jet force. The F-16 and the F/A-18 line are slowly wrapping up production and don't have the industrial capacity to pump out the numbers of fighters needed to recapitalize the US combat jet fleet. The last long lead items on both types have been purchased and unless there are more orders immediately, the production lines will close down in two to three years.

Both types are already deep into their lifecycles, and to top it all off, the US DoD has serious doubts on the combat effectiveness of both types in the face of ever improving air defence systems.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 12976 times:

IMO the F35 is the classic try to kill 3 birds with one stone. Gripen is kind of the same idea, 3 in 1, it ends up being decent at 3 roles but its not the best in any single role. Compromises has to be made.

And would 2 or 3 different fighter jets really cost more in the end? LM has lost a lot of credibility with F22 and F35, they are viewed as masters of getting paid more than they excel at fighter design.

Without all compromises the F35 could be a very good Airforce figher or a very good naval fighter..


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12688 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 3):
IMO the F35 is the classic try to kill 3 birds with one stone.

It didn't work with the F-111, and it's only marginally better now. The best hope is that history continues to repeat itself and a new Fighter Mafia emerges to bring sanity to the whole thing.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12555 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
It didn't work with the F-111, and it's only marginally better now. The best hope is that history continues to repeat itself and a new Fighter Mafia emerges to bring sanity to the whole thing.

It will still come out cheaper than developing a 5th gen fighter for each service. Imagine this program x 3... atleast this way there is a lot of cost savings from the commonality. Yes it has been quite the ordeal developing the F-35, but considering how cutting edge it is, there is a steep learning curve.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12508 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
It will still come out cheaper than developing a 5th gen fighter for each service.

Each service doesn't need a 5th gen fighter. How does stealth help you replace the A-10? They'd be better off with a larger payload and a second engine while ignoring speed.

The F-35 is like taking a football team and trying to come up with one guy who you can clone 22 times to make the whole team. You'll end up with slow wide receivers and undersized tackles. Not to mention that anyone that talented would have to be paid a lot. And then you throw the allies in there too: some positions match up pretty well, but not in others. A linebacker in a Tampa 2 needs to be different than a linebacker in a 3-4.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12447 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
How does stealth help you replace the A-10?

Okay, so three 5th gen, and also a tank buster for the USAF.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 days ago) and read 12431 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 7):
Okay, so three 5th gen, and also a tank buster for the USAF.

First, the Air Force already has one. They should have updated the F-22 and bought more of those as well as pursued the FB-22 to meet their strike requirements. Then fill in the ranks with more F-15s and F-16s as needed, which should be useful for the parts of a war after the first few days.

The A-10 should be updated and possibly have the production line restarted if more airframes are needed. It's a really hard plane to beat from a bang for the buck standpoint and certainly isn't broke.

The Navy, who messed everything up and proved they can't have nice things when the A-12 got cancelled, will have to make do with the Super Hornet in the near terms and I would support a fifth gen fighter for their purposes. Honestly, I think the F-35 would have been better off as a belated Tomcat replacement rather than the JSF.

Frankly, the Marines should just get A-10s of their own to operate from land and fly helicopters from their assault ships. Ideally, they would have some STOVL capability, but I think it's likely to be too expensive for not enough benefit.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12369 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 3):
And would 2 or 3 different fighter jets really cost more in the end? LM has lost a lot of credibility with F22 and F35, they are viewed as masters of getting paid more than they excel at fighter design.

Considering that LM is the only company making 5th gen aircraft in the world right now - no, that flying Lada from Russia isn't 5th gen - I'd say their credibility is top notch. Operationally, the F-22 is a superb aircraft that no enemy would dare fight with their current equipment and the F-35 has immense potential way beyond anything else currently in development. Where LM has to improve IMO is the management and logistics. You can't blame them for delays and cost increases, setting budgets with current technology advancement is unrealistic. If building world-class fighters was easy more manufacturers would do it.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3562 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 9):
You can't blame them for delays and cost increases, setting budgets with current technology advancement is unrealistic



And why not... they developed the numbers and have experience with incorporating new tech. basically they under bid substantially knowing the government would bail them out... and while that may happen, it will come at a cost like several hundred fewer units and a serious credibility problem for future contracts.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 12250 times:

Here is another point of view...

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/ne...hipfacesaseaoftroubles1?a=1&c=1171



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently onlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2612 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12217 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 9):
no, that flying Lada from Russia isn't 5th gen

    yes, you're right...they have no idea what they're doing over there. You know, because historically Sukhoi is one of the most successful fighter design bureaus in the world right up there with Lockheed. Is the T-50 late to the party? Perhaps, but because for the last 20 years there has been no money for it. But it most certainly is 5th gen. You should stop being in denial that other countries can and are close to matching the technology the USA has.


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12023 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 9):
Considering that LM is the only company making 5th gen aircraft in the world right now - no, that flying Lada from Russia isn't 5th gen - I'd say their credibility is top notch. Operationally, the F-22 is a superb aircraft that no enemy would dare fight with their current equipment and the F-35 has immense potential way beyond anything else currently in development. Where LM has to improve IMO is the management and logistics. You can't blame them for delays and cost increases, setting budgets with current technology advancement is unrealistic. If building world-class fighters was easy more manufacturers would do it.

One can certainly blame LM, esp when they has cost issues and design issues during the original competition. Though you can also blame the US Gov for not putting harsher penalties in the contracts, at this point in a real commercial contract LM would in effect belong to the US Gov.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11676 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 12):
You should stop being in denial that other countries can and are close to matching the technology the USA has.

Well the proof is in the pudding. I really hope the pakfa turns into a success and lives up to all the hype the Russians are putting out there. For one it's radar cross section may be hard pressed to beat the Super Hornet, let alone an F-35 and forget about competing with an F-22. The Pakfa would've been an excellent aircraft if it was already flying in squadrons, but IMO Sukhoi is about a decade late to the party. No fault of the company, but more so the idiotic and corrupt government.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11641 times:

In other news, they are well on the way to fixing the tail hook for the F-35C:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_09_19_2012_p0-497526.xml

Quote:
The original design failed to snag the arresting wire in early testing owing to two problems: the point of the hook was not sharp enough to scoop under the wire and securely grab it, and a dampener device was not sufficient to maintain a hold on the wire. Essentially, the hook was bouncing upon landing, reducing the likelihood of a successful arrested landing.

Lockheed Martin, the F-35 prime contractor, has redesigned the hook to address those problems. An interim version, which has a sharpened point but lacks the dampener, was tested.

In three of five recent attempts, the redesigned hook did capture the wire; the failures were due to the pilot landing the aircraft too far from the wire for a successful arresting.

Structural durability testing was completed ahead of schedule:
http://www.asdnews.com/news-45047/F-...etes_the_journey_of_a_lifetime.htm

Quote:
Durability testing of the CTOL airframe to 8,000 hours was completed ahead of schedule, proving the airframe is able to handle a variety of flying conditions it will experience when in service. Work continues on schedule for proving the aircraft for up to two lifetimes or 16,000 hours.

The 350 tonne structural test rig at our Brough facility was purposely built to ‘fly’ the F-35 through a series of flight scenarios. Over 20 miles of wiring, 2,500 strain gauges and 160 loading actuators subject the aircraft to a range of loads that it would typically encounter in actual flight.


User currently onlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2612 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 11537 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 14):
IMO Sukhoi is about a decade late to the party. No fault of the company, but more so the idiotic and corrupt government.

I agree with you on this, however, even though the T-50 is late....at least they are second. I think both USA and Russia now consider China a bigger threat than each other.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 14):
For one it's radar cross section may be hard pressed to beat the Super Hornet, let alone an F-35 and forget about competing with an F-22.

I love when people say this because they can't prove it. I certainly can't prove you wrong either because the numbers SIMPLY aren't public. Do you know the RCS data for a Super hornet, F-35, F-22 and T-50? Because if you don't then how credible is that argument?

In any case, going by the "general stealth design knowledge" all the people on the internet always claim to know, for one the T-50 definitely is stealthier than the Super Hornet. The super hornet is a beefed up Hornet, how is that in any way stealthy besides for the band-aid compressor covering feature they have in it? As far as the F22, well no doubt it is the best fighter out there. There is no denying that. I agree, the T-50 has no real effort in reducing the IR signature of the engines from the rear. But like I said earlier, Sukhoi are not idiots and have most certainly designed the intakes, frontal profile, and various shapes to show a very low RCS at least from a front/bottom front profile and from a side profile. Which in any case is the most important since you're not supposed to be seen while you are coming. You're not going to approach a target "ass forward". I'm not claiming to be an expert on stealth design, but neither are you. So these arguments are always pointless. However I do believe that Sukhoi are a reputable enough design bureau to not mess this up, especially since stealth IS the primary objective of the new fighter. And there are similarities in "stealth feature design" with both the F-22 and F-35 which the Super Hornet completely lacks. Remember, the YF-22 also had a big pitot tube, all kinds of weird things on it, and funny paint before it became what it is today. Going by tradition, Russian designs usually have significant differences from their prototype forms. Let's see what the T-50 looks like when it is matured, mass produced and in service in several squadrons. Then we can make more educated assumptions (although they will still be fruitless and unprovable)


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11488 times:

Russians must learn to build better quality engines, until at least recently MIG engines had about 50% of the flying time before overhaul compared to western engines, maybe if labor is cheap this is ok, but doing this in a cash starapped west I see very few interested in russian products.

And judging by how Russian engineering at Boeing has caused a lot of weight issues, they still like to over engineer stuff.

Not saying that LM is a role model, they did once design super planes with no competition, but that was a long time ago, greed did not exist back then.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1656 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11344 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 14):
I really hope the pakfa turns into a success and lives up to all the hype the Russians are putting out there. For one it's radar cross section may be hard pressed to beat the Super Hornet, let alone an F-35 and forget about competing with an F-22.

Its always amusing when people throw around statements like these when at the end of the day they have no clue what the true numbers are for all them and everything is derived from a ton "guesstimates", looking at pretty pictures and a "if doesn't look like an F-22, it musn't be stealth" fanboy logic.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 16):
Do you know the RCS data for a Super hornet, F-35, F-22 and T-50? Because if you don't then how credible is that argument?

He doesn't. He just likes to derail threads with fanboy drivel when it comes to anything russian.

Quoting sweair (Reply 17):
until at least recently MIG engines had about 50% of the flying time before overhaul compared to western engines

MiG doesn't make engines, you are thinking about Klimov. And yes, Klimov engines are complete shit, which is one of the reasons why most countries are avoiding planes fitted with them.

Quoting sweair (Reply 17):
but that was a long time ago, greed did not exist back then.

The whole F-104 scandal in Europe begs to differ

returning to the topic:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
In other news, they are well on the way to fixing the tail hook for the F-35C:

I remember reading news that the issue was already fixed or that they had a fix for it already.


User currently offlineEagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1836 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11327 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 17):

Russians must learn to build better quality engines, until at least recently MIG engines had about 50% of the flying time before overhaul compared to western engines, maybe if labor is cheap this is ok, but doing this in a cash starapped west I see very few interested in russian products.

This has been Russian cultural situation since the Mig-21/23. (If not before) It's not that the engines aren't as good as Western,its that the Russian don't design engines with long life in the mix.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 11152 times:

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 19):
This has been Russian cultural situation since the Mig-21/23. (If not before) It's not that the engines aren't as good as Western,its that the Russian don't design engines with long life in the mix.

Remember that the Russians worked and continue to work around the premise of a primarily conscript military. The average service of a Russian serviceman is usually for a couple of years. As such at best, a Russian Air Force maintainer will only know enough to swap large parts out and can't troubleshoot minor problems. If a engine has problem with a fuel pump, the Russians would simply remove the entire engine and send it back to the factory and install a new one, while a Western technician would just replace the fuel pump.

As such, Russian engines are not designed for longevity because they get swapped out for the smallest of things.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11086 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 18):
"guesstimates", looking at pretty pictures and a "if doesn't look like an F-22, it musn't be stealth" fanboy logic.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you can see the fan module straight on, like you can in the pakfa, you'll bounce radar waves back to the Raptor like a golf ball on concrete. That and those two massive afterburner and VEN sections sticking out the back don't help either. I guess their own concoction of "stealth paint" must be some special stuff if they truly consider the thing 5th gen.


User currently onlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7417 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11009 times:

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 19):
its that the Russian don't design engines with long life in the mix.

Rather like the V-22 Osprey engines which last only a few hours before needing a complete rebuild, it's not only the Russians who have engine longevity issues.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10996 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
you'll bounce radar waves back to the Raptor

If he Raptor or F-35 turn on their radars to begin with, they'll be targeted before they can see anything. In the future, battles in the air will have to do without radar when close to the enemy. Stealth mostly is important if you are the aggressor. If you are the defender, it makes little difference and there is little value in stealth for them.

Defenders would be fortunate if Stealth attackers turn on their radars.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10974 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
If he Raptor or F-35 turn on their radars to begin with, they'll be targeted before they can see anything.

F-35 and F-22 use LPI radar systems.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
Stealth mostly is important if you are the aggressor. If you are the defender, it makes little difference and there is little value in stealth for them.

The first rule of all air combat is to see the opponent first. Like the hunter who stalks his prey and maneuvers himself unnoticed into the most favourable position for the kill, the fighter in the opening of a dogfight must detect the opponent as early as possible in order to attain a superior position for the attack.

Stealth helps the defender as it makes it more difficult for opponents to track your assets and engage you at their own terms. Adolf Galland once said that having the initiative in aerial combat (being able to decide when to engage, under what conditions, and how) is one of the most important aspects of aerial combat. By reducing the ability of your opponent to detect you first, you remove from him the ability to set the terms of a battle, thus robbing him of the initiative.

Coupled with improve situational awareness (both the F-22 and the F-35 have in spades), it means that a pilot with both stealth and improved situational awareness can better dictate the engagement terms, throwing the opponent into a defensive posture where they are reacting to your movements and actions, and thus cannot act against you. Remember, the majority of kills in aerial combat over the past century have been against pilots who never saw their opponent in the first place. We should not be thinking aerial combat as an all out bar brawl, but more of assassination.


25 KiwiRob : Considering the majority of ariel combat last centuary took place in WW1 & WW2 you statement doesn't ring true.
26 sweair : And jet fighters could be compared to slow piston engined fighters with machine guns? The big difference is missiles, before the missile you would on
27 moo : I'd struggle to agree with that... Some other wars which saw major aerial combat outside of WW2 are: Korean War, 1950 - 1953 Vietnam War, 1965 - 1975
28 sovietjet : While Russian jet engines in general do have shorter service lives, it is not because of these reasons: Not true at all. Soldiers serve for 2 years, y
29 Oroka : If you have stealth and are unseen, you will always be the aggressor. If the other party doesnt know you are there... you are the aggressor because y
30 KiwiRob : Those wars were all tiny in comparison to WW1 & WW2.
31 Oroka : By tiny you mean less globally devastating?
32 tommytoyz : Just has the space shuttle fly around my home BTW, before landing at LAX...... Back to F-35. One of the main arguments against this massive program is
33 sweair : What iteration of the F35 do you think is the least useful? IMO the F35A is the worst idea, I would rather pay for more F22s for the Air Force and let
34 Powerslide : Come 2020 there will be nothing new coming out of factories besides the F35. "4th" and "4th+" gen aircraft won't be able to touch it and the pakfa wi
35 Oroka : F-35B by a long shot. It is for the USMC, which is pretty much a redundant branch of the US military, in a role that can be handled by existing aircr
36 Flighty : If you want to make billions, you need to go to the infinite generator and distributor of dollars. You need to go to Washington. Programs like VH-71,
37 ThePointblank : I will ask that you examine the kill records of the successful aces during those wars. Most of the aces will tell you that the vast majority of their
38 Post contains images BMI727 : Would it be nice for the Marines to have a plane to operate from assault ships? Sure, but the benefits don't outweigh the costs. And the F-35 can do
39 Post contains links Acheron : Because "S-ducts" is the only way to hide the compressor face from radar waves, right?. Which is funny considering how much you like to drag the Supe
40 tommytoyz : Who says you need a new airframe to neutralize the F-35?
41 KiwiRob : You have absolutely no way of proving this comment.
42 Powerslide : Nor do you have a way to disprove it.
43 KiwiRob : But I'm not passing it off as a proven fact which is your intention.
44 Powerslide : I am? There have been little facts posted WRT F35 discussion on this forum in particular. I really doubt anyone has a clue what really goes on inside
45 Oroka : Kinda a head in the sand way to look at it, but it is probably true. We (aviation enthusiasts) have no where near all the facts about pretty much any
46 Oroka : It would be nice to give some to the USCG, on their (would be nice to have) LHD carriers outfitted for search and rescue and disaster relief duties.
47 nasula : You do know what they say about assumptions? Especially about the future and products that you really have very little hard data on? As an example, T
48 Post contains links and images Powerslide : Oh my god, why must we cover everything over and over again. Typhoons Best Raptors? (by connies4ever Sep 5 2012 in Military Aviation & Space Flig
49 nasula : Heh. The details of that encounter are not fully known, but the most likely reasons for the result are yes. But you clearly missed the whole point. I
50 connies4ever : If you care to read the article in AIR International regarding Red Flag, almost certainly the Raptors/Typhoons were in a turning fight where the Typh
51 nasula : I read the article a few weeks ago from the magazine. A very interesting article that was. And yes, the gist I got from the article is as you stated.
52 connies4ever : Oh no, I got that. There is no reason to think that the J-20 might well turn out better than the Raptor. But it still must be borne in mind that the
53 wvsuperhornet : While I don't disagree with you, the US does have a 20 year advantage in stealth aircraft and that will be hard to make up but with most technologies
54 wvsuperhornet : The F-22 was designed as an interceptor when they started wanting a do all plane is when the costs shot up. The F-22 is not a viable bomber they shou
55 gigneil : I'm just curious why we even need new generation aircraft. American and British pilots could shoot down anything you wanted from the flight deck of a
56 ThePointblank : Well, we thought the same during the early 1990's after the fall of the Iron Curtain, but the Persian Gulf and Yugoslav Wars happened.[Edited 2012-10
57 Powerslide : Why advance technologically as a species all together? Lets just call it good.
58 BMI727 : The capabilities of potential opponents are only going one direction. We need to make sure we're heading the same direction at least as quickly. The
59 Revelation : Indeed, but there's a point where we hit "good enough" and stop putting in super-linear amounts of resources so we can see linear or less gains. Note
60 KiwiRob : Please explain, how can it be less super?
61 nasula : The internal combustion engine is not good enough. It's not all that efficient in translating fuel into motion at about 30% efficiency, which is evid
62 Revelation : It can be less super by saying it can increase operating tempo whilst having one less elevator and one less hangar deck. It's good enough in the sens
63 nasula : I might of misunderstood your sentence 180 degrees so don't shoot me here.... I feel that there are plenty of low hanging fruit in the ICE. Currently
64 KiwiRob : Aircraft carried is the same, Fords elevators can carry 2 aircraft, Nimitz only a single, due to the rearranged flightdeck and no restriction on cata
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic “the Worst I’ve Ever Seen.” - Air Force General
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Did The Royal Air Force Ever Operate The Neptune? posted Thu Mar 22 2007 20:22:58 by SkidMarque
Air Force One And The E4B posted Fri May 4 2012 21:31:42 by Max Q
Inside Air Force One - The Independence (Video) posted Tue Nov 8 2011 14:21:55 by rohanghosh
CASA, Chilean Air Force, Gone Down In The Pacific posted Fri Sep 2 2011 23:16:30 by AR385
Air Force Two In HLN Over The Weekend posted Wed Jul 6 2011 07:52:53 by HLNspotter
F-15 Exports / German Air Force In The Cold War posted Sat Jun 11 2011 09:55:54 by racko
Should The U.S. Air Force Start A Cargo Airline? posted Thu Apr 7 2011 22:24:17 by kaitak744
Stunning Shots Of The Royal Air Force posted Mon Jan 10 2011 14:47:27 by skinny
Wrist Watches For The US Air Force Pilots? posted Mon Dec 20 2010 21:37:02 by wardialer
What's The Deal With Beale Air Force Base? posted Sat Dec 11 2010 10:29:34 by 26point2

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format