Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pentagon Downgrades F-35 Specs  
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5472 posts, RR: 30
Posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 8885 times:

The F-35 hits another snag as the Pentagon reduces some previously specified capabilities of the aircraft, based on real world test performance. Sustained turn G-loads have been reduced in all three models as well as transonic acceleration rates.

As well, testing has shown significant transonic buffeting, as well as horizontal stabilator materials delamination at high speeds and altitude, forcing a reduction in the aircraft flight envelope until solutions are implemented. More issues with software, the helmet and metal fatigue are also being reported;


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...owers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/

Quote:
The US Department of Defense is lowering the performance bar for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter according to a new report by the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E).

The specifications for all three variants pertaining to transonic acceleration and sustained turn rates have been reduced. Worst hit in terms of acceleration is the US Navy's F-35C carrier-based model.

Lockheed says no, but I can't see how these issues can't affect the timetable for delivery or the price, since they can't say what the fixes are, much less when they'll be done.

Does this mean more delays?


What the...?
85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 688 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 8795 times:

Performances decreases and price increase. Logical...  



[Edited 2013-01-15 06:15:26]

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 8780 times:

This is great news !!   

Another reason to seriously look at other aircraft that are somewhat more relevant to Canada's actual needs. One thing the F-35 cheerleaders keep avoiding is the real basis for the aircraft: offensive, deep-strike attacks against some presumed 'enemy' - whatever that means in today's world. LockMart have consistently touted it as an interceptor and a fighter. History has shown, however, that scabbing on additional tasks to a given airframe usually results in 2nd rate performance in those, and possibly degraded performance in the originally intended role. Weight growth being an important component.

Every reason to believe that this thing may become the most expensive turkey in history. But, from a political standpoint (and all large military programs live or die on political support, not military performance) it's too late to stop now. It will get deployed. And fixed. And fixed again. Give LockMart enough corporate welfare I am quite sure they'll tell you they can fix anything.

This makes my day ...



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 8744 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
Does this mean more delays?

It means that the flight test program is doing what it is supposed to be doing... finding flaws that need to be fixed before it hits service.


I would think downgrading the the flight envelope until things are fixed is a solution to keep the program on time for now.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 8696 times:

Oh god the world is ending..

Quote:
"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35C, reducing turn performance from 5.1 to 5.0 sustained g's and increasing the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least 43 seconds," reads the report prepared by J Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's DOT&E. "These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations." Sustained turning performance for the F-35B is being reduced from 5G to 4.5G while the F-35A sinks from 5.3G to 4.6G according to the report.

 

Glad the testing phase is working how it should.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 8620 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 4):
Glad the testing phase is working how it should.

Pity about the design and development phases, the costing phases and everything else Lockheed has done thus far...


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 8561 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 5):
Pity about the design and development phases, the costing phases and everything else Lockheed has done thus far...

We should stop developing new technologies when they become too expensive and complex. Lets all live in caves and move around in horse carriages. Simple, cheap and safe.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 8545 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 6):
We should stop developing new technologies when they become too expensive and complex. Lets all live in caves and move around in horse carriages. Simple, cheap and safe.

Meh, the "lets take this to the extreme" response...

How about we talk about a sensible compromise and hold companies to budgets and timescales? Stop thinking "lets develop the technology while we go, it will all work out in the end"?

Do we really need to be discovering issues like these 12 years in?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3559 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 8465 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Am I reading this correct.. block 1 software is only 80% complete, and they've mushed on with two supposedly more advanced versions without resolving the problems of the first?

then there is another structural cracking problem.. I think it's time for a manufacturing break until they finish designing and testing the planes already out there.

singed elevators? didn't we have singed flaps as well.. or are they testing material flammability? If it's the stealth coating burning off, there goes any surprise.

If the trend continues we'll have a sub sonic plane limited to 1.5 G turns and requiring a P-8 to guide it to it's target.   


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 8367 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
Do we really need to be discovering issues like these 12 years in?
Quoting kanban (Reply 8):
If the trend continues we'll have a sub sonic plane limited to 1.5 G turns and requiring a P-8 to guide it to it's target.

   I applaud you both, gentlemen. Spot on. Meeting the spec/timeframe has never been LockMart's intention here. It's about screwing taxpayers all over the world for as many    as possible.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 8354 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
It's about screwing taxpayers all over the world for as many    as possible.

This thread just got better. I'll go get my tinfoil hat.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 8229 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 10):
This thread just got better. I'll go get my tinfoil hat.

        

In the real world contractors normally pay penalties when they can't meet spec or sked.
They don't get rewarded with more cash.
I don't see why LockMart shouldn't be held to the same standard here.

And to think in 1984 I was poised to take a job in Sunnyvale, California, with ..... Lockheed.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 8217 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 10):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
It's about screwing taxpayers all over the world for as many    as possible.

This thread just got better.

How come countries keep feeding money to this program? It must be obvious that the Raptor and other LM programs have NEVER produced an advanced aircraft or delivered the bang for the "Buck" that the customer ordered???

" I'll go get my tinfoil hat."

Me Too, Only, mine is a modified Titanium Alloy / Element Zero model... On a side note? Expect new F35 orders soon...  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4524 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 8184 times:

What a joke this thing is.


Time to kill the program.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8144 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 11):
In the real world contractors normally pay penalties when they can't meet spec or sked.
They don't get rewarded with more cash.
I don't see why LockMart shouldn't be held to the same standard here.

And to think in 1984 I was poised to take a job in Sunnyvale, California, with ..... Lockheed.

You mean like McDD when the F-15 failed to hit the original target speed of Mach 2 armed? Wait, that never happened, the Pentagon just revised the specs.

Or when Boeing failed to hit a weight specification of 30,000 pounds empty weight on the F/A-18E/F, or when severe wing-drop problems occured that defied resolution, despite the use of every aerodynamic analytical tool available? Not to mention the Super Hornet did not meet a sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and acceleration specification. They just revised the specs on that by declaring that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters for the Super Hornet.

The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter. But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.

Having said that, similarly configured F-35As, Bs and Cs have significantly better transonic acceleration than does the Super Hornet - even with the changes.

My entire point was that the previous generation fighters has been successful despite its much-discussed warts. There is no reason to believe the F-35 will not also be successful. Pure aerodynamic performance is always nice to have, but it isn't be any means the sole determinant of fighter effectiveness.

Quoting kanban (Reply 8):
then there is another structural cracking problem.. I think it's time for a manufacturing break until they finish designing and testing the planes already out there.

singed elevators? didn't we have singed flaps as well.. or are they testing material flammability? If it's the stealth coating burning off, there goes any surprise.

So what? We have initial production Super Hornets that were life-limited at ~1,500 hours initially, until they received structural mods that gave them the full 6,000 hour service life.

An interesting 'study' is to go back through each of the Annual Reports and read the report sections on Super Hornet. Almost like public service announcements from CHINFO or Boeing compared to our most recent 18-page tome on F-35. Also on SH, they broke out the AESA development from the air vehicle, report-wise, and took a long time to get around saying how bad APG-79 was after having said how good it was before they actually tested it. (Failed OT miserably and has taken years to fix it).


User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 347 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8120 times:

Ok I have it now. LockMart is bad, but the "other" guys are as bad if not worse.....

I say once LockMart gets the C-5M figured out, they can press on with the fancy pointy airplanes.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8097 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
You mean like McDD when the F-15 failed to hit the original target speed of Mach 2 armed? Wait, that never happened, the Pentagon just revised the specs.

Or when Boeing failed to hit a weight specification of 30,000 pounds empty weight on the F/A-18E/F, or when severe wing-drop problems occured that defied resolution, despite the use of every aerodynamic analytical tool available? Not to mention the Super Hornet did not meet a sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and acceleration specification. They just revised the specs on that by declaring that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters for the Super Hornet.

And they should have penalised at that point. Moving the goalposts when you find out your product can't do what you publicly said it would do is just lying by another name. I will say in Boeing's defense that, w.r.t. the 787 delays, they did go way out of their way to offer compensation to the customers. In that, at least, they were honourable. And they used their own $$ to do this, they didn't put a hand out to JAL, ANA, AC, etc., and say "We need more $$". But that's exactly what happens with defense programs.

Quoting JohnM (Reply 15):
I say once LockMart gets the C-5M figured out, they can press on with the fancy pointy airplanes.

Aye to that. How many in service now ? Three, maybe ?



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3559 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 8067 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
My entire point

we read your point thread after thread and it appears to be -- because other programs had problems that entailed huge expenses to correct, after 12 years of development, we should accept a shoddy product from an incompetent manufacturer and gladly pay double the procurement price to extensively modify and correct the deficiencies to meet substantially downward readjusted criteria. Your point has been not to accept this plane is in trouble, but to spend pages rehashing faults of previous planes as justification for incompetent design and manufacturing.

Yes maybe after 16 major mods and 500 prototypes the plane might meet some standards.. but read the article.. things are not improving.. they're stagnant!!!


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
singed elevators? didn't we have singed flaps as well.. or are they testing material flammability? If it's the stealth coating burning off, there goes any surprise.

So what?

So What? Tell me that all fighters are designed to light their tail feathers on fire.... Had LM not figured out the exhaust pattern before sticking stuff into it?

Also please remember the Super Hornet was designed not by Boeing but by MD...


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6661 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 8021 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 6):
We should stop developing new technologies when they become too expensive and complex. Lets all live in caves and move around in horse carriages. Simple, cheap and safe.

Well actually most wars nowadays are against opponents that do live in caves and move on horses, dromedaries, the occasional pick up truck or city bus...



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7994 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 18):
Well actually most wars nowadays are against opponents that do live in caves and move on horses, dromedaries, the occasional pick up truck or city bus...

You are right lets risk the lives of western troops, whose lives are more valuable, just to save a buck. The western world doesn't tolerate casualties. I know there are people out there who like to cut every possible corner, thankfully those people don't have any say in actual operations.

Quoting kanban (Reply 17):
Also please remember the Super Hornet was designed not by Boeing but by MD...

We all know how Boeing failed miserably vs. LM in the 5th gen JSF competition. To think that the whale would've done better is a joke at best.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3559 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7989 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
We all know how Boeing failed miserably vs. LM in the 5th gen JSF competition.

that is probably one of the few things we might agree on...however had they won there would have been fewer problems in meeting specs. Thanks for the diversion, but that is not the issue now.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7407 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7971 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
whose lives are more valuable

More valuable than whose?


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7952 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
You are right lets risk the lives of western troops, whose lives are more valuable, just to save a buck

To date, 3256 US, UK and international troops have been killed by enemy action in Afghanistan.

How many of those were crewing aircraft that were shot down by enemy action? 8. All helicopters.

I don't see tens of billions of dollars on the F-35 is going to change that situation much.


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 7928 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
Do we really need to be discovering issues like these 12 years in?

Six (6) years in...not twelve.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 7919 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 16):
And they should have penalised at that point. Moving the goalposts when you find out your product can't do what you publicly said it would do is just lying by another name. I will say in Boeing's defense that, w.r.t. the 787 delays, they did go way out of their way to offer compensation to the customers. In that, at least, they were honourable. And they used their own $$ to do this, they didn't put a hand out to JAL, ANA, AC, etc., and say "We need more $$". But that's exactly what happens with defense programs.

Or the goal posts weren't realistic; for example, the design spec of the F-35 for all variants would have meant that the the F-35 would have better transonic maneuverability than anything other than F-22, and be more maneuverable than any US-developed fighter available.

Guess what? The OTE report is MEANT to point out the problems during development a new system so they can go back and review the specifications and see if it can be made to work. If you demand perfection from the beginning, any future system would be stuck in development hell.

And Boeing's just as bad with development; it's just not only did Boeing miss targets, they missed targets by a mile. And I will point out that the goal posts were moved for the 787; if you compared the initially released specifications to the specifications of the current 787, the current 787 would be grossly overweight.

Also, initial prices of the 787-8 was set at $120 million back in 2004; by 2007, it ballooned to $157 million, and today's list price of a 787-8 is $206.8 million.

[Edited 2013-01-16 02:00:49]

User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week ago) and read 8125 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 23):
Six (6) years in...not twelve.

Where do you get that from?

The contract with Lockheed was signed on the 26th of October 2001. I'm not sure why you think the 5 years prior to the first flight are inconsequential...


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week ago) and read 8142 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Also, initial prices of the 787-8 was set at $120 million back in 2004; by 2007, it ballooned to $157 million, and today's list price of a 787-8 is $206.8 million.

Todays 787 list price may be $206.8Million, but almost all customers who have put down a deposit and ordered the aircraft prior to today won't be paying that - Boeing gets an escalator calculation for inflation and adjustments, but not basic cost rises. In other words, Boeing gets to eat the extra.

Lockheed gets to adjust the basic price of the airframe for all customers.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8121 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Or the goal posts weren't realistic; for example, the design spec of the F-35 for all variants would have meant that the the F-35 would have better transonic maneuverability than anything other than F-22, and be more maneuverable than any US-developed fighter available.

Doesn't matter. LM agreed to these goalposts at contract signing, therefore they are locked in. Contracts can be renegogiated, but that has to be voluntary for both parties.


Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Also, initial prices of the 787-8 was set at $120 million back in 2004; by 2007, it ballooned to $157 million, and today's list price of a 787-8 is $206.8 million.

Almost all, if not all, commercial aircraft contracts have cost escalator clauses to account for inflation. Furthermore, most airlines, particularly those making large-ish ordrs, never pay list. AC, for example, paid about 30% of list for their E-jets. It was a no-brainer although the CRJ-900s have better CASM. But Embraer were willing to take some short term pain for entry into North America with a major carrier.

Apparently military contractors (and certain procurement officials) are comfortable with continuing the fiction that 'list' prices as indicated at contract signing are what is actually going to be paid. Which it is not.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8053 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 21):
More valuable than whose?

Enemy, Taliban, whomever we are fighting.

Quoting moo (Reply 22):
I don't see tens of billions of dollars on the F-35 is going to change that situation much.

That is the point. Having the best equipment allows pilots to stay out of harms way.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8543 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7971 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 6):
We should stop developing new technologies when they become too expensive and complex.

Yes, we should. Otherwise we will lose our security.

The Pentagon's #1 security worry is not military defeat of the USA. The USSR did not suffer a total military defeat. Their military was good. But it was financially unsustainable. Financial security is the Pentagon's #1 worry. Because it is their greatest weakness in terms of performance vs. enemies.

Ironically, the guys in Afghanistan who don't wear shoes perceived this weakness, and as a result, their strategy was to lie low until the USA financially exhausts itself. 10 years is nothing to them. Just wait for the Americans to overspend, and then resume.
Well, this is just one of my tangents. Cheers from the depths of the internet.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7407 posts, RR: 5
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7975 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 28):

Enemy, Taliban, whomever we are fighting.

What an arrogant comment.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3559 posts, RR: 26
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7949 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
And I will point out that the goal posts were moved for the 787

Nice try at deflection.. this thread is not about Commercial programs.. it's about Military Programs .. The two are separate and distinct companies within Boeing. Now how about staying on subject without pedantic rants or the mods will close this thread down as well.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7938 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 30):
What an arrogant comment.

I don't give those guys any justification for being human beings.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7407 posts, RR: 5
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7884 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 32):
I don't give those guys any justification for being human beings.

They are just as human as you and I, just because you don't share their beliefs doesn't make them any less human or there lives worth any less than yours.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2409 posts, RR: 13
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7831 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 32):

They also fight for something. Therefore, have some respect.

Just because their goals differ does not make them less human.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7376 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
Lockheed says no, but I can't see how these issues can't affect the timetable for delivery or the price, since they can't say what the fixes are, much less when they'll be done.

Does this mean more delays?

I think it just means the problems will be pencil-whipped.

As in Watergate, follow the money.

It gets delayed when the money gets delayed.

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
How about we talk about a sensible compromise and hold companies to budgets and timescales?
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 16):
I will say in Boeing's defense that, w.r.t. the 787 delays, they did go way out of their way to offer compensation to the customers.

Interestingly enough, Boeing's defense side did pay serious penalties to Australia for Wedgetail, yet somehow we as US taxpayers don't get the same treatment.

BTW please don't tell me the Wedgetail was low tech yada yada, it's antenna electronics and aerodynamics are state of the art, and the amount of system integration involved in the entire product is also state of the art.

Bottom line: we as US taxpayers are getting screwed.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 34):
They also fight for something. Therefore, have some respect.

They fight for some extremely misguided things, especially with respect to their treatment of females.

Nazi solders also fought for something too, part of which was the idea that Jews were the source of all their problems.

So to me there needs to be a basic acknowledgement of humanity, but respect is a step beyond that.

Of course if we held others in respect and that respect was mutual, there would be a way to work problems out using non-military means.

Going to war with someone is the ultimate form of disrespect.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7360 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 35):
They fight for some extremely misguided things, especially with respect to their treatment of females.

Being Devil's advocate to some degree here, but wouldn't the Talibs make the same statement about the west ? Seems to me their world view w.r.t. women is that they should be kept ignorant, subservient, and largely at home. That historically was the fact in what we call the west for quite a long time.

However, risking thread drift here.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7275 times:

ThePointblank:

What you fail to appreciate in the design problems of all the other aircraft you mentioned is:

They were all far better than anything in service, even with the downgrades.

That is not the case for the F35. It offer less of everything, as now promised, except low observability. And now, it will be even less capable. The problems with the F35 are not marginal. 4,000lbs of bombs per míssion for the F35? That is not an improvement over existing fighters, like the F15 was far superior at the time over what was flying at the time.

And the Super Hornet carries more and goes farther for little extra money than the regular Hornet, even with the downgrades. Those were marginal issues. But the F35 issues, when taken in totality, not one by one in isolation, are not marginal. It becomes clear it is a turkey and getting more expensive and more delayed by the day it seems. I was downgraded years ago from stealthy to low observable.

And it's not advanced technology that is the main problem, it's poor management most and foremost. Underestimating the amount of time (by years) the software would take to write and test is just the beginning, much less everything else. It should have been easy math to calculate this like, well we need about x million lines of code, which takes x programers x amount of time to write, and then more time to patch the bugs and fix errors, and viola, we have a realistic timeline and cost factor. But noooo. And it seems this bungling has gone on in many departments, including testing and design.

Or we can just assume LM was lying and Department of Defense folk are too incompetent know it and too incompetent to oversee such large industrial project. After all, the generals are war fighters, not MBA grads with specialties in finance, production and development.

And just because a lot of money has been spent, does not mean anything. You can spend a fortune digging a hole in the ground.

[Edited 2013-01-18 09:01:10]

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7267 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
After all, the generals are war fighters, not MBA grads with specialties in finance, production and development.

In fairness, a lot of Pentagon staff (not necessarily flag officers) ARE MBA grads. Crap, I've been a scientist/engineer for the most part of my career, but I also took the time to get a MA in business administration. Hard work, but I did it.

[Edited 2013-01-18 09:15:06]


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7250 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
That is not the case for the F35. It offer less of everything, as now promised, except low observability. And now, it will be even less capable.

Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7229 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 39):
Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

Why do you keep doing it then?

Back on topic - is the F-35 really worth the $100Billion+ that's being pumped into it? IMHO, no, not for what it's becoming.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3559 posts, RR: 26
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

the last thread was closed because two people not only couldn't let an issue rest after stating their views, but continued to flamebait with pages of rehashed and irrelevant arguments.

We accept those two will never agree and hope they will as well, so let's try not to provoke another thread closure.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7132 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 40):
Back on topic - is the F-35 really worth the $100Billion+ that's being pumped into it? IMHO, no, not for what it's becoming.

Lets kill it now and start over. Then once they figure everything out they'll end up spending another 100billion. Great idea....


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7045 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
That is not the case for the F35. It offer less of everything, as now promised, except low observability. And now, it will be even less capable. The problems with the F35 are not marginal. 4,000lbs of bombs per míssion for the F35? That is not an improvement over existing fighters, like the F15 was far superior at the time over what was flying at the time.

Actually, F-35 will carry 15,000lb of ordinance armed wall to wall with external ordinance in a similar configuration to existing fighters. If LO is needed, only 4,000lb can be carried. Big difference, as you are comparing apples to oranges. Use the same metric; on a similar mission A can do X, while B can do Y, both under circumstances 1, 2, and 3. Then you will have a realistic comparison, otherwise, any other attempt at comparing specs is utterly and totally useless without the proper context.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
And the Super Hornet carries more and goes farther for little extra money than the regular Hornet, even with the downgrades. Those were marginal issues. But the F35 issues, when taken in totality, not one by one in isolation, are not marginal. It becomes clear it is a turkey and getting more expensive and more delayed by the day it seems. I was downgraded years ago from stealthy to low observable.

However, the Super Hornet I will point out, never met it's design specs, and in many other metrics, the Super Hornet was an inferior aircraft to the original Hornet, such as acceleration, and maneuverability.


Back to topic on the report:

Quoting kanban (Reply 8):
then there is another structural cracking problem.. I think it's time for a manufacturing break until they finish designing and testing the planes already out there.

The issue with cracking with the bulkhead flange on the underside of the fuselage during a 7,000-hour inspection, is well on its way to being fixed. Lockheed has found and implemented a solution with a minor single digit weight impact and expects to resume tests shortly. The F-35B has had virtually no weight growth for the past 30 months; in fact, the weight margin on that variant has increased by better than 100lbs to more than 400lbs, up from about 300lbs. Assuming that if everything works out as hoped, that margin should continue to increase if there is no further weight growth.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
horizontal stabilator materials delamination at high speeds and altitude, forcing a reduction in the aircraft flight envelope until solutions are implemented

Per Lockheed Martin, the fix is being tested. Flight testing and analysis are complete on the F-35A and new coatings are already being implemented on that model, which should solve the problem. The same testing is underway on the B and C models. But those modifications will not be retrofitted to the existing training aircraft until they go into their regular scheduled maintenance cycles.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
testing has shown significant transonic buffeting

The problem, which manifests itself in the form of uncommanded rolls, occurs at high subsonic speeds at high angles of attack-basically when the aircraft is turning at high altitudes. On the F-35A and F-35B, the company has reduced that flight characteristic to "acceptable levels" by adjusting the flight control schedule software. Lockheed is working on implementing similar fixes on the F-35C, but there is a possibility that wing spoilers that were built into that model as a contingency might be needed. And it is not the first time transonic buffeting is a concern; the F-14 had significant issues with it during its testing. In the case of the F-14, they just ignored the problem altogether.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6748 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 42):

Do we need to start over? Do we need to do anything for another decade?

The F-22 and the F-35 were born in the cold war, thre hasn't been a point in the past 20 years that they have been needed - we suppressed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Kosovo and a lot of other places without them. Israel has fought numerous conflicts without them.

If you look at the need, the need no longer supports the F-35.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6702 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 36):
Being Devil's advocate to some degree here, but wouldn't the Talibs make the same statement about the west ? Seems to me their world view w.r.t. women is that they should be kept ignorant, subservient, and largely at home. That historically was the fact in what we call the west for quite a long time.

So was slavery, etc. The point was about respecting combatants, but for me it's hard to respect those who think someone should be denied an education and forced into certain roles just because of their anatomy.

Quoting moo (Reply 44):
If you look at the need, the need no longer supports the F-35.

LM needs its profit. F-35 clearly shows that to be the paramount interest.

The defense industry has an inertia all its own. We're replacing tankers with decades of airframe life in them. We're already hearing calls for a new manned bomber just because it's on someone's power-point slides somewhere, and because the defense industry needs another project to pile the pork onto. We built a fleet of B1s after Carter said we did not need them yet Reagan did, and many sit unused because the spare parts budget gets raided to fund the new toys.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6699 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 45):
So was slavery, etc. The point was about respecting combatants, but for me it's hard to respect those who think someone should be denied an education and forced into certain roles just because of their anatomy.

Out of interest, and read nothing into this, but what is your opinion of the opposing sides of the American War of Independence and American Civil Wars, some persons of which denied not only an education and not only forced roles upon certain persons because of their anatomy, but a whole lot more because of a whole lot less of a difference...?

Only this morning I was reading about the Mormon decree of extermination...

There's a lot in US history that is forgotten about.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6585 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 43):
The problem, which manifests itself in the form of uncommanded rolls, occurs at high subsonic speeds at high angles of attack-basically when the aircraft is turning at high altitudes.

Mach dependent, high speed critical Angle of Attack can occur at any altitude.

I think perhaps the real problem is that the F35, being a low observable design, can't just have vortexes or flying surfaces added to fix these issues found in testing without affecting radar cross section. I assume, this is one reason, why the aerodynamic and structural issues are much harder to resolve than if the designers did not have to worry about that. And perhaps why it has been taking so long to fix these issues.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6382 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 20):
however had they won there would have been fewer problems in meeting specs.

Don't know anything about meeting specs, but I'm pretty sure the wings, although not pretty, would have been awesome structurally.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
And Boeing's just as bad with development; it's just not only did Boeing miss targets, they missed targets by a mile.

Don't know about missing target, but the technology Boeing put on the table was all proven - including vertical lift using the AV-8 principle. Structural manufacturing technology from the F-22 and B1. The Boeing bird was not as sexy and did not have the higher performance. But the technology was more or less proven.

Many of the people who were on the JSF proposal came over to P-8. If the performance of the P-8 program is any indicator, the performance of the JSF would probably be not as bad either. Also note that many of the folks on the JSF proposal went to help solve the 787 wing root issue.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 35):

Interestingly enough, Boeing's defense side did pay serious penalties to Australia for Wedgetail

Wedgetail was sold as a pure commercial buy with all the safeguard for the Australian government. Boeing took all the risk. Of course now the US government can buy some now and not have to suffer the development stages. Cost however will be much higher than what the Australian or even the Korean paid . . . unless of course if you buy in bulk.  

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6248 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 48):
Don't know about missing target, but the technology Boeing put on the table was all proven - including vertical lift using the AV-8 principle. Structural manufacturing technology from the F-22 and B1. The Boeing bird was not as sexy and did not have the higher performance. But the technology was more or less proven.

Except for the fact that when it came to the demonstration of VTOL flight, the Boeing X-32 could not demonstrate vertical flight in a satisfactory format or demonstrate that the design has sufficient growth potential, not to mention that Boeing proposal required substantial redesign.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 48):
Many of the people who were on the JSF proposal came over to P-8. If the performance of the P-8 program is any indicator, the performance of the JSF would probably be not as bad either. Also note that many of the folks on the JSF proposal went to help solve the 787 wing root issue.

The P-8 is essentially a COTS aircraft fitted with existing hardware (a Boeing 737 combined with the sensors and systems from later blocks of the P-3 Orion). Essentially, there was no major development required for the P-8, only system integration.


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1050 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6178 times:

Well F-18 Super Hronet, with all it problems, at least stayed reasonably within time and budget. P-8 does look okay as well.

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6163 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 50):
Well F-18 Super Hronet, with all it problems, at least stayed reasonably within time and budget. P-8 does look okay as well.

There is a reason for that; both programs were low cost, low risk derivatives of existing platforms. There was a report that showed the learning curve between a number of fighter jet programs, and it was pointed out that since the Super Hornet re-used or used derivatives of existing hardware, the learning and development curve for that platform was fairly flat compared to something like F-22.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 6125 times:

Sustained turning performance for the F-35B is being reduced from 5G to 4.5G while the F-35A sinks from 5.3G to 4.6G according to the report.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...owers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/

I wonder what a typical airliner can do in this regard. I suspect an airliner should be able to sustain at least 2Gs. Does anyone know?

Limited to 4.6Gs, the F-35A (USAF) is not going to outmaneuver anyone. For comparison, the F-16 can sustain 9Gs If I am not mistaken.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 20 hours ago) and read 6094 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
the Boeing X-32 could not demonstrate vertical flight in a satisfactory format or demonstrate that the design has sufficient growth potential,

Yep, growth potential was part of it's down fall. Also, the hot wing tip jets , , ,

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
Essentially, there was no major development required for the P-8, only system integration.

Ah, but it was system integration that waylaid the Wedgetail program.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
not to mention that Boeing proposal required substantial redesign.

The re-design would have been primarily form factor of the airframe that would have improved LO, aerodynamics, structural integrity and producibility. All of which they know how to do.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 19 hours ago) and read 6074 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
not to mention that Boeing proposal required substantial redesign.

Considering neither the F-35 nor the F-22 share *any* commonality at all with their demonstrators, I'm not entirely sure thats a valid point.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 6036 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 54):
Considering neither the F-35 nor the F-22 share *any* commonality at all with their demonstrators, I'm not entirely sure thats a valid point.

This is particular true when you look at the inner structure of the tech demonstrators. Because they are only tech demonstrators, much of the internal spars and frames are often made from materials and processes that are easy to do and only have to meet the load and life requirement of a demonstrator program.

Much of the structure are often re-designed when a full up production aircraft are built . . . if not with different materials and processes, at least with different gauges to meet the full life time requirement of a production aircraft.

For example: A demonstrator aircraft may have aluminum frames, where as a full production aircraft may have composite or titanium frames.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3559 posts, RR: 26
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 5970 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I hope no one is implying that there is no difference between the F-35 and the prototype used to win the competition... since we know there were many differences, this whole line of discussion is merely a deflection from the real issues at hand.

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 57, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5448 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ificant-operational-impact-381683/

Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."

Most egregious is the F-35C-model's drastically reduced transonic acceleration capabilities. "That [43 seconds] is a massive amount of time, and assuming you are in afterburner for acceleration, it's going to cost you even more gas," the pilot says. "This will directly impact tactical execution, and not in a good way."


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5421 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 57):
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ificant-operational-impact-381683/

Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."

Two problems:

1. There is no single "sustained turn rate" or sustained g for an airplane. Every speed, altitude, gross weight, power setting, and store load has a different sustained g level. Until the specific conditions are listed, there is no way to compare sustained g levels.

2. That's not an apples to apples comparison. The sustained turn rates, that they're referring to, are at different speeds/conditions, than the Max G sustained turn rate would be at. That's not to say that these issues aren't worthy of note, but they need proper context.

FYI, the comparison is made for a like configuration of a F-16 armed with 2 AIM-120's and 4 Mk-84 JDAM's, 2 x external 370 gallon fuel tanks, 150 rounds of cannon ammo, enough fuel for 540nm, at 15,000ft and speed of Mach 0.0. Something tells me a F-16 loaded like that won't maneuver all that well...


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2409 posts, RR: 13
Reply 59, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5402 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 58):
150 rounds of cannon ammo

Only 150? How good is the hit rate?  Wow!


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4524 posts, RR: 18
Reply 60, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5400 times:

Need to stop making excuses for this thing and ditch it.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5309 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 59):
Only 150? How good is the hit rate?

LOL . . . good enough to shoot and scoot . . .   

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 62, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5264 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 58):
. That's not an apples to apples comparison. The sustained turn rates, that they're referring to, are at different speeds/conditions, than the Max G sustained turn rate would be at.

Even empty, the F-35 has a max sustained G limitation of under 5G. Loaded like you describe, I would assume even less. With these structural limitations, it is clear that this is a big step backward, no matter which apples to apples loads you compare. The F-35 just can't turn tightly, even empty. And it can't accelerate well either, even using gobs of afterburner.

In the future, IR sensors and IR aircraft signatures will be very important, just as radar and radar stealth were 10 years ago. If an enemy fighter can see the F-35 IR signature from 60 miles away without using any radar and shoot a long range IR and data linked A2A missile, it's limited maneuverability will make it a much easier target to hit than say an F-16. The F-35 will also go in mostly with it's radar off, for stealth reasons. So it becomes an IR detection issue, not radar - as to who is detected first.

Radar stealth does the F-35 little good when IR is the main sensor. And the slow acceleration of the F-35 only makes it's IR signature worse. At 43,000lbs of thrust, the F-35 already has the biggest, hottest engine on any USAF fighter. But it's still slow and can't turn. That's not progress and not good.

The French MICA A2A missile for instance already has a version that is IR guided but also data linked to the aircraft, so it can be guided by the aircraft's IR senors initially, until the MICA gets an IR lock on. At MACH 4. By 2020, I am sure more such missiles will be out there with better and better IR suites and sensors, including on the F-35. That's the one thing they predicted well and planned for.

I then comes down to low IR signatures and better IR sensors. The F-35, flying at 25,000 feet at subsonic speeds with that huge power plant, is going to be visible from a long ways away through it's IR heavy signature, IMHO. Once it's been detected by enemy fighters or AA batteries this way, it's survival chances are less than today's fighters, because:

1. It can't maneuver
2. It has a huge IR signature
3. It can't outrun anything
4. It's weapons load is very limited in an attempt to remain radar stealthy

In my view, the F-35 is a unilateral disarmament program, where money disappears and military capability is reduced. The only viable alternative is to sustain Gen 4.5 aircraft with incremental improvements as the F-16 and F-15 upgrade programs are doing - until the drones are more capable. And that's happening even faster than F-35 development, with the X-47B UCAV scheduled to land a trap on a carrier before even the F-35. These stealth UCAVS also have a low IR signature for various reasons. The F-22 also has a low IR signature, because it was designed from the start with that in mind, unlike the F-35.

The a gradual assimilation of the UCAVS can take place into the fleets. The money saved by cancelling the F-35 can be used to speed up this process. But even so, UCAVS are far cheaper that manned frames anyway, saving even more money.

[Edited 2013-01-31 08:51:18]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 63, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5247 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 13):
What a joke this thing is.


Time to kill the program.

        

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 19):
We all know how Boeing failed miserably vs. LM in the 5th gen JSF competition. To think that the whale would've done better is a joke at best.

No, Boeing was set up to fail the JSF Compitition by the DOD. Just four months before the JSF contract was awarded, the Navy changed its specs for the Marine and Navy versions of the jet. The X-32 could not be rebuilt in time, so it flew in its original delta wing configueration, even though by the time of the contract award Boeing had completely redisigned the X-32. The Navy did not want another chin mounted intake airplane.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 23):
Quoting moo (Reply 7):Do we really need to be discovering issues like these 12 years in?
Six (6) years in...not twelve.

Contract awarded in October 2001.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 16):And they should have penalised at that point. Moving the goalposts when you find out your product can't do what you publicly said it would do is just lying by another name. I will say in Boeing's defense that, w.r.t. the 787 delays, they did go way out of their way to offer compensation to the customers. In that, at least, they were honourable. And they used their own $$ to do this, they didn't put a hand out to JAL, ANA, AC, etc., and say "We need more $$". But that's exactly what happens with defense programs.

Or the goal posts weren't realistic; for example, the design spec of the F-35 for all variants would have meant that the the F-35 would have better transonic maneuverability than anything other than F-22, and be more maneuverable than any US-developed fighter available.

Oh don't give us that crap now. For years you have been telling us (many of us have real world experience in military aircraft operations) just how wonderful the F-35 is, when in reality it is and always has been a worhtless piece of junk. Now you say the original 'goal posts' weren't realistic? Well, which is it? The 'goal posts' are very real and achievable, the F-22 has done it, and that is a LM product, too. The F-15 reached all of its goals, then surpassed them. So did the F-14, F-16, and F/A-18.

Selling the F-35 to any country is no more than a post retirement job guarantee for retiring Flag Officers. That is why so many Generals and Admirals are on board with it.

If the F-35 (ever) gets deployed, it will face real world opposition in the form of the latest and greatest Chinese and Russian fighters who will be trained to stop it at all costs, even if they have to collide with it.

Maybe there is still time to dust off the old redisigned (2000) X-32 drawings?

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...elease/photo_release_000725_2o.htm


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5157 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 62):
Even empty, the F-35 has a max sustained G limitation of under 5G. Loaded like you describe, I would assume even less. With these structural limitations, it is clear that this is a big step backward, no matter which apples to apples loads you compare. The F-35 just can't turn tightly, even empty. And it can't accelerate well either, even using gobs of afterburner.

Incorrect. The maximum sustained G limitation structurally of the F-35A and C are 9G's. B is 7G. What is being described is the loaded limit with weapons. If a turning fight is unavoidable, the F-35 has good instantaneous turn performance and good high angle of attack (50°AOA limit) performance comparable to a F/A-18, which means a similar strategy could be adopted if one finds him or herself in such a situation.

F-16 can sustain 9g under some conditions. I will tell you, under other conditions, it can sustain less than 5g. So the numbers presented for the F-35 mean absolutely nothing without the conditions being stated.

However, with the current crop of HOBS missiles, getting into a turning fight is kind of pointless. What will be more important is information; the ability to collect, analyze, and act on information gather by sensors and other platforms in the theatre.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
The 'goal posts' are very real and achievable, the F-22 has done it, and that is a LM product, too. The F-15 reached all of its goals, then surpassed them. So did the F-14, F-16, and F/A-18.

Incorrect. F-15, F-14, F-16 and F/A-18 all failed to meet initial goals. The F-15 failed to hit a threshold maximum speed requirement while armed. The F-14 had major handling issues at higher angles of attack. The F-16 had deep stall issues at high angles of attack, and they were still making major structural changes to fix this issue right up until Block 15. The F/A-18 completely failed to meet a number of goals, was in serious trouble, and was in danger of cancellation because of the inability to hit targets right past IOC.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
No, Boeing was set up to fail the JSF Compitition by the DOD. Just four months before the JSF contract was awarded, the Navy changed its specs for the Marine and Navy versions of the jet. The X-32 could not be rebuilt in time, so it flew in its original delta wing configueration, even though by the time of the contract award Boeing had completely redisigned the X-32. The Navy did not want another chin mounted intake airplane.

Incorrect. Three factors were at play here;
1. Boeing lack of experience developing a fighter aircraft (the last fighter they developed was the P-26 Peashooter), despite the acquisition of McDD, and thus was very conservative with many elements of the design
2. Boeing discovered a major flaw with the entire delta wing design as it wasn't as maneuverable as expected, forcing a late redesign which could not be demonstrated in the competition. It hinted that the Boeing design wasn't as adaptable as the Lockheed Martin design. Furthermore, during the demonstrations, the X-32 demonstrated various software glitches which affected key systems.
3. Lockheed Martin was willing to bet the farm on the lift fan concept, which the Navy and Marine Corps saw as having more potential.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 65, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5125 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
1. Boeing lack of experience developing a fighter aircraft (the last fighter they developed was the P-26 Peashooter), despite the acquisition of McDD, and thus was very conservative with many elements of the design

This is very true with minor technicalities:

At that time "Boeing" included the former North American which built the P-51 etc . . .

Boeing have some experience with the F-22 wing design.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
the X-32 demonstrated various software glitches which affected key systems.

Software seems not be be Boeing's strong point ever since they got rid of that part of their business.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
bet the farm on the lift fan concept,

And I guess this is the crux of the decision. If the lift fan works, then the right decision is made. They just will be paying a lot more money because of that risk.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5113 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 60):
Need to stop making excuses for this thing and ditch it.

You need to stop whining with one-line statements on F35 threads. It's childish and doesn't help the discussion.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
The Navy did not want another chin mounted intake airplane.

I'm glad. I wouldn't choose that thing on aesthetics alone. It would make for an excellent FOD cleaner however.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
when in reality it is and always has been a worhtless piece of junk.

The reality is the people who run things don't think so, including the Military pilots who will be putting their life on the line. If everyone listened to people's opinions on the internet we'd still be flying around in P51's. The Super Hornet is technically a piece of junk, put together quickly based on an old design. Can you imagine the hoopla that would surround the program if the F-35 was just an improved F-15 or F-16 with the same shape? Every program was over-budget and late with its own technical programs, its only because of the internet has the F35 faced such media scrutiny. It's pieces of junk like this that will protect the freedoms and rights for western democracy for the next 50 years.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
If the F-35 (ever) gets deployed, it will face real world opposition in the form of the latest and greatest Chinese and Russian fighters

You have that backwards. If the Chinese or Russians ever figure out how to build a valid adversary to the F-35 in the next 100 years, it is THEY who will have to face highly trained and equipped pilots from western forces.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
Maybe there is still time to dust off the old redisigned (2000) X-32 drawings?

Why not bring back the F-4? Give it internal weapons bays, new engines and a stealth coating. Just for nostalgia sake.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5099 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 65):
And I guess this is the crux of the decision. If the lift fan works, then the right decision is made. They just will be paying a lot more money because of that risk.

And the lift fan DOES work; it performed better during the JSF testing than expected, and ultimately, it was a more sound approach to STOVL than the Harrier approach. Remember that during the JSF testing, the X-32 had major issues with hot gas ingestion, while with X-35, they didn't have the issue at all.

One of the biggest deciding factors in the JSF competition in many views was that Boeing never managed to make a vertical landing with the aircraft in complete configuration; Boeing was forced to shed many pieces of equipment to demonstrate STOVL flight, while Lockheed Martin was able to demonstrate STOVL flight with the aircraft in the same trim and configuration that it could go to supersonic speed in. Coupled with the requirement that the X-32 needed a major reconfiguration and redesign that was not demonstrated or tested, Boeing's approach was more riskier.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 68, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5079 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):
If the F-35 (ever) gets deployed, it will face real world opposition in the form of the latest and greatest Chinese and Russian fighters who will be trained to stop it at all costs, even if they have to collide with it.

At this rate the A-10 will be a better interceptor than the F-35. The rate at which range, payload, and manuverablity keep dropping off the F-35 means that in 10 years it will be worse than a F16 in all catagories in "operational" configuration. You know, despite being a heavier aircraft than a F15. oh wait, maybe its because they packed the wieght of a F15 into the size of a F16 is why its doing badly.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 69, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5065 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):The Navy did not want another chin mounted intake airplane.
I'm glad. I wouldn't choose that thing on aesthetics alone. It would make for an excellent FOD cleaner however.

The USN had a lot of succes with the F-8 and A-7.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):If the F-35 (ever) gets deployed, it will face real world opposition in the form of the latest and greatest Chinese and Russian fighters
You have that backwards. If the Chinese or Russians ever figure out how to build a valid adversary to the F-35 in the next 100 years, it is THEY who will have to face highly trained and equipped pilots from western forces.

Get real. The Chinese and Russian tactics are to swam the incoming package with lots of cheap fighters, knowing the will loose most of them, then when the US package is about out of missiles and cannon fire, they attack with their front line fighters.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):when in reality it is and always has been a worhtless piece of junk.
The reality is the people who run things don't think so, including the Military pilots who will be putting their life on the line. If everyone listened to people's opinions on the internet we'd still be flying around in P51's. The Super Hornet is technically a piece of junk, put together quickly based on an old design. Can you imagine the hoopla that would surround the program if the F-35 was just an improved F-15 or F-16 with the same shape? Every program was over-budget and late with its own technical programs, its only because of the internet has the F35 faced such media scrutiny. It's pieces of junk like this that will protect the freedoms and rights for western democracy for the next 50 years.

The P-51 went from first drawing to first flight in about 4 months, as did many fine aircraft of the WWII era. The designers used slide rules and T-squares, pencils and paper. The same company that built the P-51, NA also built the F-86, and MDD built many fighters, including many of the century series. The F-15 came from MDD, and all of that is now Boeing.

The RAAF is about to order more F-18Fs, are they ordering a piece of junk? BTW, they may use monies they have set aside for the F-35.

The F-35 isn't the only weapons system facing tight scrutiny, the LCS and DD-1000 are too. The F-35 can be dropped like the Commance attack helio, excaliber gun, YAL-1A, SDI, as was the MCLWG, and other systems.

I am all for weapons that will defend us for the next 50 years. ut everything has a price to pay, and with the F-35 we will pay the most ever for a fighter type airplane, for less capability, a system that is good at a lot of missions, but master of none of them. An airplane that is only good at the missions it will fly is not good enough to base our future defense on.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 70, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5051 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
Incorrect. The maximum sustained G limitation structurally of the F-35A and C are 9G's. B is 7G. What is being described is the loaded limit with weapons.

Not true. You need to read what the baseline is, not sales brochures from 1 year ago.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
the F-35 has good instantaneous turn performance and good high angle of attack (50°AOA limit) performance comparable to a F/A-18

I don't even think you know what that means. Going to a high AoA at slow speeds doesn't mean you can turn tighter with the G load limitation. Once again you proved to me you don't get AoA at all and for what it is useful. I bet you don't even know there is a high speed and a low speed critical AoA.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
F-16 can sustain 9g under some conditions. I will tell you, under other conditions, it can sustain less than 5g. So the numbers presented for the F-35 mean absolutely nothing without the conditions being stated.

No, the F-35 can do no such thing anymore. The baseline standard used for the comparison was a clean Lockheed F-16 Block 50 with two wingtip Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs. Practically empty. This is the baseline for the F-35 and F-16, carrying just two A2A missiles. And even there, the F-35 is limited to under 5Gs. Good God. A fighter it isn't.



Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 64):
What will be more important is information; the ability to collect, analyze, and act on information gather by sensors and other platforms in the theatre.

- and most importantly, to remain as undetectable as possible. While the F-35 has some Radar low observability, it practically melts it's own tail feathers with heat. The F-35s IR signature must be massive and thus much more easily detectable than say an F-16 or F-15 in this spectrum.

All the extreme costs and development troubles aside, the entire concept of the F-35 is not cost effective in my opinion. Radar will simply play a lesser role going forward, with everyone using it less and IR and other sensors becoming more important. The Russians, French with Rafale and USAF with the F-22 are employing this, as is the F-35 itself. But the F-35 has no defenses, because it signals it's IR presence stronger than even an F-15 in this regard. And that can never be fixed on the F-35.

That's how the F-22 can sneak up on others undetected - not using radar, as that would expose it - but by using other sensors and radar from other sources and having a low IR signature. All this will certainly be incorporated, if not already done, in many other fighters and even AA batteries.

That F-35's huge heat signature is a pure giveaway and it can't even run or fight itself out of there once detected - if it even knows it's detected. Trying to outflank a incoming AA missile will be so much the less possible, with the G limitations.

[Edited 2013-01-31 17:37:23]

User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2353 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5044 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 59):
Only 150? How good is the hit rate?

I'm not sure where the 150 rounds came from, but the F-16's 20mm cannon carries some 510 rounds, the F-35's 25mm cannon has 182 rounds in the internal cannon on the -A, and 220 rounds in the podded cannon on the -B and -C.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5014 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):

Not true. You need to read what the baseline is, not sales brochures from 1 year ago.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):
I don't even think you know what that means. Going to a high AoA at slow speeds doesn't mean you can turn tighter with the G load limitation. Once again you proved to me you don't get AoA at all and for what it is useful. I bet you don't even know there is a high speed and a low speed critical AoA.

I have read the baseline, and it is clear to me what the baseline is:
http://2011.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2011/05/18/36290792.pdf

See page 9, Figure 3.

It appears you don't understand what the numbers actually mean, or have bothered to look up what they mean in the first place.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):
No, the F-35 can do no such thing anymore. The baseline standard used for the comparison was a clean Lockheed F-16 Block 50 with two wingtip Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs. Practically empty. This is the baseline for the F-35 and F-16, carrying just two A2A missiles. And even there, the F-35 is limited to under 5Gs. Good God. A fighter it isn't.

Incorrect, please review the Bowman document. The KPP is listed there.

In addition, you are cherry picking quotes to suit your aims and purposes; in the same Flightglobal article, it also states this:

Quote:
While there is no disputing that the reduced performance specifications are a negative development, there may be ways to make up for some of the F-35's less than stellar kinematic performance.

Pilots will have to make extensive use of the F-35's stealth characteristics and sensors to compensate for performance areas where the jet has weaknesses, sources familiar with the aircraft say....

...In an air-to-air engagement, for example, tactics would have to be developed to emphasize stealth and beyond visual range (BVR) combat. If a visual range engagement is unavoidable, every effort would have to be taken to enter the "merge" from a position of advantage, which should be possible, given the F-35's stealth characteristics.

Once engaged within visual range, given the F-35's limitations and relative strengths, turning should be minimized in favor of using the jet's Northrop Grumman AAQ-37 distributed aperture system of infrared cameras, helmet-mounted display and high off-boresight missiles to engage the enemy aircraft. If a turning fight is unavoidable, the F-35 has good instantaneous turn performance and good high angle of attack (50°AOA limit) performance comparable to a Boeing F/A-18 Hornet, which means a similar strategy could be adopted if one finds him or herself in such a situation.

Lockheed, for its part, maintains that the F-35 has performance superior to that of any "legacy" fighter at high altitudes. "Having flown over 4000 hours in fighter jets, I will tell you the F-35's capability at altitude, mostly driven by the internal carriage of those weapons, as a combat airplane, this airplane exceeds the capabilities of just any legacy fighter that I'm familiar with in this kind of regime," says Steve O'Bryan, the company's business development director for the F-35 during a January interview.
But much of the discussion is theoretical at this point, the F-35 has not been operationally tested, nor have tactics been developed for the aircraft's usage. How the aircraft will eventually fare once fully developed and fielded is an open question.


Do we have to re-write the book on tactics? Yes, we do. We can't take the book for air combat developed for a F-86 Sabre and apply it to a F-15 Eagle. The F-35 will be employed differently compared to other existing combat aircraft in service. Some tactics that were valid with previous aircraft won't be valid with F-35; likewise, any tactics developed for F-35 probably won't be applicable to its eventual replacement.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4524 posts, RR: 18
Reply 73, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5018 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69):

Reply 69, posted Thu Jan 31 2013 20:11:44 your local time (2 hours 27 minutes 39 secs ago) and read 46 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):The Navy did not want another chin mounted intake airplane.
I'm glad. I wouldn't choose that thing on aesthetics alone. It would make for an excellent FOD cleaner however.

The USN had a lot of succes with the F-8 and A-7.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):If the F-35 (ever) gets deployed, it will face real world opposition in the form of the latest and greatest Chinese and Russian fighters
You have that backwards. If the Chinese or Russians ever figure out how to build a valid adversary to the F-35 in the next 100 years, it is THEY who will have to face highly trained and equipped pilots from western forces.

Get real. The Chinese and Russian tactics are to swam the incoming package with lots of cheap fighters, knowing the will loose most of them, then when the US package is about out of missiles and cannon fire, they attack with their front line fighters.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 63):when in reality it is and always has been a worhtless piece of junk.
The reality is the people who run things don't think so, including the Military pilots who will be putting their life on the line. If everyone listened to people's opinions on the internet we'd still be flying around in P51's. The Super Hornet is technically a piece of junk, put together quickly based on an old design. Can you imagine the hoopla that would surround the program if the F-35 was just an improved F-15 or F-16 with the same shape? Every program was over-budget and late with its own technical programs, its only because of the internet has the F35 faced such media scrutiny. It's pieces of junk like this that will protect the freedoms and rights for western democracy for the next 50 years.

The P-51 went from first drawing to first flight in about 4 months, as did many fine aircraft of the WWII era. The designers used slide rules and T-squares, pencils and paper. The same company that built the P-51, NA also built the F-86, and MDD built many fighters, including many of the century series. The F-15 came from MDD, and all of that is now Boeing.

The RAAF is about to order more F-18Fs, are they ordering a piece of junk? BTW, they may use monies they have set aside for the F-35.

The F-35 isn't the only weapons system facing tight scrutiny, the LCS and DD-1000 are too. The F-35 can be dropped like the Commance attack helio, excaliber gun, YAL-1A, SDI, as was the MCLWG, and other systems.

I am all for weapons that will defend us for the next 50 years. ut everything has a price to pay, and with the F-35 we will pay the most ever for a fighter type airplane, for less capability, a system that is good at a lot of missions, but master of none of them. An airplane that is only good at the missions it will fly is not good enough to base our future defense on.

Very well said, if ever there was a case to ditch a weapons system this is it.



Buy a few hundred more F22's and keep ugrading and building the superb F16, you would still save money.



The F35 is the epitome of the defense system gone wrong.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5000 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69):
lots of cheap fighters

No one knows how many fighters Russia and China will deploy, but it sure as hell won't be the amount of allied F35's, F22's, F-16's and F-15 that will be available. You over estimate Russia, much like the US did during the cold war. Russia is a decrepit, corrupt country with a few toys called "fighters". They won't be much of a threat. China has potential for fighters but they lack technology, hell they can't even get a decent jet engine for their transports or fighters.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69):
The P-51 went from first drawing to first flight in about 4 months, as did many fine aircraft of the WWII era. The designers used slide rules and T-squares, pencils and paper.

Fighters are a little more complex than they were in WWII.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69):
The RAAF is about to order more F-18Fs, are they ordering a piece of junk?

Yes. The F18 SH is the epitome of the defense system gone wrong. Fat, slow and underpowered. I heard, from the horses mouth, that a pilot who was qualified on both the legacy and Fat Hornets that he'd take a C/D model to war any day.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69):
The F-35 can be dropped like the Commance attack helio, excaliber gun, YAL-1A, SDI, as was the MCLWG, and other systems.

No, it can't and won't. The F-35 is set to replace a number of old aircraft in the US and allied fleets. There is nothing else in the pipeline that comes close to matching its capability.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69):
for less capability, a system that is good at a lot of missions, but master of none of them.

That's not what pilots flying them have to say. I'd take their word over anyone else's, this includes politicians, internet air-chair generals and journalists.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 73):

Very well said, if ever there was a case to ditch a weapons system this is it.



Buy a few hundred more F22's and keep ugrading and building the superb F16, you would still save money.



The F35 is the epitome of the defense system gone wrong.

 


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3559 posts, RR: 26
Reply 75, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4953 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

dang here we go again.. pages of rehash.. trouble is while both sides swear to be the only truth around, both have lost creditably to the point nobody cares what is written.
why don't you just add you contact info to your profile and have your rants in private.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 76, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4860 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
It would make for an excellent FOD cleaner however.

No more than an F-18 considering the nose gear is behind the inlet as opposed to being in front of the inlet.
I'll be interested to know how high off the ground is the inlet of the F-32 vs the F-37 (the other factor with respect to FOD)

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 67):
Boeing was forced to shed many pieces of equipment to demonstrate STOVL flight,

This was a cost/trade decision. With limited budget allowed, they had to decide where to put the demonstration money. It was felt that it was unnecessary to design and built a moveable inlet to demonstrate the STOVL capabilities knowing the mechanism is pretty straight forward and lower risk. All the cost that would have involve in building that inlet was placed somewhere else, area like efficient design and manufacturing of the wing box (with technology acquired when Boeing merged with NA). If Boeing won the contract, the wing would have been structurally awesome and very affordable.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 74):
No, it can't and won't. The F-35 is set to replace a number of old aircraft in the US and allied fleets.

They said the same about the Comanche. Then real life happens, and the Little Bird carry on . . .

The thing about the F-35 vs. the other programs is that it has entered production stage, which makes its very difficult to cancel. Cut back, maybe . . . but canceled? Unlikely

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 77, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4867 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 72):
I have read the baseline, and it is clear to me what the baseline is:
http://2011.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2011/05/18/36290792.pdf

See page 9, Figure 3.

It appears you don't understand what the numbers actually mean, or have bothered to look up what they mean in the first place.

That is a college paper from five years ago (April, 2008), Figure 3 is full of old sales brochure figures from back then, including acceleration figures, which we know know is bunk. And it clearly sates:

The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US government or the Department of Defense.

It also says:

Avionics and stealth technology are inherently defeatable; in the end it will always be important to outperform your opponent.

The published article in Flighglobal, which has the reputation of the entire publication behind it, is only a few days old and clearly states what the baseline is and quotes experienced USAF pilots, saying the F-35 is no better than an F-4 or F-5 in sustained Gs. If you are saying the Flighglobal article is wrong. OK.

I am not going to debate this any further. It is what it is.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 78, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4726 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 66):
If everyone listened to people's opinions on the internet we'd still be flying around in P51's.

And we should be listening to your opinion, then ?

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 74):
I heard, from the horses mouth, that a pilot who was qualified on both the legacy and Fat Hornets that he'd take a C/D model to war any day.
Quoting Powerslide (Reply 74):

Sure it was the mouth ?  

My uncle, ex-RCAF, ex-fighter pilot (Voodoo, F-16 {on exchange}) is dead set against the F-35 for many of the reasons stated in this thread. Perhaps good at some things, but excelling at none, his opinion. At least he has real world experience, unlike some.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 79, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4715 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 78):
My uncle, ex-RCAF, ex-fighter pilot (Voodoo, F-16 {on exchange}) is dead set against the F-35 for many of the reasons stated in this thread. Perhaps good at some things, but excelling at none, his opinion. At least he has real world experience, unlike some.

Has he flown the F-35? If not, then his opinion is just as good (pointless) as anyone else's.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 80, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4678 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 79):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 78):
My uncle, ex-RCAF, ex-fighter pilot (Voodoo, F-16 {on exchange}) is dead set against the F-35 for many of the reasons stated in this thread. Perhaps good at some things, but excelling at none, his opinion. At least he has real world experience, unlike some.

Has he flown the F-35? If not, then his opinion is just as good (pointless) as anyone else's.

How charitable of you to comment on someone who wore the uniform for which you claim to have so much respect. You know, in life you get the respect you show and earn. In this thread, that isn't much.

Have you ever actually been in combat ? Have you actually been shot at as a part of your job ? Have you ever actually taken a life in combat ? Tony did all of those things, lived to tell the story, to regret the blood he had shed, and to make peace with his former adversaries. That qualifies his opinion far more than anything you might ever have to offer this thread, sir.

Your inability or unwillingness to qualify yourself in any respect regarding the F-35 but your instant ability to disparage others speaks volumes. How sad.

Pointless ? That would be you and your ilk.

By the way, have you flown the F-35 ?



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4647 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 80):
Have you ever actually been in combat ? Have you actually been shot at as a part of your job ? Have you ever actually taken a life in combat ? Tony did all of those things, lived to tell the story, to regret the blood he had shed, and to make peace with his former adversaries. That qualifies his opinion far more than anything you might ever have to offer this thread, sir.

That is nice however it doesn't qualify him on this F35 matter.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 80):
You know, in life you get the respect you show and earn. In this thread, that isn't much.

I don't care for respect on internet forums. Who cares. Really.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 80):
Your inability or unwillingness to qualify yourself in any respect regarding the F-35 but your instant ability to disparage others speaks volumes. How sad.

I disparage others' opinions when they are clearly backed by personal dislike of the program. Never mind how many times they have to be disproved they still come back with stuff like "The F35 is the epitome of the defense system gone wrong."

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 80):
By the way, have you flown the F-35 ?

No I haven't, but I believe the word of those that have. You keep believing your sources from journalists that have never stepped foot in a fighter let alone flew one.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4524 posts, RR: 18
Reply 82, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 81):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 80):
By the way, have you flown the F-35 ?

No I haven't, but I believe the word of those that have

Who, at this point mostly comprise test Pilots and may be just a little biased..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4644 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 82):
Who, at this point mostly comprise test Pilots and may be just a little biased..

You are right......active military pilots are paid by Lockheed Martin to lie. All the capabilities that the F35 has over the legacy jets doesn't exist. Please, the personal vendetta's against the JSF are getting old. You can complain all you want over the internet but it doesn't change a thing in the real world.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 84, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4638 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 83):
You are right......active military pilots are paid by Lockheed Martin to lie

You know, they do have to keep thier mouths shut BECAUSE they are active military pilots right?

Thanks for playing this episode of "random internet dude mouthing off about something he doesn't actualy know"


User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2798 posts, RR: 4
Reply 85, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4647 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

This thread has gotten a little heated and in order to not gut the thread it will be locked to further posts.
Thanks
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Turkey Delays F-35 Decision posted Fri Jan 11 2013 06:37:28 by TK787
Canada Scraps F-35 Purchase posted Thu Dec 6 2012 17:37:47 by FighterPilot
AFM: F-35 Can Supercruise posted Sat Nov 3 2012 14:58:39 by ThePointblank
Air Force Association Magazine On F-35 posted Tue Oct 2 2012 20:48:37 by ThePointblank
F-35 On Exhibition In Front Of Oslo Town Hall posted Fri Aug 31 2012 15:43:25 by Mortyman
F-35 Milestone - First Successful Weapons Drop posted Thu Aug 9 2012 21:14:19 by ThePointblank
F-35 Sonic Boom posted Sat Aug 4 2012 15:03:06 by 787atPAE
F-35 And Burlington, VT posted Thu Jul 5 2012 10:12:24 by ChrisNH
GAO On F-35, June 2012 posted Fri Jun 29 2012 13:37:21 by tommytoyz
Talk Of F-35 Project Being Scrapped! posted Sat Apr 28 2012 19:03:19 by Zkpilot