GrogHeads Forum

History, Reference, Research, and GrogTalk => Organizations and Equipment => Topic started by: bayonetbrant on November 09, 2013, 06:08:31 AM

Title: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on November 09, 2013, 06:08:31 AM
Star hated this column when it was first published back in 2008...

http://grognews.blogspot.com/2008/09/jsf-stands-for-just-stupid-fkup.html

but now it's looking downright prescient

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

Quote
Owing to heavy design compromises foisted on the plane mostly by the Marine Corps, the F-35 is an inferior combatant, seriously outclassed by even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better. In a fast-moving aerial battle, the JSF “is a dog … overweight and underpowered,” according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.

And future enemy planes, designed strictly with air combat in mind, could prove even deadlier to the compromised JSF.

It doesn’t really matter how smoothly Lockheed and the government’s work on the new warplane proceeds. Even the best-manufactured JSF is a second-rate fighter where it actually matters — in the air, in life-or-death combat against a determined foe. And that could mean a death sentence for American pilots required to fly the vulnerable F-35.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on November 09, 2013, 07:57:14 AM
really...  your throwing this me before Ive finished my first cup of coffee.

thats just low.

however I still think that the article itself is grossly misleading as full weapons testing and loadout were still being developed in 2008.

Quote
Additionally, we get this report from Ares, over at Aviation Week, which notes that the standard config in which the JSF will be flown includes only 2 AAMs, so if the enemy send up 4 fighters, you get a chance to test your getaway speed...

o'rly...
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/719/f35missles.jpg)
right there are 4 AMRAAMs and a 2000 lb JDAM.  take out the JDAM and youve got 6 AMRAAMs carried internally.  the loadout depends on the mission and there are no absolutes that come to the top of my head at the moment.

Quote
So we think it does, in fact, carry 2 AAMs, 2 air-to-ground bombs, and bunch of rounds in a cannon, plus whatever performance-impeding weapons can be bolted on outside. Not great. After all, having a "fighter" that can't fight isn't that useful.

so you want to go for a pure air dominance role to augment F-22?  ok, how do 14 AMRAAMs work for you?  8)

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTWq8QSNttR4-havQ8mW_e1XLLmiTVAsti2PvjsrZEg819bmrMA)

Quote
Great. 9g, huh? Comforting to know that we can crush our pilots to death faster and more efficiently than other aircraft, while turning at the same rate.

evidently the author isnt familiar with G-suits or the face that 9 g's is pretty much the limit on any airframe due to the pilots.

Quote
I guess that's fine if we're fighting legacy aircraft. But unless the Americans are strafing Aruba and facing the Dutch fleet of F16s, we might want to worry less about legacy aircraft and more about what's coming next.

sounds pretty bad until you realize that legacy aircraft include Su-30s, F-15s, Typhoons, Mig-29s and everything 4th generation and below.  the fact that no one is building 5th generation aircraft except us nor can they due to cost and technology should be pointed out.

now having said all of that Im much much much less of a fan of this plane then I used to be.  most of my issues with it come from the development side of the project.  the US military is not letting this plane develop at a natural pace and thats loading a ton of cost on the front end of the project and leading to delay after delay.  what this means is that they want the final version first which is just stupid.  Im also not a huge fan of the VTOL version.  I think its a waste of time and money for a variant that will be used by very few people.  if the Marines want close air support then buy them lots of Longbow Apaches.

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on November 09, 2013, 08:22:55 AM
now on to the new article.  I'll be using the Su-30 as my opfor aircraft and thats the top end of the spectrum for the Chinese.

Quote
Owing to heavy design compromises foisted on the plane mostly by the Marine Corps, the F-35 is an inferior combatant, seriously outclassed by even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better.

the Marine version may perform less than a Su-30 but thats only the Marine version due to that stupid VTOL engine right behind the cockpit.  the other 2 versions may not have the top speed of a Su-30 but the F-35 can supercruise without afterburner while the Su-30 can only hit its top speed in short bursts.  so strategically and tactically the F-35 is indeed faster.  since the manuverability of the F-35 is classified I find it to be a bullshit argument that older Russian/Chinese aircraft can turn better.

Quote
In a fast-moving aerial battle, the JSF “is a dog … overweight and underpowered

 ::) from Wiki  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_F135 : The F135 has demonstrated a maximum thrust of over 50,000 lbf (220 kN) during testing;[243] making it the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter aircraft as of 2010.
so somehow a planes whos maximum takeoff weight is 60,000 lbs is grossly underpowered by an engine that produces 50,000 lbs of thrust.  whatever...  in a air dominance role it will have a better thrust to weight ratio then an F-15.

the 'wargame' in the next part of the article is grossly flawed.  I'll skip over the nuts and bolts and point out this tidbit:
Quote
Stillion and Perdue soon left the think tank. Stillion is now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank in Washington, D.C. Perdue currently works for Northrop Grumman.

so one guy leaves for a job that basiclly bitches about how much the F-35 costs and the other guy gets a job with Lockheeds main competitor?  no axe to grind or bias there.

anyway most of the rest of the article is bitching about the Marine version which I agree should be axed.  damn uppity snake eating jarheads are ruining an otherwise decent aircraft.


Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on November 09, 2013, 08:27:47 AM
and all before coffee....  asshole.  ;)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on November 09, 2013, 08:42:12 AM
none of the articles authors have any historical depth.
the F-111, arguably the best long range interdiction bomber of the Cold War had HUGE teething problems.
the F-4, ment to be a do everything aircraft for all services and was fought tooth and nail by those same services became one of the most successful aircraft of all time.
the F-16, ment to be the low budget partner to the F-15 had to fight its way through the Pentagons fighter mafia just to get to the prototype stage.  became THE MOST successful fighter of the Cold War and one of aviations biggest commercial successes.
the F-18, lost to the F-16 and is now the main fighter of the US Navy.

just sayin'
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: LongBlade on November 09, 2013, 09:09:01 AM
none of the articles authors have any historical depth.
the F-111, arguably the best long range interdiction bomber of the Cold War had HUGE teething problems.
the F-4, ment to be a do everything aircraft for all services and was fought tooth and nail by those same services became one of the most successful aircraft of all time.
the F-16, ment to be the low budget partner to the F-15 had to fight its way through the Pentagons fighter mafia just to get to the prototype stage.  became THE MOST successful fighter of the Cold War and one of aviations biggest commercial successes.
the F-18, lost to the F-16 and is now the main fighter of the US Navy.

just sayin'

Dance with the one who brung ya?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on November 09, 2013, 09:17:50 AM
to an extent.  all planes have teething problems.  my opinion is that its better to work them out operationally then in testing.  operational use really lets the ground crews and pilots figure things out.  the eggheads with 7 Phd's are going to write 'the book' and the airmen are going to rewrite it so it actually works anyway.
the big problem with the F-35 is how much the Pentagon has tried to cram in the initial version.  the first F-16s are nothing like the todays F-16s.  somewhere along the line we switched from lettered variants to block variants.  so while one might think that an F-16C is top notch there are actually 10 or so progressive versions of an F-16C.  IIRC theyre up to Block 70.  all glass cockpit displays, AESA radar, conformal fuel tanks etc.  a basic Block 10 has none of that stuff.  if the Pentagon had stopped dicking around and adding everything it could the F-35 would have been in operational service years ago and cost a lot less.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: endfire79 on November 09, 2013, 10:08:57 AM
to an extent.  all planes have teething problems.  my opinion is that its better to work them out operationally then in testing.  operational use really lets the ground crews and pilots figure things out.  the eggheads with 7 Phd's are going to write 'the book' and the airmen are going to rewrite it so it actually works anyway.

Could not agree more, well said. 

I'm baffled how it's dragged on for so long - all this due to the VTOL requirement touted by the Marine Corps?  I wonder why existing Harrier II's or Apache's could not satisfy the top brass.  Is it because these platforms are seen as too 'old' by them?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on November 09, 2013, 10:18:16 AM
I'm baffled how it's dragged on for so long - all this due to the VTOL requirement touted by the Marine Corps?  I wonder why existing Harrier II's or Apache's could not satisfy the top brass.  Is it because these platforms are seen as too 'old' by them?

mostly.  the other big hang up is that whenever a new electronic gadget has come up the brass has wanted it installed in the initial production run.  theres been a LOT of new gadgets over the last 10 years.  every time they add something all the code and intergration has to be redone as well as some engineering to actually fit it in.  personally I think the Marines would be far better serviced by Apaches then fixed wing air.  they can operate closer to ground troops with much less chance of friendly fire.  theyre also cheaper and easier to maintain.  its not like US Marines are going ashore without a carrier battle group operating somewhere in the area backed up by USAF units.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on November 09, 2013, 10:21:40 AM
heres a perfect case in point.

all of that testing and development time spent on the F-22 never spotted the oxygen systems problems.  it was only spotted and solved after a few years into operational service.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: endfire79 on November 09, 2013, 11:09:19 AM
ah development and requirement hell, been there - not fun! 

Hopefully it doesn't turn out to be jet equivalent of Duke Nukem Forever or Carmack's Daikatana.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on November 09, 2013, 11:28:26 AM
its not.  I guess at some point that have frozen design changes as the first Navy and Marine squadrons are now working up with deployment expected in 2015 or so.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on November 09, 2013, 12:53:24 PM
all this due to the VTOL requirement touted by the Marine Corps?

from the 2d article

Quote
In August 1942 a force of U.S. Marines stormed ashore on Guadalcanal, part of the Solomons island chain in the South Pacific. Less than a year after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. and its allies were still fighting a defensive action against Japanese forces. The Guadalcanal landing was meant to blunt Tokyo’s advance.

But the lightly-equipped Marines ended up surrounded and all but abandoned after Japanese ships wiped out a portion of the Allied fleet. The Navy withdrew its precious aircraft carriers, and for months the Japanese planes, opposed by only a handful of Marine fighters flying from a crude beachhead airstrip, pounded the hapless Americans.

Robert Leckie, a Marine rifleman on Guadalcanal, described one of his squadmates breaking under the strain. The rattled Marine grabbed a light machine gun — a totally ineffective weapon against airplanes — and charged against a strafing Japanese Zero fighter. “He could not bear huddling in the pit while the Jap [sic] made sport of us,” Leckie wrote in his memoir Helmet for my Pillow.

Luckily, the Marine survived his nearly suicidal confrontation with the Zero. But as an organization, the Marine Corps was forever changed by its exposure on Guadalcanal. “The lesson learned was that the U.S. Marine Corps needed to be able to bring its air power with it over the beach because the large-deck Navy aircraft carriers might not always be there,” said Ben Kristy, an official Marine historian.

In the 1950s and ‘60s the Corps bought hundreds of helicopters, a new invention at the time. But what it really wanted was a fighter plane that could launch from the same amphibious assault ships that hauled Marine ground troops. These big assault ships had flat helicopter flight deck areas, but with neither the catapults nor the runway length to support the big, high-performance planes favored by the Navy.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on November 09, 2013, 12:55:07 PM
Quote
Stillion and Perdue soon left the think tank. Stillion is now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank in Washington, D.C. Perdue currently works for Northrop Grumman.

so one guy leaves for a job that basiclly bitches about how much the F-35 costs and the other guy gets a job with Lockheeds main competitor?  no axe to grind or bias there.

Or, they were forced out w/ the USAF threatening not to use RAND for anything else if these unfavorable analyses continue.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on January 28, 2014, 11:28:33 AM
and heres a little bit on the F-35s costs:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_01_24_2014_p0-657750.xml&p=1
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Windigo on January 28, 2014, 11:54:08 AM
... the Lexington Institute huh?    ???
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on January 28, 2014, 12:46:15 PM
and your problem with that is??? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington_Institute
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Steelgrave on January 28, 2014, 01:41:28 PM
We get our first wave of F-35's here at Luke AFB next month. I can't wait to see 'em fly.
Title: .
Post by: eyebiter on January 28, 2014, 02:10:55 PM
.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on January 28, 2014, 02:24:44 PM
and your problem with that is??? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington_Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington_Institute)

this maybe?

Quote
The Lexington Institute has been called the "defense industry's pay-to-play ad agency", reflecting the fact that it receives substantial funding from military contractors and issues a steady stream of reports, usually favorable, about the performance and status of key weapons programs
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on January 28, 2014, 02:28:08 PM
Av Week's EiC, Bill Sweetman, posted his thoughts on the Thompson article:

http://tinyurl.com/thompmath
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Windigo on January 28, 2014, 02:29:14 PM
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ae14a3e0c-3267-4c81-a2fd-01dff925bdf3 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ae14a3e0c-3267-4c81-a2fd-01dff925bdf3)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Windigo on January 28, 2014, 02:30:08 PM
Av Week's EiC, Bill Sweetman, posted his thoughts on the Thompson article:

http://tinyurl.com/thompmath

beat me to it... you funking juiced-up ninja freak
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on January 28, 2014, 02:36:04 PM
well its seems others are charging similar amounts for airframes:

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-dna-exclusive-100-price-escalation-on-rafale-fighter-aircraft-to-rs-175-lakh-crore-likely-to-dent-iaf-s-strike-capability-1957107
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 09, 2014, 09:25:59 AM
F-35 can't run on warm fuel

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Martok on December 09, 2014, 01:15:00 PM
Next it'll be discovered they don't like flying through air that much, and are really only intended to glide short distances. 

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on December 09, 2014, 05:30:37 PM
We shoulda just bought a shitload bunch of Gripen and a few more F-22s:

1) The Raptors in case the Russians get cute with one of the only three Sukhoi T-50s that Russia will ever build now that their economy is shifting back to Tsar&Serf...

2) and the Gripen to take care of everything else.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: MIGMaster on December 10, 2014, 07:27:19 AM
Was reading in Air Forces Monthly that the USAF and Lockheed the are really pushing to get F-35  squadrons up and running. It seems like almost every country has redduced the number of aircraft they are buying. I wonder how many Canada will end up with ?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Shelldrake on December 10, 2014, 07:36:00 AM
Was reading in Air Forces Monthly that the USAF and Lockheed the are really pushing to get F-35  squadrons up and running. It seems like almost every country has redduced the number of aircraft they are buying. I wonder how many Canada will end up with ?

According to the Ottawa Citizen fewer than expected, and if we have a change of government in 2015 I think all bets are off..

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/rising-f-35-price-tag-setting-up-tough-choices-dnd-report-suggests (http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/rising-f-35-price-tag-setting-up-tough-choices-dnd-report-suggests)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 10, 2014, 10:01:40 AM
At least in Canada, you should have an easier time keeping the fuel cool enough for the F-35 to use :P
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 10, 2014, 10:48:03 AM
you assume theyll actually fly them
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Windigo on December 11, 2014, 11:14:50 AM
Let someone else pay for the bleeding edge of technology.

(http://www.aviastar.org/foto/canadair_dynavert_2.jpg)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 11, 2014, 11:44:41 AM
After doing some digging it turns out that all modern aitcraft have these limitations and the 35s arent the worst.  Just something the media can latch onto..  I'll link the info when I get home.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 11, 2014, 12:36:48 PM
After doing some digging it turns out that all modern aitcraft have these limitations and the 35s arent the worst.  Just something the media can latch onto..  I'll link the info when I get home.

The 35s are among the worst then. And no one's been talking about repainting fuel bowsers or giving them shades with other aircraft.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/the-tale-of-the-f-35-and-hot-jet-fuel/

http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Cant+Fly+w+Hot+Fuel+Air+Force+Has+to+Paint+Trucks+Bright+White/article36985.htm

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102253195

There's more than a little backtracking being done by the AF.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Steelgrave on December 11, 2014, 12:42:02 PM
Having lived ten minutes from Luke AFB for six years, I can guarantee you it's gonna get hot  O0
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 11, 2014, 12:55:40 PM
Luke you say....

Luke AFB changes refueling truck color, mitigates F-35 shutdowns
06 Dec 2014 Staff Sgt. Luther Mitchell Jr., 56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

"..."We are taking proactive measures to mitigate any possible aircraft shutdowns due to high fuel temperatures in the future."

The squadron adopted the idea after it was first implemented at Edwards Air Force Base, California. [Wot? No story earlier? Wot?]

In the summer months at Luke AFB, temperatures can reach beyond 110 degrees. Painting the tanks white now will help prevent fuel stored in the tanks from over-heating.

"This is the short-term goal to cool the fuel for the F-35; however, the long-term fix is to have parking shades for the refuelers," Resch said.

The white paint is special because it is a solar polyurethane enamel that reflects the heat of the sun's rays. Interestingly, after dropping off the first truck to be painted, the 56th LRS learned it is not the color that reflects the heat.

"The painting process is a two-part process, and the second part is the reflective process," said Master Sgt. Joseph Maurin, the 56th LRS fuels distribution NCO in charge. "The painter said it did not have to be a white color, so we are going to send one of the four vehicles to get painted green, if possible. We will then compare temperatures between the green and white trucks."

Luke AFBs refuelers are also deployable and a white fuel truck would stick out like a sore thumb down range. The 56th LRS is hopeful that the tanks can be painted green and still keep fuel temperatures down.

The 56th LRS has been approved to paint four trucks and it takes about a week to complete, at a cost of $3,900 per truck."

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/555558/luke-afb-changes-refueling-truck-color-mitigates-f-35-shutdowns.aspx

The Tale Of The F-35 And Hot Jet Fuel
10 Dec 2014 Colin Clark

"...“This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft,” said Joe DellaVedova, program spokesman, in an email yesterday evening.

The folks at Luke say they are testing the new paint jobs to avoid problems, according to the AETC story: “‘It ensures the F-35 is able to meet its sortie requirements,’ said Chief Master Sgt. Ralph Resch, 56th LRS fuels manager. ‘We are taking proactive measures to mitigate any possible aircraft shutdowns due to high fuel temperatures in the future.'”

“Painting fuel trucks to reduce fuel temperature and improve aircraft performance will benefit legacy aircraft as well as F-35. There is no fuel temperature upper limitation on F-35 operations that would prevent sorties, and no sorties have been cancelled as a result of fuel temperature,” Kyra Hawn, deputy spokesman at the JPO, said in an email this morning. “Daily F-35 operations at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, and Luke Air Force Base have been unaffected by hot environment or fuel temperature.”

The plane is now undergoing climate tests: heat, cold, rain, snow, ice etc. A lab test imposing temperatures in excess of 130 degrees was just completed “and the aircraft performed exceptionally well based on preliminary information collected,” Hawn wrote. Full climate results will be ready in the spring of 2015."

and heres a full list of jet fuel specs.  page 10 is what you want to look at I think.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/AviationGlobal/Files/WorldJetFuelSpecifications2005.pdf
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 11, 2014, 01:47:09 PM
I wouldn't take the AF press releases at face value. The "proactive measures" statement is a bit of backtracking.

And this:

Quote
The squadron adopted the idea after it was first implemented at Edwards Air Force Base, California. [Wot? No story earlier? Wot?]

So? F-35s are based at Edwards too. And guess what? It gets pretty warm there too.

Any examples of these types of "proactive measures" being take for any other modern jet fighters? I haven't seen any, so if you know of some I'd love to know about them.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 11, 2014, 01:55:32 PM
from sources I cant link Id say that similar issues exist with F-16s and F-18s concerning fuel temps and operating conditions.  keep in mind that the F-35 has already passed its required environmental testing.  so its cleared to operate alongside current aircraft.  at this point any little thing is going to be blown up into an outrageous scandal even though its not.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 11, 2014, 01:57:59 PM
keep in mind that the F-35 has already passed its required environmental testing.  so its cleared to operate alongside current aircraft.

umm... the environmental testing is ongoing. From your post above:

Quote
The plane is now undergoing climate tests: heat, cold, rain, snow, ice etc. A lab test imposing temperatures in excess of 130 degrees was just completed “and the aircraft performed exceptionally well based on preliminary information collected,” Hawn wrote. Full climate results will be ready in the spring of 2015."
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 11, 2014, 02:00:53 PM
Also Luke is a major training base for the F-16. If the 16s have similar fuel temp issues, why weren't they painting the bowsers white before the 35s were around?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 11, 2014, 02:01:22 PM
those tests are ongoing for airframes we currently operate.  testing never ends.  they have however qualified the 35 for operational service.
dont be obtuse sunshine.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 11, 2014, 02:02:35 PM
Also Luke is a major training base for the F-16. If the 16s have similar fuel temp issues, why weren't they painting the bowsers white before the 35s were around?

maybe because the F-16s have been bought and paid for for 20 years and the 35 is brand new and costs more then most African countries GDP.   ;)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 11, 2014, 02:04:52 PM
those tests are ongoing for airframes we currently operate.  testing never ends.  they have however qualified the 35 for operational service.
dont be obtuse sunshine.

Quoting from the AF press release you posted is being obtuse? I think you need a break from the sun yourself.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 11, 2014, 02:08:12 PM
Also Luke is a major training base for the F-16. If the 16s have similar fuel temp issues, why weren't they painting the bowsers white before the 35s were around?

maybe because the F-16s have been bought and paid for for 20 years and the 35 is brand new and costs more then most African countries GDP.   ;)

So the fuel temp curtails the sortie rate of the F-16 in a way similar to the 35 and the AF has never bothered to address it for the 16. You're going with that? Seek shelter, the Florida sun is melting your brain :P
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 11, 2014, 02:32:38 PM
I've come to terms with the fact that latent syphilis doesn't let you mind see the big picture here.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 11, 2014, 02:44:22 PM
let me spell it out for you Barny style.
the F-35 uses its fuel as a heat sink for the massive amount of electronic systems it carries.  the colder the fuel the better the performance.  older aircraft were liberally covered in vents and grating to take care of this waste heat.  the F-35 doesn't due to its stealth characteristics.  this is why the fuel is used.  the same set up was used to some degree (<- thats how its done BC) in the SR-71.  fuel temps, even at Luke, are not effecting the planes ability to do its job.  the repainted trucks just let it get off the ground under ideal conditions.  as Ive said, the plane has already passed the tests needed to be operational.   the whole issue is a non-starter.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 11, 2014, 07:31:24 PM
lets see.... some more info.

Quote
The USAF Has To Re-Paint Its Trucks Because The F-35 Can’t Fly On Warm Fuel

After a year of several fleet-wide groundings for the F-35, the latest problem to plague the fifth-generation fighter is forcing the U.S. Air Force to revamp an entirely separate fleet to support the military’s most expensive plane yet.
The F-35 can only fly on jet fuel under a certain temperature due to a range of heating issues attributed to the F-35B variant’s short takeoff and vertical landing engine. According to the USAF, the dark-green trucks that carry that fuel absorb too much heat from the sun to keep the planes in the sky.
That presents a serious logistical problem for an advanced multi-role fleet expected to maintain U.S. air superiority in areas of potential conflict such as the Middle East and South Pacific — areas with no shortage of sunlight.

so the problem is limited, once again, to the Marines version of the F-35.  this has been the most problematic version by an order of magnitude.  however it doesnt stop this version from flying.

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 11, 2014, 07:49:42 PM
from a conversation at F-16.net:

Quote
The F/A-18 has a number of fuel temperature limits; one that comes to mind is if you are on the ground, have less than 1,000 pounds of fuel, and external temperatures exceed 30C, the Hornet will fairly quickly throw a Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive warning light, which the listed procedure is to shut down the engine involved.

If you are in the air with less than 4,000 pounds fuel remaining at low altitude, the pilot is required to monitor fuel temperatures as again, the Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive could overheat. In fact, if the fuel temperature exceeds 75C, the NATOPS says you need to land immediately.

Also, in hot weather conditions, the NATOPS says one needs to keep all non-essential electronics shut down while on the ground unless you are just about to take off.

The F-16's flight manual also indicates that there are engine fuel temperature limits; if the hot fuel warning light goes off, you are limited to 10,000ft maximum altitude and you need to increase fuel consumption to 4000pph, until you can land, which you are required to do so immediately.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: endfire79 on December 11, 2014, 07:58:41 PM
Thanks for pointing those out.  There's all those little 'subtleties' that make aviation such a broad and interesting topic to get into :) 

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 11, 2014, 08:12:28 PM
its kind of like some yahoo dipshit who knows nothing about driving commenting on how a F1 car is useless because it cant turn sharply on cold tires.
its a $100+ million aircraft that we want to get the most out of.  a $3900 repaint of a fuel truck is nothing.  some things come to mind about this.
1.  if your airfield is being directly attacked you already fucked up enough that a white truck isnt making a damn bit of difference.
2. forward airfields are going to be using inflated fuel bladders not trucks and those are generally semi or fully buried.
3. the Marine version of the F-35 is responsible for 90% of the programs problems.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Windigo on December 12, 2014, 10:56:13 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/YiwxQKy.gif)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: endfire79 on December 12, 2014, 01:33:27 PM
Nobody can flip it like windy
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on December 25, 2014, 06:40:07 AM
Here is an Australian engineers comments on the F-35B:

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/lhd-and-stovl-an-engineers-view/
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on December 25, 2014, 06:46:15 AM
Here is an Australian engineers comments on the F-35B:

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/lhd-and-stovl-an-engineers-view/
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 25, 2014, 06:58:39 AM
interesting perspective.  thanks for finding that one.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 25, 2014, 07:11:21 AM
interesting perspective.  thanks for finding that one.

+1 Good read. Thanks Bes.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Mr. Bigglesworth on December 26, 2014, 11:28:07 PM
I'll go along with the Aussie's review. The real question is something completely different. An ex designer of the Harrier said (article posted somewhere here) that the Russians had easily defeated stealth. For any other military problem a 4th gen strikefighter is plenty. The F35 only matters as an insurance policy to dissuade Russian agression. Is it true this insurance policy has a big hole clause, if you take my meaning? If so you simply dont buy that policy. The old article said "long wave" was the problem, which I translated mentally to heat. High speed jets must have a lot of frictional heat, especially visible during night ops which have become popular. I'm sure saying that is noappifany to the russian aerospace people, so I put it down for wargamer consumption. In thepast it was the US that had the monopoly on sattelites. These days many countries have many sattelites doing God knows what. Probably many are looking for signs of military movements. The days of fog of war are ending. I doubt anyone can mask infared streaks of jets from sattelites.

How exactly is the f35 better than the cheap f16 in this environment?

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 26, 2014, 11:57:20 PM
because it can mask most of its emissions, even the thermal stuff.  take a good look at F-22/F-35 paint jobs and ask yourself why.  :coolsmiley:
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Mr. Bigglesworth on December 27, 2014, 11:26:44 AM
It can mix the heat plume with air, it cannot reverse thermodynamics.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 27, 2014, 11:53:34 AM
modern paint is way more then a coat of paint.

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on December 27, 2014, 02:26:53 PM
Do they mix in flakes of Invisibilium and Disappearium?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 27, 2014, 02:54:44 PM
Do they mix in flakes of Invisibilium and Disappearium?

I don't see why they wouldn't.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 27, 2014, 03:34:07 PM
you can do this with special commercial automotive paint by changing the voltage:


it wouldnt suprise me in the least to know that current military grade aviation paint has a number of materials as microparticles suspended in whatever medium that can do interesting things to the thermal and electronic properties of the plane.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Mr. Bigglesworth on December 27, 2014, 04:00:55 PM
Witchcraft!
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on December 27, 2014, 04:27:42 PM
Witchcraft!

Quickly! Consult the The Malleus Maleficarum!
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 30, 2014, 08:01:16 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-the-f-35s-targeting-system-really-10-years-behind-cu-1676442535/all
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 30, 2014, 08:26:34 PM
I'll address the first article.
well fucking duh a bit of kit is going to be outdated.  however it will be fixed and brought up to spec.  what I found interesting is that all of the technology being talked about concerns externally mounted pods being compared to the F-35 internal sensors.  take off the pods, which arent carried by every plane, and those legacy aircraft are now behind the 35.  its a bullshit comparison.  there is no external store that is in operational use today that the F-35 cant carry and use.  that being said the whole idea of the fraking plane is to not use external stores so it can be stealthy.  stealthy: not a trick Tornado's and F-18s are very good at.
and then theres this fucking nugget of stupidity:
Quote
One Air Force official said that with enough time and more money, the EOTS could be fixed. “Because in five years when the USAF [US Air Force] comes to Lockheed Martin and says we absolutely need an upgraded EOTS with an infrared pointer and [video down-link], Lockheed Martin says... OK no sweat, that’ll be $5 million per jet,” the Air Force official said. “Thus lies the problem in the U.S. military industrial complex. They purposefully build products that require mass amounts of money to ‘upgrade’ when in fact, they could have planned ahead and built an easily upgradable ship / aircraft / radio / weapon system.”

the whole fucking cost overrun problem with the program is they've been trying to build the final version first!
FFS!
care to guess how much money has been spent on F-15, F-16 and F-18 upgrades over the last..... shit... 40 years.  hell, a couple of years ago we re-winged the whole A-10 fleet at $3 million a pop just in time to retire them.
if these asshole had just bought the damn thing and had it in service 10 years ago this whole fucking bit of cunty poofiness wouldnt even exist.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 30, 2014, 08:34:57 PM
2nd article:

Quote
You would think that over the last decade retrofitting this somewhat simple capability into the F-35 would have been a top priority, but to this day there are no apparent plans to fit the F-35 with ROVER or anything else like it.

and in a low threat environment like A-stan the F-35 can carry the same pods so theres no reason to refit this internally and delay the plane more and drive the cost up.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 30, 2014, 08:44:46 PM
I'll address the first article.
well fucking duh a bit of kit is going to be outdated.  however it will be fixed and brought up to spec.  what I found interesting is that all of the technology being talked about concerns externally mounted pods being compared to the F-35 internal sensors.  take off the pods, which arent carried by every plane, and those legacy aircraft are now behind the 35.  its a bullshit comparison.  there is no external store that is in operational use today that the F-35 cant carry and use.  that being said the whole idea of the fraking plane is to not use external stores so it can be stealthy.  stealthy: not a trick Tornado's and F-18s are very good at.

The point is that the 35 is supposed to supplant other types in the CAS role. It's going to have to carry external sensors and weapons in that role to equal the capabilities of other types that are currently in service. And you're wrong that it can currently use the all the same current external stores. It can't but could with more time and money pumped into it.

Quote
In the end, one would think that adding an advanced targeting pod to the F-35's external stores list would be a no-brainer and satisfy many of these concerns, but I have a feeling that doing so would put Lockheed and the JSF program into a place of trying to explain why a very unstealthy targeting pod is now an option on their stealthy and very expensive jet fighter that supposedly fields this capability internally. So far the program has a had real challenges being open and honest with the public about its trials and tribulations, with much of the media being blacked out on direct access to the program as a whole. So it is doubtful that admitting their own aircraft's limitations, along with coming up with novel solutions for those limitations, will happen anytime soon.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 30, 2014, 08:48:33 PM
neither article states that the F-35 cant carry the pods.  they both compare current external pods to the 35's internal sensor suite.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 30, 2014, 08:49:29 PM
2nd article:

Quote
You would think that over the last decade retrofitting this somewhat simple capability into the F-35 would have been a top priority, but to this day there are no apparent plans to fit the F-35 with ROVER or anything else like it.

and in a low threat environment like A-stan the F-35 can carry the same pods so theres no reason to refit this internally and delay the plane more and drive the cost up.

The 2nd article isn't making a case for refitting the internal sensors, though the author acknowledges that is one option.

Quote
What is not acceptable is deploying the F-35 to provide precision close air support in a permissible air combat environment, as we have done for the last decade and a half, and have it rely on its clearly limited internal targeting systems. But seeing as the F-35 will replace so many other aircraft, such as the F-16, supposedly the A-10, not to mention the Hornet and the Harrier, it will have to be able to provide an equal or superior capability mix. Thus hanging a state-of-the-art targeting pod off the jet's wing, and integrating into the 'sensor fuzed' F-35 pilot interface, will be an absolute must if the EOTS system cannot be upgraded and a video downlink added. Still, just going with the pod would probably be a much cheaper and future-proof option.

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 30, 2014, 08:54:02 PM
you also have no argument for my point, which is this:  at some point you have to freeze a design in order to move forward and have that design grow.  at this point every fuckstick in the Pentagon has held up the F-35 program with a interest study.  theres probably some butter bar butthead grunt, whos a mouth breather, that wanted to know if the damn plane could microwave his God damned MRE from 35000 feet.  and that fuckstick cost the taxpayer $350,000 in research costs and held the plane up by 2 months.

now dont piss me off.
I found the gloves.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 30, 2014, 08:56:48 PM
one could also take a step back and realize that the sensors being complained about are still better then everyone elses.  8)
they seemed to do a pretty good job in both Gulf Wars and were designed to crush the Soviets running across West Germany.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 30, 2014, 08:59:03 PM
neither article states that the F-35 cant carry the pods.  they both compare current external pods to the 35's internal sensor suite.

Because the internal sensor suite was supposed to replace external pods.

Show me proof that right now the F-35 can use the latest USAF external targeting pod without any additional time or cost. It can't and it's supposed to be the aircraft that can replace all other types in the CAS role.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 30, 2014, 08:59:20 PM
God damn kids and their apps today.

app this and app that and stick an app up your ass ya hipster poof!

back in Smucks day they called in air support with a sextant and some purple smoke.

and hell!  in Windy's day planes werent even invented yet.

motherfucking kids want an app for air support.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 30, 2014, 09:01:02 PM
you also have no argument for my point, which is this:  at some point you have to freeze a design in order to move forward and have that design grow.  at this point every fuckstick in the Pentagon has held up the F-35 program with a interest study.  theres probably some butter bar butthead grunt, whos a mouth breather, that wanted to know if the damn plane could microwave his God damned MRE from 35000 feet.  and that fuckstick cost the taxpayer $350,000 in research costs and held the plane up by 2 months.

now dont piss me off.
I found the gloves.

Who's arguing the point? The procurement process and desire to have "one plane to rule them all" has fucked the F-35 program all along.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 30, 2014, 09:03:17 PM
It's fun to rile you up, but now I'm going back to watching Nazi Mega Weapons on Netflix.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 30, 2014, 09:06:25 PM
I'm going back to watching Nazi Mega Weapons on Netflix.

theres no reason to bring your fleshlight to this conversation.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 30, 2014, 09:07:30 PM
Show me proof that right now the F-35 can use the latest USAF external targeting pod without any additional time or cost.

show me that it cant.

(http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/ae8dc3ff.jpg)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Airborne Rifles on June 16, 2015, 07:03:16 PM
http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/06/air-force-marines-cancel-f-35-joint-strike-fighter/ (http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/06/air-force-marines-cancel-f-35-joint-strike-fighter/)

 ;)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on June 16, 2015, 07:06:13 PM
You're going to get Star all pissy.




Excellent  O0
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on June 16, 2015, 07:30:39 PM
And then there's this:


F-35 Delayed After Fourth Prototype Becomes Self-Aware And Has To Be Destroyed

Quote
As to what steps might be taken to prevent future prototypes from achieving self-awareness, Fennell explained, “We’re developing a net-centric cluster-group forum, a sort of network for their collective ‘minds.’ We hope that it will keep them from creating unique self-identities, and instead form one easy-to-manage super identity.”

Asked what it might be called, Fennell considered it for a moment.

“Well, the F-35 hovers and flies in the sky, and we’re creating a network of them, so … maybe something like ‘Sky-Net?’ That has a nice ring to it.”



Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/02/f35-delays-sentience/#ixzz3dHKlpfeK

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on June 16, 2015, 07:34:41 PM
Too bad about the 35, but Jessica Biel was smokin hawt in that bikini.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on June 16, 2015, 07:43:13 PM
Too bad about the 35, but Jessica Biel was smokin hawt in that bikini.

You mean this bikini?

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on June 16, 2015, 07:45:17 PM
That's the one. Best part of that stupid movie.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on January 29, 2016, 09:21:26 AM
Can't fly, can't shoot, and now buggy code - http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/f-35-software-overrun-with-bugs-dod-testing-chief-warns/
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: undercovergeek on January 29, 2016, 09:26:33 AM
I read yesterday about the top gun sequel been given the go ahead - would it be the f35 if it was based on the here and now?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on January 29, 2016, 09:27:27 AM
I read yesterday about the top gun sequel been given the go ahead - would it be the f35 if it was based on the here and now?

Top Gun: Stuck on the Tarmac
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on February 07, 2016, 06:26:10 AM
http://theaviationist.com/2016/02/07/f-35-at-patuxent-river-broll/

Well, the Italians like it.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on February 07, 2016, 07:14:35 AM
http://theaviationist.com/2016/02/07/f-35-at-patuxent-river-broll/

Well, the Italians like it.

I'm not sure that's a ringing endorsement.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: jomni on February 20, 2016, 06:27:35 AM
The "F-35" was on display today in the Singapore Airshow.  But I didn't take pictures because it's just a mock up and not a real plane.  The same mock up they showed 4 years ago.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on March 06, 2016, 04:30:24 PM
Naval Institute weighs in.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-03/f-35s-new-ooda-loop
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on March 07, 2016, 05:39:10 AM
And now the Norwegians weigh in.

http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on March 07, 2016, 06:29:09 PM
Lockheed Martin was just awarded a $9mil contract to upgrade all of the computers involved in F35 dev/testing.
They are upgrading them all to Windows 7

You read that right.

Quote
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded $9,239,696 for cost-plus-incentive-fee modification PO0007 to a previously awarded contract (N00019-15-C-0114) for the Windows 7 upgrade of the Joint Strike Fighter test product stations.

Work will be performed in Nashua, New Hampshire (19 percent); Cheltenham, United Kingdom (14 percent); San Diego, California (14 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (13 percent); Haifa, Israel (13 percent); Baltimore, Maryland (9 percent); Orlando, Florida (6 percent); Rockford, Illinois (4 percent); Owego, New York (4 percent ); Grand Rapids, Michigan (3 percent); and Alpharetta, Georgia (1 percent), and is expected to be completed in March 2017.

Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement (Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps) funds in the amount of $9,239,696 will be obligated at time of award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($4,619,848; 50 percent); Marine Corps ($2,309,924; 25 percent); and the Navy ($2,309,924; 25 percent).

The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on March 07, 2016, 06:52:59 PM
So the plane's developers can waste 9 mil in payroll hours playing back-a-mole with the Windows 10 upgrade popup?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on March 26, 2016, 05:49:18 PM
So the plane's developers can waste 9 mil in payroll hours playing back-a-mole with the Windows 10 upgrade popup?

I hope they have better luck than I have :P

Meanwhile, the Navy just spent 10 months refitting USS America to handle the F-35. A ship that was designed and built to handle the F-35 all along.  ::)

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-carrier-built-for-f-35s-is-done-being-rebuilt-so-t-1766741771
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on March 26, 2016, 08:22:27 PM
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xal1/v/t1.0-9/12512653_10153828827260589_2476458856630155786_n.jpg?oh=1da4749ee338410c45b5416781f11820&oe=5779E5AC)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on April 04, 2016, 05:27:25 AM
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/have-the-armchair-f-35-critics-got-it-all-wrong/

A fairly even handed appreciation from across the pond.  Be advised the video is very lengthy, but comprehensive.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: OJsDad on April 04, 2016, 06:47:41 AM
Article talks a little bit about what happened with the costs of the F35 and how it was envisioned to work.  It was written by the Motley Fool, a investing web site, so the article it looking at it from business point of view.  Still, gives a quick overview.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/how-lockheed-martins-grand-plan-for-the-f-35-fell-apart/ar-BBqCtdF?ocid=spartanntp

Quote
How Lockheed Martin's grand plan for the F-35 fell apart

Once upon a time, there was an F-22 Raptor. It was a good plane -- some even called it "the most capable air superiority combat jet in the world" -- but it cost a lot.

At a sticker price of $412 million per plane , the U.S. Air Force couldn't afford to buy a lot of F-22s. So, to ensure it had a good quantity of fighter jets, as well as a few of good quality, the Air Force proposed a "high-low" solution. On the high end, it would buy a handful of ultra-expensive F-22s to ensure air dominance. On the low end, to boost its numbers and ensure its ability to carry a lot of bombs into combat, it would buy a whole mess of F-35 Lightning II fighter jets -- projected to cost just $35 million each. (Lockheed Martin (LMT), which builds both planes, was happy to oblige on both ends).

That was the plan. Instead, the F-35 fighter jet is turning out to be the most expensive fighter jet ever built, and is expected to ultimately cost taxpayers as much as $1.5 trillion.

The story of Air Force's monumental miscalculation of the F-35's true cost is one that will go down in the history books -- and indeed, is already considered an historical fact. But the thing is, it was a miscalculation, and not an intentional misdirection.

How did we get it so wrong?

As revealed in a piece that ran on DefenseOne last week, Lockheed Martin (and the Air Force) truly believed that the F-35 was going to be a (relatively) cheap plane to build, in part because the three F-35 variants desired by the U.S. Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps were expected to share a large number of interchangeable parts.

In theory, each of the conventionally launched and landed F-35A, the vertical takeoff and landing F-35B, and the aircraft carrier-variant F-35C, were to use "common" parts. This commonality was supposed to save "billions of dollars" from not having to develop specialized parts for each F-35 variant and not having to maintain and run separate supply chains for each type of F-35. But as it turned out, the overlap among models is just 20%.

One more time, with feeling
As it worked out, as the F-35 program grew, the three "F-35" variants grew apart. And the effort to achieve commonality may have actually added to the cost of the program, while compromising each plane's ability to do its job well.

Characterizing these results after the fact, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan says: "I'm not saying they're bad. I'm not saying they're good. I'm just saying they're hard." So as the Pentagon begins to make plans for its next-generation fighter jet, expected to enter service in the 2030s and dubbed "F-X" by the Air Force and "F/A-XX" by the Navy, there's a big incentive not to make the same mistake.

The implication being, it's looking increasingly likely that America's sixth-generation fighter jet will actually be several fighter jets, not one supposedly "common" system.

What it means to investors

For several reasons, that might not be a bad thing. First and foremost, if cost savings from a common system have proved illusory, there's little incentive to try to do something that's "hard" -- and probably doomed to fail. Taxpayers should applaud a move by the military to learn from past mistakes.

Second, taking the easier route of building a fighter tailor-made for what the Air Force needs -- and a second plane for the Marines, and a third for the Navy -- offers the prospect of multiple defense contractors winning work. Each of Lockheed Martin, Boeing (BA), and Northrop Grumman (NOC) could compete for these contracts, preserving price competition and driving costs down. And in the end, each contractor could still win a big chunk of business, building the planes it builds best.

And there's a third reason this could be good news for defense contractors, and for the shareholders who invest in them: The Pentagon's past preference for gargantuan-budget, winner-take-all competitions for "common" weapon systems has spawned a rising plague of lawsuits in the defense industry. No sooner does a company win a contract than it's immediately hit with lawsuits from the losers, hoping to steal that contract away from it.

Granted, these lawsuits generally fail, but they cost money, delaying the acquisitions process. Giving more companies a fairer shake at winning work might do a lot to make the whole process go more smoothly and -- judging from the F-35's record -- maybe more successfully, too.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on April 26, 2016, 04:23:34 PM
http://aviationweek.com/defense/israel-s-f-35-app-and-its-implications?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160426_AW-05_950&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000002486697&utm_campaign=5717&utm_medium=email&elq2=301a717453a14cd296e5cdf41e549415

Israel announces will install own software on F35
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Con on July 07, 2016, 07:51:23 AM
An updated look at the F35.  It was an interesting read on how asymetrical warfare really changes the traditional way war is fought.  Instead of concentrating forces and launching an attack forces are disbursed information is crowd sourced and networked and in real time the forces are then vectored and allocated as needed.  The key is standardization.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21694/f-22-f-35-war-future-china/

Here is the article they reference
http://media.wix.com/ugd/a2dd91_bd906e69631146079c4d082d0eda1d68.pdf
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: jomni on February 04, 2017, 06:32:06 PM
Performed well at red flag.
http://theaviationgeekclub.com/1-f-35a-shot-aggressors-red-flag-17-01/
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: undercovergeek on February 05, 2017, 01:04:38 AM
Uh oh
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on February 06, 2017, 08:55:33 PM
https://warisboring.com/donald-trump-could-screw-the-u-s-navys-plans-for-a-bigger-carrier-fleet-7f1dab79b6f9?source=reading_list---------10-1---------
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on February 13, 2017, 06:11:15 PM
https://warisboring.com/why-the-u-s-military-misses-the-f-14-tomcat-8dbb0bc76ac#.v6ono0tvf
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on February 13, 2017, 06:16:14 PM
https://warisboring.com/why-the-u-s-military-misses-the-f-14-tomcat-8dbb0bc76ac#.v6ono0tvf (https://warisboring.com/why-the-u-s-military-misses-the-f-14-tomcat-8dbb0bc76ac#.v6ono0tvf)

Go figure  >:(
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: MIGMaster on February 14, 2017, 09:54:45 AM
https://warisboring.com/why-the-u-s-military-misses-the-f-14-tomcat-8dbb0bc76ac#.v6ono0tvf

Everyone should miss the F-14 - it was truly beautiful!
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on February 14, 2017, 04:38:34 PM
then youll love this story:

https://theaviationist.com/2014/08/18/the-story-of-a-legendary-f-14-pilot-and-the-gun-kill-on-an-f-15-that-could-sell-tomcat-to-japan/

(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/F-15-locked.jpg)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on March 10, 2017, 10:56:06 AM
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8224/heres-what-really-happened-when-u-s-marines-brought-f-35bs-to-red-flag
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on March 10, 2017, 10:58:44 AM
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8146/has-israel-actually-sent-the-f-35-into-combat-already
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Airborne Rifles on March 11, 2017, 05:01:48 PM
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8146/has-israel-actually-sent-the-f-35-into-combat-already

Quote
the F-35 aircraft finally overflew the palace of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad before returning to Israel.

 :o >:D
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on April 19, 2017, 11:40:09 AM
First operational deployment to Europe

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9298/usaf-operationally-deploying-f-35a-to-europe-this-weekend-for-the-first-time
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bbmike on April 19, 2017, 12:33:31 PM
First operational deployment to Europe

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9298/usaf-operationally-deploying-f-35a-to-europe-this-weekend-for-the-first-time

You forgot to add the Putin laughing gif.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on April 19, 2017, 12:36:05 PM
First operational deployment to Europe

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9298/usaf-operationally-deploying-f-35a-to-europe-this-weekend-for-the-first-time (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9298/usaf-operationally-deploying-f-35a-to-europe-this-weekend-for-the-first-time)

You forgot to add the Putin laughing gif.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZK682Aq.gif)

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on April 19, 2017, 12:37:00 PM
For good measure

(http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/A-Young-Bill-Murray-Laughs-On-a-Sitcom.gif)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bbmike on April 19, 2017, 12:42:45 PM
^Perfect.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on April 20, 2017, 06:31:07 PM
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/boeings-block-iii-super-hornet-high-end-complement-to-f-35-stackley/
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on May 10, 2017, 05:36:36 AM
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newslockheed-martins-first-f-35b-jet-rolls-out-of-italys-faco-facility-5807139?WT.mc_id=DN_News

Italy prepares to receive their new planes.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on May 27, 2017, 08:46:26 AM
Israelis are getting use out of their F-35s.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20170527.aspx
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on May 28, 2017, 06:39:08 PM
The Israeli F-35 is likely to be very different from any other

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10665/israel-is-getting-a-single-f-35-test-jet-unlike-any-other
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on June 06, 2017, 05:25:19 AM
Japan begins production.

https://theaviationist.com/2017/06/05/the-first-japanese-built-f-35a-unveiled-at-nagoya-production-facility-in-japan/
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on June 06, 2017, 07:15:34 AM
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/transformers/images/c/c3/Rotf-breakaway-1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090710090744)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: OJsDad on June 09, 2017, 01:08:30 PM
https://twitter.com/defense_news/status/873252354656804866
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bbmike on June 09, 2017, 03:44:51 PM
^That's why we need robots.  ^-^
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on June 09, 2017, 03:46:46 PM
https://twitter.com/defense_news/status/873252354656804866

Wtf. Same shit happened with the 22.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bbmike on June 09, 2017, 03:53:49 PM
^That's why we need robots.  ^-^
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: trailrunner on June 09, 2017, 06:19:45 PM
Wtf. Same shit happened with the 22.

And is happening on the F/A-18.

And is happening on the T-45.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on June 09, 2017, 07:35:51 PM
The O2 system subcontractor on all those aircraft wouldn't be a division of Takada by any chance, would it? Or maybe Lucas Electrical?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Windigo on June 10, 2017, 12:11:41 AM
The O2 system subcontractor on all those aircraft wouldn't be a division of Takada by any chance, would it? Or maybe Lucas Electrical?

Takada built the Edsel didn't it? Also the GH front page iirc.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on June 21, 2017, 08:01:37 PM
https://www.wired.com/story/f-35-fighter-jet-paris-air-show-flight-video
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on June 22, 2017, 10:18:44 AM
https://twitter.com/defense_news/status/873252354656804866

Wtf. Same shit happened with the 22.

Yep, they've been on and on about that. It's a LOT quieter around here without Luke AFB running those things around like mad.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on June 22, 2017, 06:13:16 PM
Few bits from the study done on restarting the F-22 line

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11728/study-on-restarting-f-22-production-has-finally-arrived-heres-the-verdict
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on June 22, 2017, 08:34:55 PM
Bring back the F-14  :'(
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on June 23, 2017, 12:05:49 AM
Im fine with neither being brought back or having production restarted.
I just want to know what the Air Force has in its black box of toys that we dont know about.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: JudgeDredd on June 23, 2017, 01:40:30 AM
Are there any aircraft "geeks" (not used in a derogatory fashion) out there that can explain to me why this plane is the next generation? What makes it so special?

I'm no engineer so I'd like to understand why this bloated looking aircraft is the next gen in air to air/ground combat?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: trailrunner on June 23, 2017, 05:19:25 AM
I'm no engineer so I'd like to understand why this bloated looking aircraft is the next gen in air to air/ground combat?

This is how the F-35 was originally justified:

It is supposed to replace the AV-8 (USMC), A-10 (USAF), and the F/A-18 (USN).  Regarding the last point, remember that when the F-35 program started (mid 1990s), the super hornet (F/A-18E/F) program had not started.

You can argue whether the USMC needs a STOVL aircraft or not, but if you accept that it does, then the AV-8 certainly needs to be replaced.  It is an outdated design all the way around.  We all love the A-10, but it is also an old design.  While the F-35 was being produced, the Navy went ahead with the super Hornet, which turned out to be a pretty good system.

One thing that all of these legacy planes lack is stealth and the ability to suppress or defeat enemy air defenses, and the F-35 will have a robust capability in that area.  The F-35 will also have much better sensors, avionics, and data links.  Compared to the AV-8 and A-10, the F-35 is a big step forward.  Compared to the F/A-18E/F, it's a step forward, perhaps equivalent to moving from the F-15C to the F-22.

Early in the program, the commonality of design (USMC, USAF, USN) was a big selling point, and with an original buy of around 3,000 planes this would lead to a very affordable design.  I think at one point cost was a KPP (key performance parameter) but I could be wrong about this.  It was also supposed to be able to carry an incredible range of weapons, and it was an international program, helping our allies while at the same time contributing to a lower cost.

The F-35 was supposed to have a PHM (prognostics health maintenance) and ALIS (autonomous logistics information) system, which would predict failures before they happened and all that, leading to lower maintenance costs.  At the time, stories (which were true) how expensive the B-2 and F-22 were to maintain were starting to appear.

So that's the party line.  I haven't work on the F-35 for over a decade so I don't know what kind of performance it really wound up.  When I left, there were some pretty predictable problems cropping up when developing something as sophisticated as this.  First, the commonality did not live up to its promises, which was no surprise.  The commonality does have advantages, but it does drawbacks too, because the design has to be compromised to meet the needs of each service.  The original cost goal was not met, which again is absolutely no surprise.  Other issues, such as a few engine issues, and the oxygen problem, are not that unusual.

Most likely, right now software development and test is most likely what is pacing the development.  The amount and complexity of the software on this aircraft is completely mind boggling.  When I worked on F-22, software was a huge deal, but the F-35 has at least 10x the amount of software as the F-22.  Remember that F-22 development started in the early 1980s, whereas the F-35 starting around 1996.






Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: JudgeDredd on June 23, 2017, 05:27:20 AM
wow. Thanks for that.

Has the F22 replaced the F-15 then or is that still ongoing or stopped?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on June 23, 2017, 05:29:33 AM
You can argue whether the USMC needs a STOVL aircraft or not

After their experience in WWII when they were left begging for air support from the Navy several times, the USMC will argue all day, into tomorrow, that they need their own air support, and since their "carriers" (the amphibious assault ships) have short air decks, it has to be a STOVL plane.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on June 23, 2017, 05:31:29 AM
Has the F22 replaced the F-15 then or is that still ongoing or stopped?

F22 production is wrapped.

IIRC, it was the F16 replacement, though, right?

I always learned it as:
F16 = primarily air-to-air fighter, can do other things, too, but designed to fight other aircraft
F15 = primarily a strike fighter, that can fight air-to-air well enough to defend itself, but not primarily to fight other aircraft


So the F22 = F16 replacement, and F35 = F15 replacement
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: JudgeDredd on June 23, 2017, 05:33:50 AM
Has the F22 replaced the F-15 then or is that still ongoing or stopped?

F22 production is wrapped.

Yeah - just found it on WIKI thanks
The high cost of the aircraft, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35 led to the end of F-22 production.[N 1] A final procurement tally of 187 operational production aircraft was established in 2009, and the last F-22 was delivered to the USAF in 2012.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: trailrunner on June 23, 2017, 05:46:10 AM
wow. Thanks for that.

Has the F22 replaced the F-15 then or is that still ongoing or stopped?

I think the only F-15s now being produced are for the foreign market.  However, US F-15s have been and are being upgraded, and they are a pretty capable system, both in terms of quality and quantity.  The F-22 can't replace the F-15 right now because there just aren't enough F-22s.  So instead of the high-low mix envisioned in the 1970s with the F-15 and F-16, we have a high-medium-low mix with the F-22, F-15, and F-16.



You can argue whether the USMC needs a STOVL aircraft or not

After their experience in WWII when they were left begging for air support from the Navy several times, the USMC will argue all day, into tomorrow, that they need their own air support, and since their "carriers" (the amphibious assault ships) have short air decks, it has to be a STOVL plane.

Yes, I heard that many times.  That seems to be a bulletproof discussion-stopper.  Even though times have changed in the last 70 years, nobody is brave enough to seriously challenge that assertion.  One thing I didn't realize when I started working in DoD is just how powerful (and silent) USMC lobbying is.

The amphib assault ships and the F-35 are a pretty good combination, providing a lot of capability without the need for a super carrier.

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: trailrunner on June 23, 2017, 05:54:56 AM
Has the F22 replaced the F-15 then or is that still ongoing or stopped?

F22 production is wrapped.

IIRC, it was the F16 replacement, though, right?

I always learned it as:
F16 = primarily air-to-air fighter, can do other things, too, but designed to fight other aircraft
F15 = primarily a strike fighter, that can fight air-to-air well enough to defend itself, but not primarily to fight other aircraft


So the F22 = F16 replacement, and F35 = F15 replacement

The F-15 was originally designed as an air-to-air fighter.  That was the F-15C and was the primary air superiority fighter.  The F-15E (strike eagle) added the air-to-ground capability. 

The F-35 was definitely sold as an A-10 and F-16 replacement, the single-engine low part of the high-low mix.  That also helped justify the large buy of 3,000 aircraft, while we were only going to buy 179 F-22 (which got increased to 183 (I think) because of crashes).

The F-22 was not sold as a direct replacement for the F-15, but when it came to performance, the F-22 was compared to the F-15, but not the F-16.  Both the F-22 and the F-15 are two-engine fighters, with a primary role of air-to-air and with an added air-to-ground role.


Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on June 23, 2017, 06:13:15 AM
Thanks for clarifying the comparisons between Fighters. Keep in mind I learned it all mainly from army guys, so there are bound to be some errors when they are talking about non-military services. ;D
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on June 23, 2017, 06:28:43 AM
I'm surprised you knew they were airplanes :P
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on June 23, 2017, 06:44:08 AM
I'm surprised you knew they were airplanes :P

All our shit starts with "M"

Besides, it's been a long time since there's been much need to ID enemy aircraft combat.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Airborne Rifles on June 23, 2017, 06:53:03 AM
Being an Army guy, I'm no missionary for the Air Force, but since our country (and our allies) have dumped so much money into this program, I really want it to be worth it. After all the bad press, it actually looks like the F-35 is going to deliver on its promises. I read recently that the price is on its way down to $85 million a copy on the A variant, which is comparable to other non-stealth 4th and 4.5 generation fighters, or a modern airliner. And apparently the maneuvers conducted by the F-35 at the Paris Air Show this week showed that a combat loaded F-35 can pull off maneuvers that 4 and 4.5 generation fighters can't do flying clean. The same article said that those maneuvers were conducted with software that won't as yet even let the F-35 take advantage of its full range of maneuverability. And there have already been more F-35s delivered than F-22s.   
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on June 23, 2017, 08:03:32 PM
the Air Force is trying to stick with its hi/lo mix of planes to keep things relatively simple.  what they need is a hi/medium/low mix to be as flexible as they need to be.
with this idea the F-22/F-15 is the high, the F-35/F-16 is the medium and something like the A-10 is the low.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on June 28, 2017, 01:51:24 PM
Those bastards are LOUD. One went up this morning on afterburner.  :o
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: OJsDad on June 28, 2017, 03:27:42 PM
https://twitter.com/FoxtrotAlpha/status/880104019909378049
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on June 28, 2017, 04:11:20 PM
https://twitter.com/FoxtrotAlpha/status/880104019909378049

Ugh
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: trailrunner on June 29, 2017, 05:20:17 PM
https://twitter.com/FoxtrotAlpha/status/880104019909378049

The reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAM, sometimes RM&A) is very important because the O&S (operation and support) cost is huge.  However, it's not as exciting as effectiveness (how many threats can it shoot down, how fast does it fly) and doesn't get as much attention.

That the F-35 has low availability now is not surprising.  Same thing happened on the C-17 and F-22 when they were new.  Systems and will improve, and our experience with the systems will improve.  That's well known, and there's actually a mil-handbook on reliability growth with all kinds of ways of extrapolating RAM from an immature system to a mature system.

In forecasting reliability growth, the proponents of the system will often try to make wildly optimistic assumptions and claim that they already know of a fix for every problem -- just trust them.  I once sat through an RMET (reliability maintenance evaluation team, or something like that) review of all the maintenance actions, and the contractors had a explanation for why almost every DR (deficiency report) shouldn't be scored against them.  Some were creative, and I'll give them credit for being prepared and fighting tooth and nail.

Having said this, the F-35's low availability now is certainly not a good sign.  I remember when the contractor made all kinds of wild promises in this area that so far haven't come true.  And there are enough F-35s with enough flight hours now that it's probably not really an immature system anymore.

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on June 29, 2017, 07:45:10 PM
actually there are not a lot that have been deployed to operational squadrons.  the vast majority are either for testing or training.  as the program moves along the rate of availability will increase.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on June 29, 2017, 08:42:38 PM
It's all fun and games until someone develops a thought-controlled targeting system.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on June 30, 2017, 12:06:58 AM
a lot can be made of the F-35 being a shit show as its the latest shit show we have to watch.
the F-4 was a shit show.  so was the F-14, F-15, F-18, F-111, B-1, Ah-64 and Uh-60.
for fucks sake, the C-17 was a major cluster fuck.  and then theres the decades long tanker replacement fiasco.
this is the cycle of things.
the biggest problem I see with the F-35 program is that everyone wants and expects the final block version first.
this attitude is what has led to the delays and cost overruns more than anything.  let the friking program mature as its going to.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on June 30, 2017, 04:28:41 AM
and then theres the decades long tanker replacement fiasco.

invalid comparison - this one's never made it out of contracting
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on July 28, 2017, 06:13:35 AM
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20476525_1159374864167220_7311262231548758726_n.jpg?oh=4d4ecdcec8752fd597d5786a89a21f3d&oe=59F2A1DE)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on July 28, 2017, 06:21:58 AM
The F-14 was not a shit show once the DoD let go of the idea that the F-111 was going to be a one-size fits all solution for the Air Force and Navy. The F-14 was delivered and operational 2 years after the contract was signed with Grumman.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on July 28, 2017, 06:26:25 AM
actually there are not a lot that have been deployed to operational squadrons.  the vast majority are either for testing or training.  as the program moves along the rate of availability will increase.

FWIW, the guy you're arguing with - Trailrunner - works for the FAA and coordinates a lot of their DoD-related activities.
It's like you trying to argue with Cap'n Darwin about rocket science...  O0
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on July 28, 2017, 06:43:50 AM
two guys in my last WoT team worked the flight line at Luke so ymmv.
anyway, my point still stands that the DoD is trying to get the last version first and thats one of the programs biggest problems.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on July 28, 2017, 06:51:44 AM
DoD isn't trying to do that. In fact, the IOC requirements have been lowered more than once to make it look like the program is more on track than it is.

The problem is trying to simultaneously develop and deliver multiple versions for the various branches, particularly because so much of the plane is bleeding edge technology. It's compounded because maintenance and upgrades to existing aircraft have been deferred while waiting for the F-35.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on August 06, 2017, 09:39:29 AM


http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13233/f-35b-pilots-will-make-rolling-landings-like-this-to-board-royal-navy-carriers
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: trailrunner on August 06, 2017, 01:21:39 PM
FWIW, the guy you're arguing with - Trailrunner - works for the FAA and coordinates a lot of their DoD-related activities.
It's like you trying to argue with Cap'n Darwin about rocket science...  O0

Actually, I work for DoD.  Over my career, I've had a front-row seat to a lot of great technology and systems in all services.  When I didn't have a front-row seat, I was in the lab, actually working on the system.  I think I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that I went to my first JSF meeting in February 1997 or 98, and I worked the program for over a decade after that.

anyway, my point still stands that the DoD is trying to get the last version first and thats one of the programs biggest problems.

I think you are referring to the article about the Pentagon testing office, right?  If that's the case, then just trust me that I am very familiar with that office.  Very familiar.

And trust me when I say that your assertion that "the DoD is trying to get the last version first and thats one of the programs biggest problems" is not correct.


DoD isn't trying to do that. In fact, the IOC requirements have been lowered more than once to make it look like the program is more on track than it is.

The problem is trying to simultaneously develop and deliver multiple versions for the various branches, particularly because so much of the plane is bleeding edge technology. It's compounded because maintenance and upgrades to existing aircraft have been deferred while waiting for the F-35.


There is a lot of truth to this.  Operational requirements have been reduced, while at the same time, the schedule keeps getting longer, and the budget keeps increasing.  I used to joke that other than cost, schedule, and performance, the program is doing great.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on August 06, 2017, 01:27:20 PM
I used to joke that other than cost, schedule, and performance, the program is doing great.

Lol. That sums it up very well.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on August 06, 2017, 01:28:48 PM
I thought you were our FAA guy?  Is that bbmike?  I crossed wires there somewhere.

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on August 06, 2017, 01:33:01 PM
Mike is FAA.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on August 06, 2017, 01:33:47 PM
And thanks for your insight, Trailrunner  O0
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: trailrunner on August 06, 2017, 03:56:22 PM
And thanks for your insight, Trailrunner  O0

Thanks for having me!   :hug:
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on September 06, 2017, 11:02:30 AM
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14103/lets-talk-about-the-usafs-plan-for-fully-combat-capable-f-35s
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on October 24, 2017, 02:01:15 PM
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15388/f-35as-headed-to-asia-for-first-operational-deployment-amid-north-korean-tensions
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on November 01, 2017, 06:31:35 PM
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15550/the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program-has-had-a-pretty-rough-week

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-75
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on November 01, 2017, 06:36:47 PM
Can't we just bring back the F-14? :(
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on November 03, 2017, 10:13:55 AM
https://twitter.com/TheAviationist/status/926481455877902336
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on November 03, 2017, 10:33:40 AM
^ ;D

That headline makes the story sound like "whew, they made it safely and didn't break down."
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on November 03, 2017, 05:05:01 PM
And no trail of small mystery parts along the way.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on November 07, 2017, 05:15:35 PM
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15800/uae-could-become-the-first-middle-eastern-county-after-israel-to-get-the-f-35
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on November 08, 2017, 11:16:44 AM
https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/928214824051503104
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on November 08, 2017, 01:19:51 PM
Who did Lockheed-Martin bribe? ;D
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on November 08, 2017, 05:33:27 PM
Who did Lockheed-Martin bribe this time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals)? ;D

FIFY
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on November 18, 2017, 10:27:12 AM
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20171118.aspx

Thought provoking column on the Russians disinformation campaign to smear and stop the Lightning.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 06, 2017, 07:10:58 AM
https://twitter.com/TheAviationist/status/938409525064986624
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on December 06, 2017, 07:13:04 AM
^ What's next? Praying that war doesn't break out?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Martok on December 07, 2017, 12:05:20 AM
^ What's next? Praying that war doesn't break out?

I initially read that as "praying the wing doesn't break off". 

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 26, 2017, 06:35:52 PM
We all knew this was coming

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17199/japan-and-south-korea-eye-f-35b-for-their-helicopter-carriers
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on December 26, 2017, 10:12:13 PM
Kamikaze: The Next Generation
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on December 27, 2017, 05:05:20 AM
All your Kido Butai are belong to us.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Airborne Rifles on December 27, 2017, 05:19:06 AM
All your Kido Butai are belong to us.

Ha!
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on December 27, 2017, 05:57:57 AM
We all knew this was coming

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17199/japan-and-south-korea-eye-f-35b-for-their-helicopter-carriers

They were designed to fit on the USMC amphib assault ships that are essentially the same thing, right?  I'm sure that was in the back of everyone's minds...
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 27, 2017, 04:51:05 PM
We all knew this was coming

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17199/japan-and-south-korea-eye-f-35b-for-their-helicopter-carriers

They were designed to fit on the USMC amphib assault ships that are essentially the same thing, right?  I'm sure that was in the back of everyone's minds...

Yeah, the F-35B is designed to be operated off the Corps' assault ships. So it's no surprise that the Japanese would be looking at using them on their own baby carriers...err helicopter destroyers.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 27, 2017, 04:52:11 PM
And speaking of the USMC's F-35Bs

https://theaviationist.com/?p=48652
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on December 27, 2017, 06:05:21 PM
shit.... the IAF has been using them over Syria for a year.  :knuppel2:
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on December 27, 2017, 06:06:12 PM
The IAF does not fuck around.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on December 27, 2017, 06:10:18 PM
The IAF does not fuck around.

By now at least a few of their F35s have some fresh stencils just below the canopy.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on December 27, 2017, 06:11:14 PM
shit.... the IAF has been using them over Syria for a year.  :knuppel2:

Yeah, but not off of helicopter carriers
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on January 02, 2018, 07:39:16 AM
https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/948199817292984320
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: OJsDad on January 08, 2018, 02:25:44 PM
shit.... the IAF has been using them over Syria for a year.  :knuppel2:

Yeah, but not off of helicopter carriers

The countries not much bigger than a helicopter carrier, so yeah, they do. 
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on January 18, 2018, 01:18:38 PM
https://twitter.com/TheAviationist/status/954084464405110784
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on January 22, 2018, 06:52:46 AM
https://twitter.com/TheAviationist/status/955434418973396993
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: OJsDad on January 25, 2018, 02:13:36 PM
https://twitter.com/defense_news/status/956635023968481282
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: trailrunner on January 25, 2018, 04:25:30 PM
BTW, the office cited in the report is where I work, although (fortunately) I haven't worked on the F-35 in ten years.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on January 25, 2018, 05:45:39 PM
Do we hate our NATO allies that much?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: OJsDad on February 13, 2018, 07:47:44 PM
https://twitter.com/defense_news/status/963594872308584455
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on February 13, 2018, 08:50:50 PM
whos really to say they didnt?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Windigo on February 13, 2018, 10:09:12 PM
whos really to say they didnt?

after all... theyre kinda stealthy
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on February 15, 2018, 11:09:39 AM
https://twitter.com/fighterpics/status/964197744331186176
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on March 22, 2018, 06:31:29 PM
Oh boy  ::)

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19537/marillyn-lockheed-tells-president-trump-the-f-35-absolutely-is-invisible (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19537/marillyn-lockheed-tells-president-trump-the-f-35-absolutely-is-invisible)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Steelgrave on March 22, 2018, 06:36:07 PM
Oh boy  ::)

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19537/marillyn-lockheed-tells-president-trump-the-f-35-absolutely-is-invisible (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19537/marillyn-lockheed-tells-president-trump-the-f-35-absolutely-is-invisible)

Why does the military need the F-35 when our infantry has jet packs and ray gun blasters and giant robots do all our fighting anyway? Dear God, if Trump screens Transformers he may want a ride in Bumblebee......
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: trailrunner on March 22, 2018, 06:44:42 PM
Oh boy  ::)

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19537/marillyn-lockheed-tells-president-trump-the-f-35-absolutely-is-invisible (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19537/marillyn-lockheed-tells-president-trump-the-f-35-absolutely-is-invisible)

Meh.  I've read many, many misinterpretations and absolutes about about military capabilities by the press and politicians.  It's not that uncommon even among those of us in the industry to use "see" in connection with radars, e.g., "the radar can't seen the plane until it's within its WEZ."  When I worked on the F-22, it was also often referred to as being invisible.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on March 22, 2018, 06:45:49 PM
Yeah, but I'm not convinced The Donald can grasp the distinction.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: OJsDad on March 28, 2018, 05:23:43 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/air-force-risks-losing-third-of-f-35s-if-upkeep-costs-arent-cut/ar-BBKO1GS?ocid=spartanntp
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on March 29, 2018, 03:59:56 PM
https://theaviationist.com/?p=52477
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on April 03, 2018, 11:17:22 AM
https://taskandpurpose.com/f-22-f-35-communcations/
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on April 13, 2018, 04:15:47 AM
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20087/the-f-35-hits-a-key-developmental-milestone-but-with-watered-down-requirements
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: JudgeDredd on April 13, 2018, 04:46:53 AM
Seriously - at 1:12, there's the "Weapon Delivery Accuracy Tests" and every one of the ordinance strikes shown miss the target  :DD  I'm not saying they didn't do damage - but they didn't hit the target either.

This is a promotional video right? Why would they include that?  :uglystupid2:

Also - I never got the front opening flap for the vertical thruster. For landing, yeah...ok...it'll help slow the aircraft down. However, it's not an "adjustable" airbrake - it's just an on/off airbrake and when going into vertical landing mode, it's an always on brake. That's the first thing. The second thing is they show it doing a short take off requiring vertical thrust - and that requires that "airbrake" to be on...resulting in slower forward momentum. And I can imagine there'd be extra thrust needed to propel the aircraft forward, resulting, marginally or otherwise, in unnecessary additional pressure being put on the engine and the opening itself.

I'm no engineer...but I have some basic understanding of physics and mechanics and the whole design of that vertical thrust mech for me seems to be flawed in many ways.

If anyone can shed any light on any benefits of the front opening flap (except for being a brake for coming in to land, which I've mentioned), I'm all ears.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: ComradeP on April 13, 2018, 11:53:06 AM
I often wonder how the F-35 project could've failed so spectacularly thus far. The Defence industry is very political in the US, but even taking that into account the program is not living up to any expectations.

Should there be a military conflict with Russia soon, NATO will primarily be using a roughly 40 year old design, the F-16, instead of the modern aircraft that should've entered service at the beginning of this decade. Even if it enters service, I'm worried that a showdown between an F-35 and an Su-35 wouldn't have a happy ending for the F-35 considering all of the design flaws that are only slowly being ironed out.

Yes, aircraft in the past have also taken years or even decades to become truly successful, but the F-35 program is in a league of its own.

On another level, it is also frustrating that the delays also makes smaller NATO partners, who invested in the project, more vulnerable and also spending money on things that shouldn't have been necessary, like extending the service of the F-16.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on April 13, 2018, 12:22:51 PM
well it SU-35s are getting through to the F-35s then a lot of other things have gone very wrong.
Im really not worried about any US or NATO air force dealing easily with Russian trash.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: OJsDad on April 13, 2018, 07:28:27 PM
ComradeP, Trailrunner talked about the development issues on the F35 a couple of pages back.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: ComradeP on April 14, 2018, 01:37:21 AM
Yeah, I read that, I'm just wondering in a literal sense how those things could happen and why they couldn't be prevented.

With modern computers, simulating most kinds of challenges related to physics or handling should not be complicated. However, the project keeps running into software problems.

The project made sense for its time, it's how the project is handled that is almost embarrassing. 

Starfury: I understand your faith in the various NATO Air Forces, primarily the US Air Force, but as we've had a discussion about this many times already I'll just summarize my point to my usual reply that neither the US nor any other NATO ally has faced a modern military force with similar capabilities and similar numbers either since Desert Storm or the Second World War and I'll add my usual caveat that I don't feel Saddam's army counts as being technologically on par with NATO (which is another point we'll usually disagree on).

The Gulf War air war preparation phase for the ground phase also took nearly half a year and over 2000 aircraft, at a time when many NATO members still had shiny Cold War-sized armed forces. A lot of that is gone now to begin with, including the support infrastructure as recent exercises in Europe moving forces from west to east have shown, and the question is becoming more and more: what do we have if the Russians attack today? The likeliness of having about half a year to prepare isn't great. Desert Storm was the kind of conflict where everything could be carefully prepared in favour of the participating NATO members.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on April 14, 2018, 09:39:20 AM
I get where you're coming from Comrade.  I would like to point out that of all the post Cold War air forces the Russians have pretty much been hit the worst with budget cuts and airframe availability.  somewhere around here is a chart and on that chart it graphically shows how the USAF alone has more tankers then the Russians have airplanes.  one could be very impressed by the latest and greatest from Sukhoi, the problem is there are only a handful of these plane.  I would also point out that western intelligence has now had a very good look at how these aircraft perform and how long they can maintain operations.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on April 14, 2018, 10:10:47 AM
^ Yeah, the downside for Putin in using Syria to demonstrate what his frontline assets are capable of...

... is that he's just also demonstrated what his frontline assets are not capable of.


(With a little recent help from the IDF...  8) )
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: trailrunner on April 14, 2018, 10:23:25 AM
In straight up air-to-air combat, the F-35 will do just fine.  No worries there.


With modern computers, simulating most kinds of challenges related to physics or handling should not be complicated. However, the problem keeps running into software problems.
 

This is a good observation.  We can predict aero performance pretty well, because it's based on physics.  I went to a design review for the F-22 engine in the 1990s.  One of the Pratt and Whitney engineers was getting raked over the coals because the fuel burn was a few percent higher than the model predicted.  This is certainly important because it affects range, but at the same time, I thought that a model that was within a couple percent was pretty darn good.

But aero performance is not what makes the F-35 or F-22 stand out -- it's the software, as you note (and a few other things).  I posted in this thread a long time ago about the huge amount of software on the F-35.  The quantity is just staggering, and when you think of everything that this system is supposed to do (communicate externally, drop bombs, shoot missiles, navigate, process extremely complex sensor information, manage maintenance -- while also at the same time flying!), you can appreciate how enormously complex this system is.  Again, it's just staggering.  Software paced development of the F-22, and when I first started working on the F-35 program, I was certain that it would also pace the development of this system too.  But maybe this is just how long it takes to develop software this complex -- we just can't go any faster.  If that's the case, then the real problem is the unrealistically ambitious schedule imposed by the government in the RFP.

Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: JudgeDredd on April 14, 2018, 10:25:23 AM
You still get M1 Abrams and Challenger II tanks taken out with RPGs. Never underestimate the enemy.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Windigo on April 17, 2018, 11:33:10 AM
We’re safe until the warthog gets retired for good.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on April 18, 2018, 04:40:14 AM
Until the sage powers that be decide that the F35 with its gun pod could take over that role.  :idiot2:
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on April 18, 2018, 05:58:26 AM
Yeah, because 'two or three 'pew pew's and its gone' is better than fifteen minutes of BBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTT

 ::)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on April 18, 2018, 06:06:56 AM
Hey now, there's something to be said for fifteen minutes of BBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTT
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on April 18, 2018, 05:30:29 PM
My point exactly.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on April 20, 2018, 12:52:31 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-lockheed-exclusive/exclusive-lockheed-martin-to-propose-stealthy-hybrid-of-f-22-and-f-35-for-japan-sources-idUSKBN1HR0MM
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on April 24, 2018, 06:49:11 PM
https://twitter.com/CobraBall3/status/988935810748739584
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on April 27, 2018, 12:19:44 PM
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20445/senate-bill-to-ban-f-35-sales-to-turkey-an-unprecedented-attempt-to-check-erdogans-actions
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on May 12, 2018, 08:25:09 PM
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20180512.aspx

Looks like the Russians are in deep kimche.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Windigo on May 14, 2018, 10:19:08 AM
kimche is Korean; were you thinking curry?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on May 14, 2018, 10:22:09 AM
I dunno, but I want Indian food now.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Jarhead0331 on May 14, 2018, 10:24:27 AM
https://www.duffelblog.com/2015/08/f-35-loses-dogfight-to-red-baron/ (https://www.duffelblog.com/2015/08/f-35-loses-dogfight-to-red-baron/)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Barthheart on May 14, 2018, 10:41:32 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on May 14, 2018, 11:21:43 AM
https://www.duffelblog.com/2015/08/f-35-loses-dogfight-to-red-baron/ (https://www.duffelblog.com/2015/08/f-35-loses-dogfight-to-red-baron/)


Quote
Lockheed officials have separately downplayed reports that the same F-35, flown by the same pilot, previously lost mock dogfights with the Goodyear Blimp and a beagle on a flying doghouse.


 :2funny:
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on May 17, 2018, 02:51:13 PM
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20914/the-f-35-has-a-new-nickname-given-to-it-by-the-usafs-most-elite-pilots
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on May 18, 2018, 05:28:34 AM
so I guess they got a contract with Wakanda.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on May 18, 2018, 06:25:16 AM
^lol. Maybe the Wakandans can make something out of the thing.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on May 18, 2018, 06:29:24 AM
That nickname is somehow far too complimentary to the plane. Pilots gotta have another even more unofficial nickname for it, right? "Piece of $hit" comes to mind.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: OJsDad on May 18, 2018, 06:30:12 AM
So, if they paint the planes black, will they be the Black Panther
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on May 18, 2018, 06:31:34 AM
They'll probably get shot at more often.


A-badda-bing-a-badda-boom!
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: OJsDad on May 18, 2018, 06:34:40 AM
No fear as long as the people doing the shooting are stormtroopers
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on May 18, 2018, 06:37:06 AM
#F-35LivesMatter
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on May 21, 2018, 01:41:20 AM
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20971/this-is-what-a-boeing-f-32-wouldve-looked-like-if-lockheed-lost-the-jsf-competition
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: JudgeDredd on May 21, 2018, 02:12:59 AM
^The very first image of that hit me as the F-86 Sabre  O0

And it does actually look badass
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on May 21, 2018, 07:18:10 AM
I think more of a Corsair II look about it.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: JudgeDredd on May 21, 2018, 07:35:02 AM
Well played  :notworthy:

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/978/41533501344_ede607475d_b.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/832/28381649328_510fcb9320_b.jpg)
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: BanzaiCat on May 21, 2018, 12:47:59 PM
Can we just bring back the Tomcat and call it even?
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: trailrunner on May 21, 2018, 04:31:28 PM
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20971/this-is-what-a-boeing-f-32-wouldve-looked-like-if-lockheed-lost-the-jsf-competition

During the down select back in 2001, there were rumors that the Boeing design would never win because it was just too ugly.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: JudgeDredd on May 21, 2018, 04:36:32 PM
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20971/this-is-what-a-boeing-f-32-wouldve-looked-like-if-lockheed-lost-the-jsf-competition

During the down select back in 2001, there were rumors that the Boeing design would never win because it was just too ugly.
lol. How'd that pan out then  :hide:
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: OJsDad on May 22, 2018, 05:03:55 AM
https://twitter.com/defense_news/status/998881127011102720
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Labbug on May 22, 2018, 05:36:22 AM
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/israel-says-first-country-to-use-u-s-made-f-35-in-combat.html
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on May 22, 2018, 06:49:52 AM
https://theaviationist.com/?p=55011
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: GDS_Starfury on May 22, 2018, 05:56:29 PM
not surprised at all
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on May 24, 2018, 02:45:51 AM
https://twitter.com/TheAviationist/status/999570773697327105
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Windigo on May 24, 2018, 10:34:00 AM
Gawd they're ugly.

Still hoping Canada buys the SuperHornet with the updated engines and electronics
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on May 24, 2018, 05:35:19 PM
^Good luck on those engines. Even the USN isn't getting them.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: OJsDad on June 03, 2018, 03:28:00 PM
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-be-the-new-f-4-phantom-26086
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Staggerwing on June 03, 2018, 05:41:46 PM
As long as it's not the new F-105...


http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-105-thunderchief-fighter-the-f-35-the-vietnam-war-16839
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on July 03, 2018, 07:20:20 AM
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/what-31-us-air-force-pilots-who-flew-f-35-really-think-24857
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on July 03, 2018, 07:33:51 AM
Full Heritage study (from above article) here:  https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/operational-assessment-the-f-35a-argues-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on July 07, 2018, 08:59:59 PM
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-f-35-is-a-terrible-fighter-bomber-and-attacker-and-unfit-for-aircraft-carriers-c6e36763574b
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: DoctorQuest on July 07, 2018, 09:10:40 PM
Ok. I get the feeling someone is not being straight up on the real status of the F-35.......
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on July 13, 2018, 12:41:29 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-quietly-sends-f-35-aircraft-carrier-to-pacific-china-south-sea-2018-7
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Jarhead0331 on July 13, 2018, 02:03:10 PM
I don't care what any of you guys say about the F35...

I want one.  :nerd:
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Jarhead0331 on July 13, 2018, 02:04:30 PM
Well played  :notworthy:

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/978/41533501344_ede607475d_b.jpg)


This has "ARMA 3" written all over it!
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on July 26, 2018, 06:27:59 AM
The Israeli input supposedly has made the F-35 a technologic wonder.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/20180724.aspx
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on July 26, 2018, 07:20:41 AM
The Israeli input supposedly has made the F-35 a technologic wonder.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/20180724.aspx

I would really like to know who wrote that.  I know some of the SP authors, but that doesn't read like any of the ones I know.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on July 26, 2018, 09:09:57 AM
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-sky-russias-s-400-vs-americas-stealth-f-35-and-f-22-who-wins-26791
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: mirth on July 26, 2018, 09:14:59 AM
^good piece
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: bayonetbrant on August 02, 2018, 08:38:47 AM
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/did-russian-made-missile-really-strike-new-israeli-f-35-stealth-fighter-27537
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: OJsDad on August 21, 2018, 11:50:42 AM
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/who-cares-about-f-35-why-russia-doesnt-fear-american-weapons-29342
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: jomni on April 09, 2019, 11:34:59 PM
Much publicised crash in Japan.
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/04/09/asia/japan-f-35-stealth-fighter-missing-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.sg%2F
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Pete Dero on June 14, 2019, 01:31:16 AM
America Is Stuck With a $400 Billion Stealth Fighter That Can’t Fight

The planes have had several previously unreported ‘category 1’ flaws—military parlance for issues that can prevent a pilot from accomplishing their mission.

If one of the U.S. military’s new F-35 stealth fighters has to climb at a steep angle in order to dodge an enemy attack, design flaws mean the plane might suddenly tumble out of control and crash.
Also, some versions of the F-35 can’t accelerate to supersonic speed without melting their own tails or shedding the expensive coating that helps to give the planes their radar-evading qualities.

“The services will have to wait five years or more to get a fully functional aircraft, if they ever do,” Dan Grazier, an analyst with the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C., told The Daily Beast.



https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/america-is-stuck-with-a-dollar400-billion-stealth-fighter-that-cant-fight?ref=home?ref=home
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: jamus34 on June 14, 2019, 05:05:37 AM
Being a “civvy” can someone explain how or why the mindset of “jack of all trades” with regard to military hardware can ever be considered a good idea.

Because from what I’ve seen between the F35 and the LCS the military has created two very expensive pieces of junk that cannot perform even the most basic of their missions without compromise.

If I’m incorrect feel free to let me know it, but that’s the 30,000 ft view I’ve seen with these two programs.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Dammit Carl! on June 14, 2019, 06:02:47 AM
Being a “civvy” can someone explain how or why the mindset of “jack of all trades” with regard to military hardware can ever be considered a good idea.

Same way they (the Army) thought the UCP would be the end-all camo (despite it being horrible at most places) and the XM-8 a complete modular system providing a platform for a PDW through squad automatic style weapon; trying to get the best bang for the buck.

While not a bad approach in theory, some things just should be the specialized pieces of equipment they are and be done with it.

-on a personal rant and through nothing but my gut feeling, this "forever war," we are in has lined more pockets of more persons/companies than can be imagined.  Pitch the right people the right project and you could make an insane amount of cash with little to nothing to show at the end.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on August 18, 2019, 10:17:05 AM
Latest evaluation takes a different approach to tout the F-35

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20190817.aspx

As of mid-2019 pilots from four air forces (Israel, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force and British RAF) have flown the F-35 in combat. Most of these missions were flown over Syria and Iraq although marine F-35Bs have served in Afghanistan and Israel has Iranians thinking these stealth aircraft have ventured into Iran. Dozens of pilots have spent hundreds of hours with their F-35s in combat zones. There are some things they all agree on.

All these F-35 combat pilots now believed the main advantage of the F-35 is its ease of operation and much enhanced situational awareness. Stealth is useful but not as much as those first two items.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: besilarius on January 29, 2020, 06:38:39 AM
Queen Elizabeth flight testing

https://www.facebook.com/thef35/videos/540408506800946/?t=24
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: ArizonaTank on January 29, 2020, 07:21:32 AM
Being a “civvy” can someone explain how or why the mindset of “jack of all trades” with regard to military hardware can ever be considered a good idea.

I can't speak too well on the F-35. But historically "jack of all trades" aircraft have held an important role since at least WWII. Off the top of my head, the F-4 Phantom II is a great example. The Israelis loved them. They could take a pretty good load of ordinance and put it on a ground target, then stick around in an air-to-air role, keeping the airspace over the target free for the next wave. There were more nimble dogfighters and better bombers than the Phantom. But specialist aircraft could only do well at one role or the other. The Phantom did everything pretty well. So "jack of all trades" aircraft give mission planners the most flexibility. If you have limited hanger space, say on a carrier. You probably want something that can handle the broadest array of mission types.
Title: Re: F35 - Bad idea made worse over time?
Post by: Jarhead0331 on January 29, 2020, 08:34:39 AM
Being a “civvy” can someone explain how or why the mindset of “jack of all trades” with regard to military hardware can ever be considered a good idea.

I can't speak too well on the F-35. But historically "jack of all trades" aircraft have held an important role since at least WWII. Off the top of my head, the F-4 Phantom II is a great example. The Israelis loved them. They could take a pretty good load of ordinance and put it on a ground target, then stick around in an air-to-air role, keeping the airspace over the target free for the next wave. There were more nimble dogfighters and better bombers than the Phantom. But specialist aircraft could only do well at one role or the other. The Phantom did everything pretty well. So "jack of all trades" aircraft give mission planners the most flexibility. If you have limited hanger space, say on a carrier. You probably want something that can handle the broadest array of mission types.

I think a lot of people will argue that having a multi-role aircraft provides the best incentive in terms of cost. Having dedicated interceptors, dedicated fighters, dedicated close air support, dedicated strike, dedicated EW, etc. was extremely costly throughout the cold war and we learned that having aircraft like the F-16/F-18 that can handle many tasks and missions was, overall, a more cost effective means of making war from the air.