TaiidanTomcat Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Agree 100%. The question is whether their criticisms are accurate or not. Specifically, the latest report they put out on the alleged sub-par reliability of the F135. I think its as "good" as the report they put out advising cancellation of the Super Hornet during its development, And their projected numbers for the Affordable Care Act in 2009. No more, no less. (is there an accountability office for the GAO?) Edited April 28, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 I think its as "good" as the report they put out advising cancellation of the Super Hornet during its development, And their projected numbers for the Affordable Care Act in 2009. No more, no less. (is there an accountability office for the GAO?) That's why I don't like using outside sources and prefer to get my info here on ARC. It's good to know that the F135 doesn't have those reliability issues. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Heres another article in regards to the GAO report on the F135 ... >>> Bloomberg Article <<< It includes the Pentagon IG findings as well as a rebuttal from P&W ... -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 I think its as "good" as the report they put out advising cancellation of the Super Hornet during its development, And their projected numbers for the Affordable Care Act in 2009. No more, no less. (is there an accountability office for the GAO?) Navy leaders at the time also expressed the same issues with the program and many called for its cancellation as it failed to meet the goals set, was over cost, and left them without certain capabilities. Much of the arguments you hear for the F-35 are the same you heard for upgrading the hornets. However, the Rhino had a few things going for it, with as silly as it sounds, keeping the same name. In retrospect, it's easy to say the Navy should have developed the upgraded A-6, shelved the Superhornet, kept the Tomcat around a little longer, etc. All while taking the savings and applying them to a true next gen aircraft. However, completing the circle of expensive defense contracts, whatever next gen platform they would have been developing would have had the same critics calling for its cancellation and saying the money should be better invested in another program say, the F-35. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted April 28, 2015 Author Share Posted April 28, 2015 Navy leaders at the time also expressed the same issues with the program and many called for its cancellation as it failed to meet the goals set, was over cost, and left them without certain capabilities. Much of the arguments you hear for the F-35 are the same you heard for upgrading the hornets. However, the Rhino had a few things going for it, with as silly as it sounds, keeping the same name. In retrospect, it's easy to say the Navy should have developed the upgraded A-6, shelved the Superhornet, kept the Tomcat around a little longer, etc. All while taking the savings and applying them to a true next gen aircraft. However, completing the circle of expensive defense contracts, whatever next gen platform they would have been developing would have had the same critics calling for its cancellation and saying the money should be better invested in another program say, the F-35. I'd say it's even worse than you suggest. BECAUSE the Navy chose the SuperHornet as a "stopgap upgrade" (when it was in fact a whole new airframe) in case the JSF was late, they in fact created a self licking ice cream cone of fulfillment. Now to justify all the money blown on the SH, they are dragging out acceptance of the C model forever, belittling the program at every turn, etc. The longer the SH is it, the more distance they put between a bad business decision made in the late 90s. They can't support the F-35 under any circumstances until the last E/F has hit the airframe limits on cats and traps. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alan in Yorktown Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 GAO reports slams the reliability of the F135. Pratt (somewhat predictably) has a different opinion. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-27/f-35-engines-from-united-technologies-called-unreliable-by-gao?cmpid=yhoo What I do find interesting are the time between failure numbers offered up by the GAO. As of late December, engines on the Marine Corps’ complex version of the F-35, designed for short takeoffs and vertical landings, flew about 47 hours between failures caused by engine design issues instead of the 90 hours planned for this point, according to GAO officials. Air Force and Navy model engines flew about 25 hours between failures instead of the 120 hours planned. Why would the engine in the Marine version have better reliability numbers, despite being more complicated than the CTOL version? While on the subject, any update on the fire issue? Have they introduced a fix or is the entire fleet still subject to those pretty severe maneuverability / inspection restrictions? That is still twice as long as the engines for the Me-262 lasted... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 That is still twice as long as the engines for the Me-262 lasted... LOL.. but the Me-262 had an internal cannon that worked! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Navy leaders at the time also expressed the same issues with the program and many called for its cancellation as it failed to meet the goals set, was over cost, and left them without certain capabilities. Now at the time I remember hearing (and stop me if you have heard this one) that the mean old brass, and evil politicos were conspiring to "force" the jet on the USN, and that naval aviation was on the brink of rebellion. they "hated" the Rhino in fact. Much of the arguments you hear for the F-35 are the same you heard for upgrading the hornets. However, the Rhino had a few things going for it, with as silly as it sounds, keeping the same name. I agree the same critisms too. Lets step back in our time machine: From the following source: Pieter M. Groenendijk, Pioneering at Pax, Combat Aircraft, Vol.7, No. 8,September 2006: -In August 2003, new flight test programs began, aimed at reducing buffet levels and determining a final wing configuration while maintaining the elimination of wing drop. Multiple wing fence configurations were tested and finally, a 5in tall, full-chord wing fence with a solid wing-folding door and a saw-tooth leading edge flap was selected.- The article shows a test Super Hornet with red wing fences on it. What were the follow-on results? Unknown. Either there wasn’t enough money to refit the Super Hornet fleet with wing fences or it just wasn’t worth the money given the low threat environ the jet flies in today. Wing fences if installed could also goof the effect of its’ low observable appliances. Then there is some other fun reading from Bill Sweetman. He is a highly skilled writer on military aviation issues. Some military organizations even quote his work. -Bill Sweetman, Just How Super is the F/A-18E/F?, Interavia Business & Technology, April 1, 2000- -The Navy and Boeing have intensified a propaganda campaign. Unfortunately, the campaign is likely to damage their credibility in the long term, because it focuses on a few basic statements which don’t mean anything like as much as the casual reader is meant to think. For example: “The airplane meets all its key performance parameters.” This is true. In 1998 — as it became clear that the Super Hornet was slower, and less agile at transonic speeds than the C/D — the Navy issued an “administrative clarification” which declared that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for the Super Hornet. Apparently, some misguided people thought that those were important attributes for a fighter.- -Bill Sweetman, Watch Your Six Maverick, Interavia Business & Technology, February 1, 2000- -The Navy’s operational evaluation (Opeval) of the Super Hornet ended in November, and the report is expected late in February. It will probably find the Super Hornet to be operationally effective and suitable, because the impact of any other recommendation would be devastating, but the Navy will have to do some deft manoeuvring to avoid charges that the report is a whitewash.- -Bill Sweetman, Super Hornet gathers speed, but critics keep pressure on, Interavia Business & Technology, March 1, 1999- -The Pentagon has conceded that the MiG-29 and Su-27 can out-accelerate and out-turn all variants of the F/A-18 in most operating regimes, and that the E/F in turn cannot stay up with the older C/D through much of the envelope. Navy data from early 1996 (published in a General Accounting Office report) showed that the new aircraft was expected to have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the late-production (Lot XIX) F/A-18C/D with the General Electric F404-GE-402 engine. Its maximum speed in a typical air-to-air configuration would be Mach 1.6, versus Mach 1.8 for the smaller aircraft. In the heart of the air-combat envelope, between 15,000 and 20,000 feet and at transonic speed, the Lot XIX aircraft would hold a specific excess power (Ps) of 300 ft/sec out to Mach 1.2, while its larger descendant could not hold the same Ps above Mach 1.0.- So, those are some of the things Defence would prefer that the taxpayer who is shelling out $6.6 billion dollars for this bad purchase decision, not know. The U.S. Congress was lied to in order to be convinced to fund the Super Hornet. They were told: “It’s just an upgrade”. This allowed Super Hornet to bypass the first step in procurement for a new type of aircraft which essentially Super Hornet is. After that the program had a lot of engineering fixes to perform. This leads to where the Super Hornet is today in it’s Block II form: Great avionics with poor airframe performance to back it up. https://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/history-they-dont-want-you-to-know/ Whats old is new. BRING BACK THE TOMKATZ!!! Teh Navy is RONG. EVry1 HATES it!!1! In retrospect, it's easy to say the Navy should have developed the upgraded A-6, shelved the Superhornet, kept the Tomcat around a little longer, etc. All while taking the savings and applying them to a true next gen aircraft. However, completing the circle of expensive defense contracts, And the navy's extensive experience with aircraft program cancellation through the 1990s... whatever next gen platform they would have been developing would have had the same critics calling for its cancellation and saying the money should be better invested in another program say, the F-35. That also, already happened. GAO called for cancellation while pointing to JSF as the future. More GAO: http://www.gao.gov/extracts/f9ccdd00ab253ed88ef79811670ddaf0/rId13_image2.png great deal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 The wing fences are used on the EA-18G ... -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Now at the time I remember hearing (and stop me if you have heard this one) that the mean old brass, and evil politicos were conspiring to "force" the jet on the USN, and that naval aviation was on the brink of rebellion. they "hated" the Rhino in fact. I agree the same critisms too. Lets step back in our time machine: https://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/history-they-dont-want-you-to-know/ Whats old is new. BRING BACK THE TOMKATZ!!! Teh Navy is RONG. EVry1 HATES it!!1! And the navy's extensive experience with aircraft program cancellation through the 1990s... That also, already happened. GAO called for cancellation while pointing to JSF as the future. More GAO: http://www.gao.gov/extracts/f9ccdd00ab253ed88ef79811670ddaf0/rId13_image2.png great deal. Didn't you already have to raise many of those same points just a few pages back? BRING BACK THE TOMKATZ!!! F*** the Tomcat. Bring back this guy and everything else is moot. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 TT, you can't use Sweetman as a legitimate source since you've discredited him so much ... : -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 TT, you can't use Sweetman as a legitimate source since you've discredited him so much ... :taunt:/> : :taunt:/> -Gregg I think saying things like he did about the Rhino there is one of the reasons he should be discredited. It was nice of him to recycle the arguments though just a few short years later. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Smokey Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 :D/>, Especially if it comes during weather like we've just had for the last week around Amberley and Williamtown. :cheers:/>, Ross. Come on Ross, don't gild the Lily, it's been perfect weather up here at Amberley, nary a cloud in sight. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 (edited) Now at the time I remember hearing (and stop me if you have heard this one) that the mean old brass, and evil politicos were conspiring to "force" the jet on the USN, and that naval aviation was on the brink of rebellion. they "hated" the Rhino in fact. It was the only option for a new aircraft on a flight deck within the time frame and budget needed, it was a bitter pill. Whenever a new aircraft program is underway or selected you're going to have controversy with op-eds saying this or that. GAO called for cancellation while pointing to JSF as the future. At the time the JSF was supposed to be the cheaper option and the Navy viewed the Superhornet as the high and the F-35 as the low of the high/low mix they envisioned. The GAO makes recommendations, and in many instances, they got it right. Had there been no GAO you could argue the JSF would have been cancelled by now. Edited April 29, 2015 by fulcrum1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 the Navy viewed the Superhornet as the high and the F-35 as the low of the high/low mix they envisioned. I had not heard that before... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 The last LRIP -6 jet. AF-70 http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=20602&sid=cfad61096963d6cbafd47410840ffc40&mode=view Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 The last LRIP -6 jet. AF-70 http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=20602&sid=cfad61096963d6cbafd47410840ffc40&mode=view Nice pic. Is there going to be an LRIP-7 or are they now transitioning to full production status? Any physical differences planned for the full production jets vrs the LRIP ones or are the only changes just limited to software code? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Nice pic. Is there going to be an LRIP-7 or are they now transitioning to full production status? Any physical differences planned for the full production jets vrs the LRIP ones or are the only changes just limited to software code? https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/13567/f-35fast_facts2q2015.pdf Most of the changes are internal, and not all pertain to software. Improved parts etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 Considering LRIP 10 & 11 are moving to the three year out long lead buys, "production" is still a ways off... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 AF-01 "Show Pony" AF-02 " Work Horse" AF-03 "Angry Bird" AF-04 no nickname AF-06 "Honey Badger" AF-07 "Princess" BF-17 "Jailbait" BF-18 "The Beast" CF-08 "Squidward" NickNames for the Test planes. The sexiest flare test you will see all day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3t99z8ETKw Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I'd say it's even worse than you suggest. BECAUSE the Navy chose the SuperHornet as a "stopgap upgrade" (when it was in fact a whole new airframe) in case the JSF was late, they in fact created a self licking ice cream cone of fulfillment. Now to justify all the money blown on the SH, they are dragging out acceptance of the C model forever, belittling the program at every turn, etc. The longer the SH is it, the more distance they put between a bad business decision made in the late 90s. They can't support the F-35 under any circumstances until the last E/F has hit the airframe limits on cats and traps. Very good point indeed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fellow Hobbyist Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 The F-35 training cadre receives it's first female pilot; Lt. Col. Christine Mau, a pilot transferring in from previous Strike Eagle experience. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/christine-mau-first-female-f35-pilot_n_7229768.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 They can't support the F-35 under any circumstances until the last E/F has hit the airframe limits on cats and traps. Isn't that going to happen a lot sooner because of all the action E's and F's (and C's) have seen in recent conflicts? It seems like the Navy should be pushing up its timetables for the replacement aircraft. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) The F-35 training cadre receives it's first female pilot; Lt. Col. Christine Mau, a pilot transferring in from previous Strike Eagle experience. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/christine-mau-first-female-f35-pilot_n_7229768.html Is it 2015 or 1955? What's next, another breathless press release on the first African American pilot to fly the F-35? How is this really considered news? Hopefully her husband is in direct radio contact with her and gives her enough direction so she doesn't crash the jet. On another semi-related note the Super Hornet program gets a stay of execution. Kuwait signed up for 28 of the jets. No indication if they are going for the E or F models. http://www.ibtimes.com/kuwait-buys-f-18-fighter-jets-boeing-3-billion-deal-1914451 Edited May 8, 2015 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 Isn't that going to happen a lot sooner because of all the action E's and F's (and C's) have seen in recent conflicts? It seems like the Navy should be pushing up its timetables for the replacement aircraft. That's what the Corp is for! Dirty little secret, the navy has been swiping out C's for USMC A's that haven't hit their limit. And why do you think they need to keep the Growler line open? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.