TaiidanTomcat Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Hagel out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) All those weapons that worked in 1991 that the reformers said would fail miserably had a much bigger impact I would say than Boyd and his buddies. But thats just me, I have to go take the Radar out of this F-16 now its added weight and complexity for far too long. You can add the AH-64 to the reformers' hit list too. Edited November 24, 2014 by Trigger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I'm sure that's the case but I just have a hard time believing that a Bear could sneak up (undetected), close enough to the US mainland to obtain those signals. I assume those aircraft would be detected while they are still hours away and since their time on station is extremely finite, I would think that we could easily reschedule any F-35 ops that would be occurring during that brief window. Besides, if I were the Russians, I would find better platforms for this work. Why not just go back to the cold war days and station a "fishing" boat packed with SIGINT gear just outside the 12-mile limit off the coast of Tyndall? Time on station would be measured in weeks instead of minutes. They can disrupt schedules and if they're flying out of say, Cuba or South America, they can hang around in international airspace for a while. Is that their sole purpose for being there? No, but the timing is of interest so I won't rule it out. Besides, there's plenty going on in the region to keep them interested. Meanwhile, over the North Atlantic... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) Hagel out. "I'm not a joiner but I'll consider Secretary of Defense if you ask nice. We can bend the hours a little." Edited November 24, 2014 by Tony Stark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Diamondback Six Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) Edited November 24, 2014 by Diamondback Six Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Hagel out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 And what still bothers me the most is the Harrier hovering... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rodmac Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 rodmac, welcome to the internet. Sprey is a self appointed expert. Doing a simple search of this thread, you'll find he has been much discussed and why he generally has no credibility. Here's a few starters: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=209836&st=4180 This is a guy who insisted the F-15 and M-1 Abrams were rolling hot messes too. So, his track record is is pretty good at being the heck off. From page 209 of this thread (http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=209836&st=4160): Seriously, when you start throwing out stuff like Sprey, or move on to Wheeler or APA, I'm starting to wonder if this is a trolling expedition. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rodmac Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) G'day Mark...Thanks for the welcome...and I promise you "Troll" doesn't exist here not trolling never will...I don't know much about Sprey so I'll discount him on your recommendations but I have found several other 'seriously concerned critics ' of the JSF..who talk with some of the concerns..THAT"S ALL...My taxpayer dollars here in OZ are going to help pay for hopefully a real nicely sorted out jet to replace a reliable fleet of Hornets...and I'm just concerned that there seems to be an awful long way to go yet before they are ready to go..but I want them to be sorted out... The Superhornets we bought and the EG 18 Growlers we are also to buy are to be joined by 72 F35 JSFs in a few years time...I want them to be a great plane for the next 25-50 years ..but as a rational person you have to ask the hard questions on why it's taking so long to get these jets done...I recall several years ago now that our minister of defence announced that the Hornets would be retired in 2015 and be replaced by the F35..I think now it's been pushed out to 2018 at the earliest if media reports are accurate.. Lets hope to see the JSFs really up and running sooner rather than later..Cheers Rod.. Edited November 24, 2014 by rodmac Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 and I'm just concerned that there seems to be an awful long way to go yet before they are ready to go..but I want them to be sorted out...but as a rational person you have to ask the hard questions on why it's taking so long to get these jets done... The F-35 has 8 millions lines of code, over 100,000 parts, and is in a test and development program with 60,000 flying test points to be tested in over 8,000 flights with 3 variants including on that hovers and another that lands on a CVN. This isn't counting other tests like Fatigue and separate parts testing I understand there is a lot of taxpayer money and national security involved and I get that, but there also has to be some level of understanding of the subject at hand, and the lack of agenda. Its a little frustrating to have people pull the "My tax dollars!!" card and then proceed to ape or parrot what some self declared expert on youtube said. This is an extremely complex subject, And there are legitimate gripes about the JSF However the vast majority of gripes are not legitimate. People have tried in vain to debunk many of the fabrications and add context and explanation to other issues, but again its complex and not many people want to sit and listen or read a 20 minute explanation, even if they have interest in the subject. We live in an era of sound bytes, not reasonable explanation cross checked with your own experience and education. And not a lot of people have aeronautical, or military, or procurement, or engineering experience. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I understand there is a lot of taxpayer money and national security involved and I get that, but there also has to be some level of understanding of the subject at hand, and the lack of agenda. Its a little frustrating to have people pull the "My tax dollars!!" card and then proceed to ape or parrot what some self declared expert on youtube said. This is not directed towards anyone here; I just read that comment and immediately thought of this Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alan in Yorktown Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yes its like when I tell a group of NASA people the earth is flat, You wouldn't believe how much they object. "the thorn is still in there, perhaps even festering a bit. Any time it is touched they howl." http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj04/fal04/mets.html Boyd gets credit for the OODA loop, which was readily adopted by the USMC but its more of a tactical, than strategic, or doctrinal shift. OODA is easy to grasp (insert Marine Joke here) The reformers never got the kind of traction people want to give them credit for (Clausewitz!) and were kind of a dead issue after the Persian Gulf war. They had to wait until the next generation of weapons they could apply the same old tropes to arrived, and in the mean time the F-16 they wanted never came to be, but it did get heavier and more complex and more useful, so there is that. Big picture, the concept of aircraft being more advanced and built in smaller numbers and quality over quantity, as opposed to swarm attacks by visual daylight only fighters seems to have won the day. Not that the evil MIC wouldn't mind churning out thousands of POS planes MiG-21 style much to the chagrin of the people who have to take them into combat. The Air Force is funny like that. All those weapons that worked in 1991 that the reformers said would fail miserably had a much bigger impact I would say than Boyd and his buddies. But thats just me, I have to go take the Radar out of this F-16 now its added weight and complexity for far too long. He (Boyd) also developed 'energy management' formulas to assess aircraft performance while still on the drawing board. Led to a significant redesign of what was to become the F-15, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rodmac Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) G'day...I'm sorry but if the designers of the F35 can't meet the necessary requirements and the goodwill of the partner nations hanging back for so long after committing billions of dollars of our money to the plane in a respectable time frame then what do they expect.? .Like it or not we have committed plenty into this jet too not just the USA.. .. I' think some on here who keep defending this jet( but one we all hope will meet expectations sooner rather than later) , and I really do mean that...need to get a check of reality ..Sounds a lot like the old adage that you need to admit there's a problem before you can fix the problem... No matter what way you look at it .. this program has problems and if you say otherwise who is kidding who ?...Two things ..Don't treat the critics of the F35 program as idiots because most aren't and to comment that people who query or question the delays with the development of the F35 as trolling...is hurtful and disrespectful because challenging and querying a long overdue and over budget project may well be a necessary thing. Asking questions , testing the water , whether we are EXPERTS or not is what seems to be needed and by some influential American politicians..who just might get the answers. None of us will..most likely. By virtue of this topic having approaching 300 pages tells me just how controversial this plane is..It's that simple...I don't want to offend any individual but ask that alternative opinions are respected too..Cheers Rod.. Edited November 25, 2014 by rodmac Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy Snap Captain Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) Mr TT, Mr Stark, Mr W, Right this way gentlemen... Edited November 25, 2014 by Crazy Snap Captain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I' think some on here who keep defending this jet( but one we all hope will meet expectations sooner rather than later) , and I really do mean that...need to get a check of reality But reality has been really good to supporters recently. The structural issues have been fixed, the software is much better, the Marine version has successfully deployed on the USS Wasp, the Navy version has just finished a totally successful test on a carrier, and they are being built faster and cheaper with every copy. All of these issues were supposed to be deal-breakers and now they are moot. And comments from the most reality based people of all - the pilots actually flying the things - have been very positive, particularly about how easy it is to fly. ..Sounds a lot like the old adage that you need to admit there's a problem before you can fix the problem. These problems have been talked about for years. You are absorbing criticisms which are old or already obsolete. Don't treat the critics of the F35 program as idiots because most aren't and to comment that people who query or question the delays with the development of the F35 as trolling...is hurtful and disrespectful because challenging and querying a long overdue and over budget project may well be a necessary thing. To what purpose? There have already been over 115 F-35's built. There is no way this program is going to be canceled. There are no comparable options. What do you suggest happen? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 G'day...I'm sorry but if the designers of the F35 can't meet the necessary requirements and the goodwill of the partner nations hanging back for so long after committing billions of dollars of our money to the plane in a respectable time frame then what do they expect.? .Like it or not we have committed plenty into this jet too not just the USA.. .. I' think some on here who keep defending this jet( but one we all hope will meet expectations sooner rather than later) , and I really do mean that...need to get a check of reality ..Sounds a lot like the old adage that you need to admit there's a problem before you can fix the problem... No matter what way you look at it .. this program has problems and if you say otherwise who is kidding who ?...Two things ..Don't treat the critics of the F35 program as idiots because most aren't and to comment that people who query or question the delays with the development of the F35 as trolling...is hurtful and disrespectful because challenging and querying a long overdue and over budget project may well be a necessary thing. Asking questions , testing the water , whether we are EXPERTS or not is what seems to be needed and by some influential American politicians..who just might get the answers. None of us will..most likely. By virtue of this topic having approaching 300 pages tells me just how controversial this plane is..It's that simple...I don't want to offend any individual but ask that alternative opinions are respected too..Cheers Rod.. A few points here. The US has invested approximately 80% of the capital in his program, the other partners combined are the remaining 20%. The Oz share while much smaller than the US share, is still a big freakin' deal in Oz, so I hear you on that. Oz has also had such a disproportionately large influence on the design, which is a good thing because it turns out your fellow countrymen in the RAAF aren't dummies (despite APA claims). And I don't think anybody is saying the professional critics (Wheeler, Sprey, APA) are idiots. Oh, they are much worse. They are willfully ignorant and purely agenda driven. They demagogue, they wring hands, they say "I told you so!" when the have little to no basis in fact. And when things do go south, as this program did for a long time, they twist the reality of what is going on to suit their particular agenda. But I'll put this back on you since you reference a second time my trolling question: Where have you been rodmac van Winkle?! This thread is very long, 4+ years as well. And during the time this thread has been going,the plane went through a major management crisis known as TBR, or a Nunn-McCurdy breach, dropped weapons, been to two different carriers, conducted training missions, had redesigns due to stress failures, engine fires, live fire testing, the list goes on. In short, the cake is pretty damned near baked at this point. Yes, there are challenges ahead, but the airframes are completing 2nd or third life durability testing. The software is working, the radar is flat out awesome, and the jet is pretty damn stealthy. And another point to throw back on you aqain--exactly what "necessary requirements" is the jet failing to meet? The requirements of the agenda driven self proclaimed expert critics? Or are we talking about the range missing the mark by 10 miles out of 600? The jet has met and exceeded every KPP except range, and it missed range by a hair, relatively speaking. So, in short, you are receiving a degree of frustration, rolling in with very old complaints that are largely irrelevant or disproven. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) He (Boyd) also developed 'energy management' formulas to assess aircraft performance while still on the drawing board. Led to a significant redesign of what was to become the F-15, Which is excellent, and he deserves full credit for the F-15. But that isn't a doctrine, its a design fix. Its not a strategy, and I think you underestimate just how in bed the US Army in particular is (Was? Are you kids still into him? Brian?) with Clauswitz. Might want to tell Sprey to back off the F-15 as well. Its very arguable how much the reformers even influenced the USAF even at their peak, and I would say their stock plummeted post 1991. with The "fighter Mafia" its important to remember that the USAF isn't only about fighters. I'm betting whole sections of the air force never cared. Compare this to something like Maneuver Warfare or Air Land Battle, and its barely noticeable. and again when the few remaining reformers who were shamed by being horrifically terribly god awfully wrong, just waited for the F-22 and F-35 to use the same Schtick that was never true in the first place. Its not a secret that Sprey is shameless, which is the only reason he can carry on. It takes some serious denial to carry on like the F-15 is still a question mark. Thats just pathetic. And as Tony pointed out, he waited for the big guy on campus regarding stealth to pass on before picking a fight with him. Without doing much research, I think I would say the LO crew alone beat the reformers. You know. just a bit. and thats just one example. I might give Sprey a little more consideration if he wasn't just recycling the arguments. And he said the F-22 wasn't maneuverable because of its wing loading which shows just how out of touch he really is. Ive heard a lot of complaint about the F-22, lack of maneuverability has never been one of them, but he took that road... As for the EM formulas, I don't want to use the term obsolete, but basically that was an era before HOBS missiles, Helmet Cueing, and thrust Vectoring. The F-22 alone turns that world on its head. Please note this is not saying that dogfighting is obsolete, and that I want to moth ball Top Gun and remove all the guns. But its changed in a pretty big way. And if some guy goes into a modern fight against an Aim-9X and JHMCS using his trust EM chart he is in for a rude awakening. Did the F-16 get lighter and more specialized? or did it get continually heavier and take on more missions? I think the reformers lost. No one has suggested removing all the new gear from an F-16 so it can dogfight better, in fact everyone trying to use it instead of the F-35 is advocating it fight like an F-35 using its avionics. Has anyone suggested going back to the Cobra rather than the Apache? or Abrams over M-60? Where are all the people the reformers still influence in the USAF advocating a "back to basics" approach? its the opposite. Tomorrows fighter pilot (lets say a 16 year old) will sit at a Growler at an airshow and go "Wow this is old already!! When was this designed? 2000?!" Show me this current and future generation of Luddites who want to give up electronic advantage so they can fight WVR in daylight. Tech is already "old" if its not touch screen. Boeing has actually been consulting with game companies in Seattle in an effort streamline intiutive software for future operators. The Reformers lost, and they lost big. I am very curious to see how much residual influence they have. not even trying to be catty, I'm genuinely curious. While people are complaining about EM, Boyd would be in heaven with the F-35s SA. OODA looping all the way, but we forget that part. Because when you quote someone, make sure to leave the parts that don't fit out (not you, shot at detractors) Mr TT, Mr Stark, Mr W, Right this way gentlemen... :popcorn:/>/>/>/> Thank you, I'll have a rum and coke. G'day...I'm sorry but if the designers of the F35 can't meet the necessary requirements and the goodwill of the partner nations hanging back for so long after committing billions of dollars of our money to the plane in a respectable time frame then what do they expect.? .Like it or not we have committed plenty into this jet too not just the USA.... I' think some on here who keep defending this jet( but one we all hope will meet expectations sooner rather than later) , and I really do mean that...need to get a check of reality ..Sounds a lot like the old adage that you need to admit there's a problem before you can fix the problem... No matter what way you look at it .. this program has problems and if you say otherwise who is kidding who ?...Two things ..Don't treat the critics of the F35 program as idiots because most aren't and to comment that people who query or question the delays with the development of the F35 as trolling...is hurtful and disrespectful because challenging and querying a long overdue and over budget project may well be a necessary thing. Asking questions , testing the water , whether we are EXPERTS or not is what seems to be needed and by some influential American politicians..who just might get the answers. None of us will..most likely. By virtue of this topic having approaching 300 pages tells me just how controversial this plane is..It's that simple...I don't want to offend any individual but ask that alternative opinions are respected too..Cheers Rod.. I have a plane to catch so I'll make this quick. (HA HA LOL) I think you need to do some basic research. I'm not accusing you of being a troll, but i will say I'm not going to hold your hand and explain the entire program for pages on end. And when I say research, I mean taking a hard look at all the evidence (official reports, governments and air forces tend to stick to official stuff and not headlines designed to get internet traffic) and not trying to look at the page count of an internet thread as an indicator of controversy. That is not any form of actual evidence. And if you read through the 300 pages you will see a lot of this stuff has been covered. I will also echo this: A few points here. The US has invested approximately 80% of the capital in his program, the other partners combined are the remaining 20%. The Oz share while much smaller than the US share, is still a big freakin' deal in Oz, so I hear you on that. Oz has also had such a disproportionately large influence on the design, which is a good thing because it turns out your fellow countrymen in the RAAF aren't dummies (despite APA claims).And I don't think anybody is saying the professional critics (Wheeler, Sprey, APA) are idiots. Oh, they are much worse. They are willfully ignorant and purely agenda driven. They demagogue, they wring hands, they say "I told you so!" when the have little to no basis in fact. And when things do go south, as this program did for a long time, they twist the reality of what is going on to suit their particular agenda. But I'll put this back on you since you reference a second time my trolling question: Where have you been rodmac van Winkle?! This thread is very long, 4+ years as well. And during the time this thread has been going,the plane went through a major management crisis known as TBR, or a Nunn-McCurdy breach, dropped weapons, been to two different carriers, conducted training missions, had redesigns due to stress failures, engine fires, live fire testing, the list goes on. In short, the cake is pretty damned near baked at this point. Yes, there are challenges ahead, but the airframes are completing 2nd or third life durability testing. The software is working, the radar is flat out awesome, and the jet is pretty damn stealthy. And another point to throw back on you aqain--exactly what "necessary requirements" is the jet failing to meet? The requirements of the agenda driven self proclaimed expert critics? Or are we talking about the range missing the mark by 10 miles out of 600? The jet has met and exceeded every KPP except range, and it missed range by a hair, relatively speaking. So, in short, you are receiving a degree of frustration, rolling in with very old complaints that are largely irrelevant or disproven. Note my favorite part of the above. This isn't my first BBQ. I have seen this stuff before, its become a part of weapons procurement and the internet has become just one more element of it. Most of these critics are beyond the pale. Be critical. Thats fine, but be an informed critic that uses facts and fights fair APA, Sprey, Wheeler, are downright nasty and selective with evidence and thats before we get to the part where they invent stuff. Some of these guys (and I'm not trying to win an internet argument with this) are not right in the head. Thats not me trying to be mean, its more of the "tinfoil hat" the "government is lying about the UFO I saw, saying its an airplane" types. Goon in particular has some issues, and I have some people who know him personally who have spoken to him on many occasions. He is not quite all there. It makes sense that those "Government is lying"/conspiracy types are going to gravitate to the rhetoric that many of these people are spewing. and the majority of the time it is pure rhetoric with near zero basis. I'll put it like this: "Just because some jacka$$ asserts a thing does not mean that it is worthy of refutation. If the same guy tells you that every space shuttle launch perturbs the Earth's orbit, and that the cumulative effects are just about to start the process of the loss of the atmosphere into space, thus creating a vacuum that will destroy all life on the planet in approximately 36 hours, would you deem this necessary to refute? How much time would you spend explaining to him why this cannot happen? Would not your time be spent better doing other things? And if you devise a concise explanation, why would you assume he would understand?" These guys are ignored for a reason. Valid criticism is valid, the stuff they make up is not. Its that simple. Spot the stereotypes. Now imagine that people insisted that really happened. When refuted with evidence they insisted it was fabricated, and that the people presenting that evidence had been bribed, paid, or coerced, and that it was all a plan by a foreign government trying to trick you? the RAAF is as Mark noted pretty darn smart, And they are being given some serious input, some serious consideration, and I would note that they are also the first and so far only country that has been given Growlers and their associated (very secret squirrel) equipment. more than a few countries have inquired about stuff like that, and the US has said "sorry no deal" RAAF got the green light. It may not be obvious to the internet but that was some pretty serious stuff. They are extremely trusted. I would also ask for a little latitude as an American. Last I checked US equipment has served Australia pretty darn well, C-130s, H-60s, Abrams tanks, C-17s, Wedgetails, Hornets, F-111s, And all. yes ALL of those at one point (some extremely so) were highly controversial, delayed overbudget, and more expensive than envisioned. Again this isn't new. People are acting like the F-35 is the first program ever to experience problems, and its beyond a little ridiculous. All these "experts" keep acting so scandalized, when the first thing an expert would do is compare it to other current and past programs. If you get bored take a look at some of the Super Hornet controversy. Then see if you can spot any similarities (hint: there will be A LOT) Then remember that was only about 10 years ago. the "fun part" has been actually watching the rumors start and develop. Boeing said that the F-35 had degraded stealth for export. They quickly backtracked and apologized after called out, but guess what still persists on foreign internet conversations? A Boeing Test Pilot said that Stealth aircraft are less manueverable because they have smaller control surfaces to maintain LO. He neglected to mention that an F-35 has 40 percent more wing than an F-18 so "smaller" is relative anyway, but guess what I still hear? these tropes get embedded when they never had basis in fact in the first place. If you asked a aircraft engineer "without giving a number how big are your control surfaces?" Answer: As big as they need to be. "what if they needed to be bigger?" Then we would make them bigger. "What if they needed to be smaller" Then we would make them smaller. "what if it needed ventral fins?" then we would add Ventral Fins Spot the small control surfaces^ The control surfaces are the size they need to be to meet the set performance standards. Its about the effect. A lot of this stuff is basically this: The idiom "red herring" is used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or characters towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of a rhetorical strategy (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation. When you start looking for it, its surprising how often it comes up. Edited November 25, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Mr TT, Mr Stark, Mr W, Right this way gentlemen... Get me a Scotch, I'm starving. I might give Sprey a little more consideration if he wasn't just recycling the arguments. And he said the F-22 wasn't maneuverable because of its wing loading which shows just how out of touch he really is. Ive heard a lot of complaint about the F-22, lack of maneuverability has never been one of them, but he took that road... A Boeing Test Pilot said that Stealth aircraft are less manueverable because they have smaller control surfaces to maintain LO Wait, what? The damn Raptor can turn inside of the lightweight F-16A. The Raptor's got HUGE tracts of....wings and massive tail surfaces to go with TV. Hell, even the vertical surfaces help out; they're bigger than the Viper's wings. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Get me a Scotch, I'm starving. Wait, what? The damn Raptor can turn inside of the lightweight F-16A. The Raptor's got HUGE tracts of....wings and massive tail surfaces to go with TV. Hell, even the vertical surfaces help out; they're bigger than the Viper's wings. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. http://www.phibetaiota.net/2012/08/winslow-wheeler-usaf-lies-big-on-f-22-sacrifices-pilots-zero-integrity/ Yep. Shameless. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 http://www.phibetaiota.net/2012/08/winslow-wheeler-usaf-lies-big-on-f-22-sacrifices-pilots-zero-integrity/ Yep. Shameless. AYFKM? There is SO much BS and intentional misinformation in that.... TT, you will be made to pay for posting that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rodmac Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) G'day again.....Thanks for the extra info first up..I'm brand new on this forum so the last 4 years are out of the loop re this forum topic.. I appreciate the fact of your wealth of knowledge on the F35..and in future I will limit any comments to personal perceptions..The myriad of information out there to credit or discredit the jet is what I have used because essentially that's all mere mortals have got..I expect the real nuts and bolts are still classified...Re the RAAF... Yes they are no dummies but I actually know a retired Air Force pilot trainer..He went into the RAAF after beginning life as a school teacher and was involved with the PC9 program...Last time I spoke to him , about 12 months ago he said that some of his friends still in a couple mixed up with FA18s ..were holding out concerns on the long delays of the F35...Paul (my friend) likes the concept of the F35 by the way.. He's still worried about it though...He certainly knows his stuff and spent some time in the US. Re the F22...Is it true that there are to be compatability and other software links between the F22 and F35..? I know that Congress passed laws to prevent Lockheed Martin from being able to sell the advanced technology of the "22" to any other nation...Fair enough I fully understand why...Does this however complicate some matters with the F35 ?...You might know...I don't wish to argue I've already said that we all want the F35 to be successful..but my real point is there needs to be a definition and certainty of when all joint linked nations , not least Australia will see the new advanced jets patrolling our skies...I'll keep asking questions...Re the Growlers.EG 18s..Last time I looked the RAAF were buying 12 initially and they were to be added to the 25 FA 18 F Superhornets that the RAAF bought as a stopgap until the F35s are ready..It has to be said from what I've read that the McDonnell Douglas FA 18 A Hornets and the Boeing FA 18F Superhornets have served our air force well..as did the upgraded F111s too...Our Air Force role is a different beast to the USAF , USN and Marines and the way our Air Force operates seems to be have been adequate til now with this older technology but as one video I watched said in essence,,The F35 needs to meet the needs of our children and grand children n not necessarily us now so on that I wholeheartedly agree that we need to be patient on the F35..but not forever..I hope you're right that the end of the development and testing in nigh...Thanks again..Cheers Rod... Edited November 25, 2014 by rodmac Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rodmac Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 G'day again all.....Just wanted to add this additional info on the Australian Government involvement..Last time i looked it was $12.4 Billion dollars..I think that's USD..not AUD...Hopefully money well spent...Cheers Rod.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 Well, $412M isn't much of a return on investment yet but it's not a bad start. http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/first-aussie-made-vertical-tails-installed-on-f-35 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) Re the F22...Is it true that there are to be compatability and other software links between the F22 and F35..? Yes and no. The baseline software between the two is literally decades apart.The first F-22 EMD (aircraft 91-001) first flew in 1997 and it's software was written in an older language. F-35 AA-1 first flew in 2006 and uses software written in a newer language. Ten years is a lifetime time by software standards. There's no way to update the F-22's OS; you'd have to start over and that's never going to happen. And you can't port the F-35's OS over to the F-22; there's far too many differences for that to work (it's not as simple as using the same GPS software in two car models from say, Ford Motor Company). Unless you develop your high-low mix at the exact same time, this is going to be a problem from here on out with Gen 6 and whatever follows that. And even if you were to do that, that'll increase your software development costs and timeline. There's no easy solution. Without going into too much detail, some of the F-35's software features are being patched onto the F-22. It'll improve the F-22s software and thus its capabilities, but that effort will be difficult. Data links between the two aircraft needs to happen, but that's not because it was never planned in the first place or was somehow otherwise overlooked; it's because when faced with budget cuts over the years, things had to be prioritized and tabled for later. This is exactly what happened to the F-22. Its had to undergo a few software block updates to get closer to the F-22 standard that was supposed to have entered service back in December 2005. That's why the F-22 didn't go into service with the AIM-9X or a helmet display. Budget permitting, AIM-9X will end up in the fleet, but I'm not holding my breath on helmet displays. But where the F-22 is now though, it's actually got some pretty frightening air-to-ground abilities that'll give you goosebumps and should make the F-35 community pretty envious. The F-35 will go through this exact same process because history repeats itself. "OMG, this plane is expensive! We can't afford this! We need to cut back on what we're buying!" Numbers get cut back & features are left out to make the budget. Price per unit goes up. "OMG, this plane is expensive! We can't afford this! We need to cut back on what we're buying!" Numbers get cut back & features are left out to make the budget. Price per unit goes up. Repeat x7 Then, when the plane goes into service, lacking features... "OMG, we paid all these billions of dollars and the planes can't even do something so simple as talk to each other?!?!" 1. - if talking to each other were that simple, we'd have done it with the budget we had 2. - the reason we couldn't do it, Mr. Senator, was we couldn't afford it because you lobbied for a bill that that was passed into law that legally mandated how we spent our budget and thus couldn't retire a redundant and unsurvivable 40 year old design so you could be seen as "saving jobs" in your state. Software is why aircraft development is taking longer, it's why their costs are increasing. It's a reason why the Typhoon costs almost as much as an F-22. The cost of this software is why there's no point in putting 5th gen avionics into 4th gen platforms to "save money." You won't save money and you're still stuck with a design dating back to the 1970s on the front line for the next 40 years that'll have to penetrate IADS that they simply cannot survive. ..but my real point is there needs to be a definition and certainty of when all joint linked nations Actually, that right there has been a cause for delay and cost increases. Here's how/why: the cockpit was designed with a certain layout. OK, fine, right? Nope. Partner Nation A doesn't have certain switches in certain places. Their pilots are used to the switches on the left side instead of the right. But Partner Nation B is used to them on the right side instead of the left. So the cockpit undergoes changes, changes that cause delays and incur additional costs. But hey, they've got buy-in on the project, so they get a voice on the project. So what should be an engineering and pilot interface problem/solution (and an easy one to fix at that) ends up becoming a political/diplomatic matter. And the F-35 is not a 100% Lockheed Martin manufactured aircraft. Some companies in some partner nations build components that go into the final assembly. Is it Lockheed's fault if an avionics suite that's manufactured in Europe is delayed buy the manufacturer over a labor dispute? So the whole process is like herding cats. The F35 needs to meet the needs of our children and grand children n not necessarily us now Yeah, uh. No. I'm not sure where this "meets the needs of our children and grandchildren" thing comes from. Those needs aren't going to be much different than our needs now. The difference is, the F-35 will be expected to operate in threat environments that don't exist yet. We're already seeing air defense systems that 4th gen cannot survive and those threats aren't going to go away. The F-35 has to be survivable for the next 30-40 years. Edited November 26, 2014 by Tony Stark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 First off well said^^ AYFKM? There is SO much BS and intentional misinformation in that.... TT, you will be made to pay for posting that. I went into maximum anger myself. Would certainly agree with the original assessment of Sprey not liking any project he wasn't a part of. His MO hasn't changed in a half century. G'day again.....Thanks for the extra info first up..I'm brand new on this forum so the last 4 years are out of the loop re this forum topic.. I appreciate the fact of your wealth of knowledge on the F35..and in future I will limit any comments to personal perceptions..The myriad of information out there to credit or discredit the jet is what I have used because essentially that's all mere mortals have got..I expect the real nuts and bolts are still classified...Re the RAAF... Yes they are no dummies but I actually know a retired Air Force pilot trainer..He went into the RAAF after beginning life as a school teacher and was involved with the PC9 program...Last time I spoke to him , about 12 months ago he said that some of his friends still in a couple mixed up with FA18s ..were holding out concerns on the long delays of the F35...Paul (my friend) likes the concept of the F35 by the way.. He's still worried about it though...He certainly knows his stuff and spent some time in the US. Re the F22...Is it true that there are to be compatability and other software links between the F22 and F35..? I know that Congress passed laws to prevent Lockheed Martin from being able to sell the advanced technology of the "22" to any other nation...Fair enough I fully understand why...Does this however complicate some matters with the F35 ?...You might know...I don't wish to argue I've already said that we all want the F35 to be successful..but my real point is there needs to be a definition and certainty of when all joint linked nations , not least Australia will see the new advanced jets patrolling our skies...I'll keep asking questions...Re the Growlers.EG 18s..Last time I looked the RAAF were buying 12 initially and they were to be added to the 25 FA 18 F Superhornets that the RAAF bought as a stopgap until the F35s are ready..It has to be said from what I've read that the McDonnell Douglas FA 18 A Hornets and the Boeing FA 18F Superhornets have served our air force well..as did the upgraded F111s too...Our Air Force role is a different beast to the USAF , USN and Marines and the way our Air Force operates seems to be have been adequate til now with this older technology but as one video I watched said in essence,,The F35 needs to meet the needs of our children and grand children n not necessarily us now so on that I wholeheartedly agree that we need to be patient on the F35..but not forever..I hope you're right that the end of the development and testing in nigh...Thanks again..Cheers Rod... http://www.airforce.gov.au/Technology/Future-Acquisitions/F-35A-Lightning-II/?RAAF-ZRnYQhJUh1u0e44uR32olOT1rt+Ym4K3 There is a schedule. Now there could of course be unforeseen delays, but the plan is locked in and if all goes well everyone in Australia should know when and how many F-35s to expect. Its not a crazy mystery. I would also note that the first squadron in Aus for 2018 is going to be a war ready squadron. The personnel are training here in the states as we speak. There are from what I can tell 3 main points that the internet is unhappy about: 1. Cost and Delay (understandable) 2. requirements not yet met 3. requirements met, but the requirements aren't good enough. "The expensive F-35 is delayed and it doesn't even work and sucks and sucks even if they get it to work because the whole thing is compromised anyway!" As Mr. Stark pointed out, LM is lead but not the only company with pieces in the F-35, and not every problem that has cropped up has been 100 percent the fault of LM. And the requirements are set by the government. The contractor can only do its best to meet or exceed requirements. Its not going to spend extra money for things the government doesn't want especially if it compromises things that it does want. In other words we can debate all day whether the government should have asked for mach 2+ thrust vectoring with Magneto-hydrodynamic propulsion, but they didn't feel it was necessary so LM is not going to add expense, delays, and difficulty for "extra credit" the government would not accept anyway. It was more important that it hover, than breaking mach 2. Whether that was right or wrong will be debatable for as long as the JSF exists in history. There are wild internet debates about the value of Harrier, and even stuff about P-51s that people still argue over. I would point out that the JSF from the START and even the program the preceded it had the STOVL requirement for example, so they knew what they were signing on for and felt it was still worth having. Its not like the STOVL requirement came out of nowhere and it was considered a major "show stopper" for the JSF competition. In short the company that did it best, won. So it was kind of a BFD, as the vice would say right from the beginning, and if it has "compromised" the JSF it has not seemed to do so at a level its customers think is a problem. Leading the surprising opposition to the F-35 deal was Minister for Intelligence Yuval Steinitz, who declared: "We are not rubber stamps for the [ministry of defense] and air force." In five different meetings of the panel on defense procurement dealing with the JSFs, Steinitz presented several articles published in Aviation Week from 2003 and 2008 raising doubts on the effectiveness of the F-35."For maintaining stealthiness, this aircraft has compromised maneuverability, shorter operational range and significantly less payload capability," a senior Israeli official told Aviation Week. "We shouldn’t be buying so many of them when it is unclear whether the stealth is effective, or there is a countermeasure that would negate it. There are vast gaps in performance between the F-35 and fourth-generation fighters." The IAF and defense ministry have rejected Steinitz’s claims as "old and irrelevant." But Steinitz went on, calling for acquiring only the 19 F-35s already ordered and buying more F-15s and F-16s. He was joined by Israeli Finance Minister Yair Lapid, who claimed that the F-35 procurement would consume the whole of the U.S. military aid and would lead Israel to increase defense expenditures. In response, the Israeli air force presented data that acquiring new F-16s or F-15s would cost even more than the F-35. That led the ministers to form a compromise resolution calling for the procurement of only 13 aircraft in addition to the first batch of 19 http://aviationweek.com/defense/israeli-panel-rejects-proposed-increase-f-35 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.