The F-35 is not dead

[mcrit]

EDITED

[Rockie]

"A" for effort mcrit, but "F" for execution and effect.

[Rockie]

Double post.

[frosti]

A Lockheed Martin test pilot flogging this piece of crap. There is a surprise.

This is clearly from someone who has never fought in or against a stealth fighter. The "proven" thing gets old too. You know eventually you have to make a leap, the original Hornet was "proven" too, and once upon a time the Super Hornet was the new risk on the block. Reality is, no one cares about the Super Hornet or what Boeing is trying to pitch. See that International version? It's a joke. Boeing's last successful design was the P-26. Who really needs all the tech or DAS that is in the F-35 anyway. A handful of GoPro cameras will be much cheaper than that fancy DAS nonsense! Situational awareness is lame anyway. Canada is big and cold and needs special requirements for its totally unique patrols in cold climates, one engine clearly isn't enough.

Lets see if the CBC/CTV morons say anything regarding the F-35 going back to flying status. Probably not since they have their heads too far up their asses. Good news doesn't sell.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/f ... 88277.html

[YYZSaabGuy]

Reality is, no one cares about the Super Hornet or what Boeing is trying to pitch.

That's a pretty dumb-ass comment, even for this thread. Anybody who is going to be paying for the estimated $23 Billion extra lifetime cost for F-35s over the lifetime cost of the SH will care very much.

That aside, I'm waiting for a detailed comparison of platform capabilities. How does the SH compare with the new F-35 operational constraints (reduced sustained turn performance, extended acceleration time from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2) discussed in a FlightGlobal article I quoted on this thread back on January 31st (see page eight)? Remember, the comments in the next quotes are from US military officers, not those evil lefty pricks at the CBC: "This is going to have a big tactical impact," one highly experienced officer says. "Anytime you have to lower performance standards, the capability of what the airframe can do goes down as well." "What an embarrassment, and there will be obvious tactical implications. Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."

The FlightGlobal article goes on: "At higher altitudes, the reduced performance will directly impact survivability against advanced Russian-designed "double-digit" surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems such as the Almaz-Antey S-300PMU2 (also called the SA-20 Gargoyle by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), the pilot says. At lower altitudes, where fighters might operate in for the close air support or forward air control role, the reduced airframe performance will place pilots at increased risk against shorter-range SAMs and anti-aircraft artillery. Most egregious is the F-35C-model's drastically reduced transonic acceleration capabilities. "That [43 seconds] is a massive amount of time, and assuming you are in afterburner for acceleration, it's going to cost you even more gas," the pilot says. "This will directly impact tactical execution, and not in a good way.""

I didn't get the memo, so please explain to me again why it makes sense to pay 5th generation pricing for an aircraft which doesn't achieve the performance of a 4th generation aircraft designed back in the 1950s?

[frosti]

I didn't get the memo, so please explain to me again why it makes sense to pay 5th generation pricing for an aircraft which doesn't achieve the performance of a 4th generation aircraft designed back in the 1950s?

I wasn't aware we were buying aircraft for airshow purposes.

[Tom H]

I didn't get the memo, so please explain to me again why it makes sense to pay 5th generation pricing for an aircraft which doesn't achieve the performance of a 4th generation aircraft designed back in the 1950s?

I wasn't aware we were buying aircraft for airshow purposes.

You also seem unaware of anything that doesn't fit the scope of your very closed opinion.

So far I've seen you over the many pages
- Deny anything contrary
- Deny statistical evidence
- Diminish the value of the pilot
and blow off anything that doesn't fit the scope of your opinion.

YYZSaabGuy asked a valid question to have you answer to justify your statement.

Your response...a blow off.

[frosti]

I didn't get the memo, so please explain to me again why it makes sense to pay 5th generation pricing for an aircraft which doesn't achieve the performance of a 4th generation aircraft designed back in the 1950s?

I wasn't aware we were buying aircraft for airshow purposes.

You also seem unaware of anything that doesn't fit the scope of your very closed opinion.

Goes both ways.

[Tom H]

Frosti

Blowing off tough questions for 13 pages!

[trampbike]

I didn't get the memo, so please explain to me again why it makes sense to pay 5th generation pricing for an aircraft which doesn't achieve the performance of a 4th generation aircraft designed back in the 1950s?

To be fair, I don't think it's valid to assume that since some performance requirements had to be lowered to fit the actual performances of the aircraft it means that it is worse than 4th gen aircrafts.

It is bothering me that some requirements have been lowered, especially since they seem to be those in which the F-35 was already pretty average, but please try to find ONE aircraft that met all of his initial performance requirements. I think that some lowering of the standards is something pretty normal during aircraft development (so is the temporary grounding of a fleet due to engine problems). Such things would normally not receive any media coverage.

I understand very well most of the critics about the F-35 procurement. Most of the valid ones are political and are related to the terrible job this government (which was supposed to be the paramount of transparency) does with procurement, PR and management. However, when it comes to dismissing the aircraft for performance reasons, I don't really buy it. Most of us are nowhere near understanding all the factors that come into play, and anyway, it's an aircraft under development so I find it weird to hear critics about it's performance from the same persons who complain that this platform is not proven yet...

[YYZSaabGuy]

I didn't get the memo, so please explain to me again why it makes sense to pay 5th generation pricing for an aircraft which doesn't achieve the performance of a 4th generation aircraft designed back in the 1950s?

I wasn't aware we were buying aircraft for airshow purposes.

I'm not sure where the airshow crack comes from, so I'm going to assume that you don't have any kind of sensible response. Please, make my day and prove me wrong.

[YYZSaabGuy]

I didn't get the memo, so please explain to me again why it makes sense to pay 5th generation pricing for an aircraft which doesn't achieve the performance of a 4th generation aircraft designed back in the 1950s?

To be fair, I don't think it's valid to assume that since some performance requirements had to be lowered to fit the actual performances of the aircraft it means that it is worse than 4th gen aircrafts.

It is bothering me that some requirements have been lowered, especially since they seem to be those in which the F-35 was already pretty average, but please try to find ONE aircraft that met all of his initial performance requirements. I think that some lowering of the standards is something pretty normal during aircraft development (so is the temporary grounding of a fleet due to engine problems). Such things would normally not receive any media coverage.

I understand very well most of the critics about the F-35 procurement. Most of the valid ones are political and are related to the terrible job this government (which was supposed to be the paramount of transparency) does with procurement, PR and management. However, when it comes to dismissing the aircraft for performance reasons, I don't really buy it. Most of us are nowhere near understanding all the factors that come into play, and anyway, it's an aircraft under development so I find it weird to hear critics about it's performance from the same persons who complain that this platform is not proven yet...

Fair enough, Trampbike, and I don't disagree with a lot of the points you're making. Relaxing certain performance requirements doesn't necessarily mean the aircraft is a dog. Of note, though, the performance shortcomings were identified as a result of the 2,100+ flight tests performed to date by Lockheed Martin: they're real, not the result of the aircraft being "under development". My point was that we need to see a comparison with the SH on the same performance parameters, and presumably that type of analysis will be a part of the selection decision. If we're going to sacrifice performance for stealth, we'd better be pretty sure we actually need that level of stealth for the aircraft mission. I'm not convinced we do.

[frosti]

and presumably that type of analysis will be a part of the selection decision. If we're going to sacrifice performance for stealth, we'd better be pretty sure we actually need that level of stealth for the aircraft mission. I'm not convinced we do.

I'm not convinced you read up on everything the F35 has over the fat hornet. Stealth is just one of many key points. I suggest you start doing your own research because no one will spoon feed it for you.

My point was that we need to see a comparison with the SH on the same performance parameters,

Something that the media here in Canada won't do. The Air Force already did an internal review years ago and chose the F-35. I wonder what kind of crap the CBC will come up, it should be hilarious considering their previous piece.

[frosti]

Sounds familiar? The al-mighty hornet had its own problems and now it seems to be a benchmark?

http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf

[Rockie]

Frosti I'm beginning to think you sold everything you own to buy Lockheed Martin stock. What gives?

[Tom H]

All through this discussion, both here and in other debates, I've been clear that I believe that Lockheed will eventually get the F-35 sorted out. They have a solid track record in sorting problem children out and are a solid company.

My concern is that it is not the right aircraft for Canada and always has been.

So to my MP, the Minister of Defense and the rest of those that are spending our money.
1) Disclose the selection requirements...and they better be clear and unbiased to ANY specific aircraft.
2) Disclose the real performance (within the bounds of reasonable security) of the possible choices
3) Disclose the real (within the bounds of reasonable security) details on equipment advantages/disadvantages.
4) The Capital and hourly operating costs of each choice.
5) The economic impacts of each contract offering

Do it as an open tender and disclose the results to the people paying for it.

Enough of the Bullsizen

[tailgunner]

The 23 billion in savings that Boeing is promising with the SH may be misleading as well. Does that encompass the same life cycle terms as the F35? The SH is a decade older design than the f35, so what are its design life limits. It is argueably much closer to obsolesence than the F35, so do we need to factor in its' replacement?

[trampbike]

If we're going to sacrifice performance for stealth, we'd better be pretty sure we actually need that level of stealth for the aircraft mission. I'm not convinced we do.

I kind of hate to agree with frosti here... but he is right on this point: stealth is only ONE of the many features that are important about the F35. I think sensor fusion is really THE thing that will make it a great multirole fighter aircraft.

I'm not convinced we do.

People in charge of taking big decisions are.
It is true however, that the government should be MUCH more transparent about the requirements and everything else.

It is argueably much closer to obsolesence than the F35, so do we need to factor in its' replacement?

Yes we do.
Too bad the government thinks he doesn't have to make the pertinent information available to the people he is supposed to be representing.

[frosti]

Either the Aussies are getting screwed on price or we were offered static displays.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6535732600

THE Gillard government will consider buying up to 24 new F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter-bombers in a decision that would sharply reduce reliance on the troubled Joint Strike Fighter.

The possible Super Hornet purchase, expected to cost well over $100 million each, is part of a range of multi-billion-dollar air-power options due to be revealed today by Defence Minister Stephen Smith.

[complexintentions]

Or maybe "The Australian" is just the Aussie equivalent to the CBC when it comes to reporting accuracy.

But anything that seems to support your opinion, eh?

[frosti]

But anything that seems to support your opinion, eh?

Anything that isn't written by idiots in the Canadian media.

[YYZSaabGuy]

So to my MP, the Minister of Defense and the rest of those that are spending our money.
1) Disclose the selection requirements...and they better be clear and unbiased to ANY specific aircraft.
2) Disclose the real performance (within the bounds of reasonable security) of the possible choices
3) Disclose the real (within the bounds of reasonable security) details on equipment advantages/disadvantages.
4) The Capital and hourly operating costs of each choice.
5) The economic impacts of each contract offering
Do it as an open tender and disclose the results to the people paying for it. Enough of the Bullsizen

That pretty much sums it up, no?

I kind of hate to agree with frosti here... but he is right on this point: stealth is only ONE of the many features that are important about the F35. I think sensor fusion is really THE thing that will make it a great multirole fighter aircraft.

I think the jury's still out on that one as well. The Distributed Aperture System (360 degree sensor array) is innovative and a real breakthrough; however, the Helmet Mounted Display System is still not working as designed (at least not that I can find in any public sources), and without it, the incoming sensor data isn't going to provide much benefit because it can't be presented in a way the pilot can process and use. That's a problem in an aircraft that was designed without a Heads Up Display. The F-35’s networking capabilities are interesting, but many NATO and allied fighters are already networked through the Link 16 datalink, as was demonstrated in Libyan operations in 2011. The F35's APG-81 electronically-scanned radar is already being retrofitted to previous-generation F-15s and Super Hornets. AESA radars also are being retrofitted to the Rafale and will be to the Eurofighter Typhoon. In short, a lot of the F35's technology lead is going to be available on other aircraft by the time it enters service, and even its own ability to use the technology remains dependant on fixing the HMDS issues.

And even assuming there are a bunch of smart software engineers working on this and that they will eventually get it right, the question remains: does the F35 represent the quantum leap that is being advertised, or has the 10+ year development phase left it as an incrementally-better but not revolutionary platform? And if it represents only an incremental improvement, is it really worth the cost premium? Are we getting that much more bang for our buck, given the anticipated mission profile for the RCAF (which I'm not sure has been fully disclosed yet)?

[trampbike]

Are we getting that much more bang for our buck, given the anticipated mission profile for the RCAF (which I'm not sure has been fully disclosed yet)?

I don't know, and I think our PM doesn't either. Maybe we should ask this guy instead of the government. He sure seems to know his funk.

So to my MP, the Minister of Defense and the rest of those that are spending our money.
1) Disclose the selection requirements...and they better be clear and unbiased to ANY specific aircraft.
2) Disclose the real performance (within the bounds of reasonable security) of the possible choices
3) Disclose the real (within the bounds of reasonable security) details on equipment advantages/disadvantages.
4) The Capital and hourly operating costs of each choice.
5) The economic impacts of each contract offering
Do it as an open tender and disclose the results to the people paying for it. Enough of the Bullsizen

That pretty much sums it up, no?

It sure does.

[frosti]

While the CBC have their heads in the sand and spell all doom and gloom of the program, the Aussies do their own balanced reporting. This guy gets it.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion ... 6588701874

Australia has a very small defence force. When we make big investments we need to get it right. Because of delays with the JSFs, the Howard government bought a squadron of 24 Super Hornets, to supplement the 71 "classic Hornets", which make up the bulk of our fast jet fleet. This was a prudent purchase and the Labor government, also sensibly, has upgraded a number of the Super Hornets with the "Growler" electronic warfare capability. This allows the planes to suppress air defences and a number of other radars. But there is an absolute limit to how far you can take a 4th-generation plane. Many of the JSF's capabilities are classified and secret, but everyone who sees them wants them.

[Rockie]

For some reason you fail to see the difference between "news" and "opinion".

It even says "OPINION" in big bold capital letters at the top page, and "opinions" are rarely balanced especially if they agree with yours.