F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JSFfan
but changing the way you mentally think is very difficult
So is it OK that I take on what someone with clearance says
I suppose you're one of those guys who believe the brothel employee when she tells you, you're her very special and only customer.
It’s an evolutionary leap. It’s a paradigm shift. It’s a game changer!...
Last edited by NITRO104; 12th Jun 2013 at 00:50.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of JSF advocates, a very ing long time indeed.
The JSF seems to confound its critics from Bill Sweetman to Airpower Australia with its refusal to die, and win more orders in the meantime. Just like that terrible super hornet we were hearing about a little over ten years ago. whether bill wants to admit it or not, there are more advocates now than we he was suspended a few years back. It has to be frustrating.
I don't think anyone would step out and call the Super Hornet the world's hottest fighter. However, the USN doesn't have a lot of choice, so the correct question is how it compares with the F-35C, particularly when one looks at the 2020 models of both.
Last edited by Killface; 12th Jun 2013 at 02:15.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't you know? sweetman did a 180 on the SH, now it's a great plane and USN should cancel the f-35 and buy more of them.
When you have no credibility and are reduced to being a shock-jock blogger, it's an easy step
I guess he has trouble writing on AW now, as a lot of his time is taken up with writing thank you notes to Boeing.
When you have no credibility and are reduced to being a shock-jock blogger, it's an easy step
I guess he has trouble writing on AW now, as a lot of his time is taken up with writing thank you notes to Boeing.
Last edited by JSFfan; 12th Jun 2013 at 05:27.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That story is by the same fellow who's brilliant rebuttal to Loren Thompson was photoshopping a mask on him, and linking to an aviation week editorial.
The Loren Ranger | TIME.com
The Loren Ranger | TIME.com
JSFfan,
You've very neatly side-stepped the questions around your statement...
...by simply posting quotes about how great the F-35 is. It had better turn out to be good, frankly. Your statement there is a massive assertion that needs backing-up or withdrawing. So, I invite you qualify that statement. I restate my questions:
Where are you hearing that?
In what role is that happening?
What are you trying to prove by even saying it?
I would like to add:
What simulation is this based upon?
and
Using what metrics?
When you answer, perhapse you might keep these in mind - no need to respond to them, just the questions above:
You've very neatly side-stepped the questions around your statement...
Originally Posted by JSFfan
I'm hearing the f-35 is snotting the f-22's capability in full system sims
Where are you hearing that?
In what role is that happening?
What are you trying to prove by even saying it?
I would like to add:
What simulation is this based upon?
and
Using what metrics?
When you answer, perhapse you might keep these in mind - no need to respond to them, just the questions above:
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
Courtney has highlighted how preposterous your claim is but I would like to question your honesty.
Or do you expect us to believe that an uncleared civilian with no connection to the programme would have such easy access to
classified information?
Or do you expect us to believe that an uncleared civilian with no connection to the programme would have such easy access to
classified information?
Originally Posted by Wallah
The problem with simulations is that they are just that. Given the immaturity of the JSF mission systems, which don't forget are the heart of the JSF's capability, at the moment they are just the best guess about what LM should deliver. Until the programme completes OT and delivers as war fighting platform a true judgement cannot be made.
Also, given that there is only one country that has a true F22 model, I highly doubt that anyone is leaking information. I suspect that the 'rumour' are nothing more than that.
Also, given that there is only one country that has a true F22 model, I highly doubt that anyone is leaking information. I suspect that the 'rumour' are nothing more than that.
Originally Posted by Mach Two
The f-35 cannot be classed as "very good" as it doesn't even exist in operational form yet. For the people flying it and testing at the moment, it has no operational capability so is simply a very nice aircraft to fly. Hopefully, one day, it will become "very good", but you are in no position to make such a claim today.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 12th Jun 2013 at 08:39.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSFfanatic, yes, please do address CMil's questions. I'd also like you to tell us at whom your statement "It has to resonate with other sources, someone saying they use to be a pilot so they know all about 5th gen counts for naught" was directed?
When you get into year 12 at school, perhaps you could see if you can get extra English lessons. Your meaning is often lost in the translation.
When you get into year 12 at school, perhaps you could see if you can get extra English lessons. Your meaning is often lost in the translation.
FA-18 - You have tumbled into a logical trap that some very smart people have set for you. The truth may be somewhere in the middle ground, but that is not invariably the case. If you try to "split the difference" you concede the argument to the side willing to tell the biggest porkies.
As for which journalist thinks what about which aircraft and what they used to think, does that matter as much as people who appear to be serious practitioners of air power here, and who have doubts about the JSF hype? Personally, I don't think so.
In any case, if you have a functioning brain, times change and situations change. We all recall a time when a Block 1 SH didn't look very exciting... but that was also when a full-capability, $40-some-million, costs-less-to-operate-than-an-F-16 JSF was going to be on the AF ramp in 2011 and on CVs in 2012, and the C was promised to weigh slightly less than it actually does, if by "slightly" you mean 5,000 pounds, empty.
And to quote a very bright Navy guy, when the SH was revealing itself to be a bit of a dragmaster: "The baby's ugly. But it's our baby and we will make the best of it." Which they did.
Also, if your concern about your in-production aircraft is speed and range, does it make more sense to (a) give that aircraft more thrust and fuel or (b) replace it with something two tons heavier that has less thrust?
As for which journalist thinks what about which aircraft and what they used to think, does that matter as much as people who appear to be serious practitioners of air power here, and who have doubts about the JSF hype? Personally, I don't think so.
In any case, if you have a functioning brain, times change and situations change. We all recall a time when a Block 1 SH didn't look very exciting... but that was also when a full-capability, $40-some-million, costs-less-to-operate-than-an-F-16 JSF was going to be on the AF ramp in 2011 and on CVs in 2012, and the C was promised to weigh slightly less than it actually does, if by "slightly" you mean 5,000 pounds, empty.
And to quote a very bright Navy guy, when the SH was revealing itself to be a bit of a dragmaster: "The baby's ugly. But it's our baby and we will make the best of it." Which they did.
Also, if your concern about your in-production aircraft is speed and range, does it make more sense to (a) give that aircraft more thrust and fuel or (b) replace it with something two tons heavier that has less thrust?
Last edited by LowObservable; 12th Jun 2013 at 11:42.
LO, I'll go with choice a) and reach back into time to recall how long it took the F-14 to get the better engines ... 
I seem to recall a great hullaballoo in acquisition circles when the mods to the C/D that led to E/F were called so extensive that it was wrong to retain the same TMS for the new aircraft. (i.e. it 'wasn't an F-18 anymore' ...)
I also seem to recall that the Hornet's short legs in the early versions were one of the factors in the need to develop E/F. Memory a bit shady there, however. I do recall that people running the fighter ops in the Med (from a cruiser), who were used to the Turkey and its legs, had a hell of a time when an air wing of all Hornets showed up on the Coral Sea. (CV-43) Deck cycle time ... anyway, that's old news, and the Navy has adapted pretty well to the new bird.
And to quote a very bright Navy guy, when the SH was revealing itself to be a bit of a dragmaster: "The baby's ugly. But it's our baby and we will make the best of it." Which they did
I also seem to recall that the Hornet's short legs in the early versions were one of the factors in the need to develop E/F. Memory a bit shady there, however. I do recall that people running the fighter ops in the Med (from a cruiser), who were used to the Turkey and its legs, had a hell of a time when an air wing of all Hornets showed up on the Coral Sea. (CV-43) Deck cycle time ... anyway, that's old news, and the Navy has adapted pretty well to the new bird.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 12th Jun 2013 at 12:39.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite why so many of the more knowledgeable and balanced contributors to this thread continue to respond to JSFfan's "...a bloke said down the pub, so it must be true!" line of reasoning amazes me! 
For what its worth, this thread has become a child's playground conversation now with a 'my dad's better than your dad' tone; Boeing-lovers and LM-lovers locked in eternal battle over the chat forums while those who know and care about the next generation of aircraft are out there designing, building, testing and improving.
Hats off to them and keep up the good work!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where are you hearing that?
read my posts, I state in in there and also quoted a f-22 pilot
In what role is that happening?
in a system sim, the person said that the f-35 was exceeding the f-22 within the system
What are you trying to prove by even saying it?
one poster said "which the SH really has to fear. It might not utterly dominate but it will absolutely be capable of holding its own against anything out there (bar an F-22)"
and I replyed "I'm hearing the f-35 is snotting the f-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too "
and I posted a f-22 pilot saying amongst other things, that 80% of the budget is spent intergrating the f-22 into the system
What simulation is this based upon?
don't know, the person didn't say
Using what metrics?
don't know the person didn't say
read my posts, I state in in there and also quoted a f-22 pilot
In what role is that happening?
in a system sim, the person said that the f-35 was exceeding the f-22 within the system
What are you trying to prove by even saying it?
one poster said "which the SH really has to fear. It might not utterly dominate but it will absolutely be capable of holding its own against anything out there (bar an F-22)"
and I replyed "I'm hearing the f-35 is snotting the f-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too "
and I posted a f-22 pilot saying amongst other things, that 80% of the budget is spent intergrating the f-22 into the system
What simulation is this based upon?
don't know, the person didn't say
Using what metrics?
don't know the person didn't say
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JSFfan
So you don't think Lieutenant-Colonel Berke has clearance?
What simulation is this based upon?
don't know, the person didn't say
don't know, the person didn't say
Using what metrics?
don't know the person didn't say
don't know the person didn't say
Last edited by NITRO104; 12th Jun 2013 at 13:27.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"That story is by the same fellow who's brilliant rebuttal to Loren Thompson was photoshopping a mask on him, and linking to an aviation week editorial. "
You have to admire the man, he quotes Wheeler, Axe and a piece by Sweetman that he didn't put his name on. An omission or does he realise that his name is coloured now?
You have to admire the man, he quotes Wheeler, Axe and a piece by Sweetman that he didn't put his name on. An omission or does he realise that his name is coloured now?
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for which journalist thinks what about which aircraft and what they used to think, does that matter as much as people who appear to be serious practitioners of air power here, and who have doubts about the JSF hype? Personally, I don't think so.
In any case, if you have a functioning brain, times change and situations change. We all recall a time when a Block 1 SH didn't look very exciting... but that was also when a full-capability, $40-some-million, costs-less-to-operate-than-an-F-16 JSF was going to be on the AF ramp in 2011 and on CVs in 2012, and the C was promised to weigh slightly less than it actually does, if by "slightly" you mean 5,000 pounds, empty.
And to quote a very bright Navy guy, when the SH was revealing itself to be a bit of a dragmaster: "The baby's ugly. But it's our baby and we will make the best of it." Which they did.
Also, if your concern about your in-production aircraft is speed and range, does it make more sense to (a) give that aircraft more thrust and fuel or (b) replace it with something two tons heavier that has less thrust?
In any case, if you have a functioning brain, times change and situations change. We all recall a time when a Block 1 SH didn't look very exciting... but that was also when a full-capability, $40-some-million, costs-less-to-operate-than-an-F-16 JSF was going to be on the AF ramp in 2011 and on CVs in 2012, and the C was promised to weigh slightly less than it actually does, if by "slightly" you mean 5,000 pounds, empty.
And to quote a very bright Navy guy, when the SH was revealing itself to be a bit of a dragmaster: "The baby's ugly. But it's our baby and we will make the best of it." Which they did.
Also, if your concern about your in-production aircraft is speed and range, does it make more sense to (a) give that aircraft more thrust and fuel or (b) replace it with something two tons heavier that has less thrust?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unfortunately journos set the tone for much of the debate - and the few politicians that can read only read newspapers
Think of the Arrow, the TSR-2 & the F104G to see what can happen................
Think of the Arrow, the TSR-2 & the F104G to see what can happen................
HH - Some interesting historical examples. However, I don't think that the Arrow or the TSR.2 were targeted by journos so much as by politicians. Mary Goldring at the Eknockemist might have taken a swing at the TSR.2 now and again but she was mainly (and rightly) concerned about Concorde.
TSR.2 was a lovely aircraft in many ways, too, but from the best accounts I have read, it was going to be murder to develop, build and maintain. See TSR2 with Hindsight here:
RAF Historical Society Journals | Collections | Research | RAF Museum
As for the F-104G, it was rather unfairly pilloried. Not because it didn't crash a lot, but because there were other aircraft as bad or worse. However, because of the jolly old Official Secrets Act, nobody knew that.
TSR.2 was a lovely aircraft in many ways, too, but from the best accounts I have read, it was going to be murder to develop, build and maintain. See TSR2 with Hindsight here:
RAF Historical Society Journals | Collections | Research | RAF Museum
As for the F-104G, it was rather unfairly pilloried. Not because it didn't crash a lot, but because there were other aircraft as bad or worse. However, because of the jolly old Official Secrets Act, nobody knew that.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unfortunately journos set the tone for much of the debate
sweetman can be just as doggedly determined and stubborn as the mouth breathing JSF fanboys, which i think was F/A-18s point. both sides seem to have a "so what!? hey look at this dubious 'fact' i found, and see how silly you are!!" attitude. to me sweetman jumped the shark when he pimped APA in one of his articles.
Where are you hearing that?
Originally Posted by JSFfan
read my posts, I state in in there and also quoted a F-22 pilot
In what role is that happening?
Originally Posted by JSFfan
In a system sim, the person said that the F-35 was exceeding the F-22 within the system
What are you trying to prove by even saying it?
Originally Posted by JSFfan
one poster said "which the SH really has to fear. It might not utterly dominate but it will absolutely be capable of holding its own against anything out there (bar an F-22)"
and I replyed "I'm hearing the F-35 is snotting the F-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too "
and I posted a F-22 pilot saying amongst other things, that 80% of the budget is spent integrating the F-22 into the system
and I replyed "I'm hearing the F-35 is snotting the F-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too "
and I posted a F-22 pilot saying amongst other things, that 80% of the budget is spent integrating the F-22 into the system
What simulation is this based upon?
Originally Posted by JSFfan
don't know, the person didn't say
Using what metrics?
Originally Posted by JSFfan
don't know the person didn't say
So you just heard a comment and decided it was worth trying to pass off here, did you? A credibility low point, perhaps? I've been looking at your source on Defencetalk. For someone that claims to be able to decide whom is worth listening to and whom is not, I reckon you may not be as smart as you think. Do you really think that anyone that has clearances in a program with so many classified aspects would post a piece of information in the public domain giving out information about the F-35, even less the F-22? Would they even state in public that they held such clearances?
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 12th Jun 2013 at 16:08.