F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
I swear I hadn't seen this when I made a comment about J-10B...
Iran orders from China 150 J-10 fighter jets | Defence blog
It's DebkaFile, so you need this...
...but talk about coincidence.
Iran orders from China 150 J-10 fighter jets | Defence blog
It's DebkaFile, so you need this...
...but talk about coincidence.
I swear I hadn't seen this when I made a comment about J-10B...
Iran orders from China 150 J-10 fighter jets | Defence blog
It's DebkaFile, so you need this...
...but talk about coincidence.
Iran orders from China 150 J-10 fighter jets | Defence blog
It's DebkaFile, so you need this...
...but talk about coincidence.
Even folks in Iran and China understand how awesome PPRuNe is.
I'll have a nice bag of the seasoning as well, to go with my post.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
Is that documented, or an assumption? So far the documentation provided that LM made such claims to "sell JSF to partners" has shown them making no such claims.
We had this very same discussion a couple of pages back when LM/Flynn came forth with funny ideas and yet now you're asking me if that's documented?
I don't know. What do you think?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had this very same discussion a couple of pages back when LM/Flynn came forth with funny ideas and yet now you're asking me if that's documented?
I don't know. What do you think?
I don't know. What do you think?
1. Contrary to the claims made, nothing Flynn said was shown to be a "lie".
2. The "JSF Partners" formed their partnership way more than a decade before Flynn made those claims. If Flynn's statements were used to sell those partners on the JSF program as claimed, LM would have had to invent a time machine first.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has China been able to make their indigenous engine work in the J-10? Or is it still powered by the Russian AL-31? And if so, will Russia permit China to export that engine to Iran?
And, as has been pointed out, Flynn's claims are far-reaching and the results of tests against the F-16 certainly cast doubt on them, whether or not anything is proven true or false to the point of accusing him of lying (which I have not done).
It's also been pointed out that very few of the partners have signed orders yet, so LM still wants to conclude contracts on 650-some remaining aircraft identified in the PSFD MoU.
I would also point out that you've repeatedly made assertions on this board (the eyeball-tracking Gen IV helmet, JAS 39E much more costly than C/D, &c) that are not backed by evidence, but seem to demand all kinds of proof from anyone else.
It's also been pointed out that very few of the partners have signed orders yet, so LM still wants to conclude contracts on 650-some remaining aircraft identified in the PSFD MoU.
I would also point out that you've repeatedly made assertions on this board (the eyeball-tracking Gen IV helmet, JAS 39E much more costly than C/D, &c) that are not backed by evidence, but seem to demand all kinds of proof from anyone else.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
2. The "JSF Partners" formed their partnership way more than a decade before Flynn made those claims. If Flynn's statements were used to sell those partners on the JSF program as claimed, LM would have had to invent a time machine first.
LM is trumpeting about how the F35 is equal or better than pretty much any 4th gen fighter in about all possible metrics (which by definition includes the F16), for as long as I can remember and it was surely one of the cornerstones around which partnership was formed and MoU signed, because partners-to-be saw an excellent opportunity to upgrade their F16s with a new cool SciFi stuff at very good rates and who can blame them?
That claim which later proved to be false, gave local politics the significant momentum in obtaining a 'go' for project participation/finance with their respective governments.
So, taking all into account, it's rather obvious that JSF we have in 2015 isn't what partners (and not only partners but US services as well) signed up for 15 or so years ago and in some aspects most probably will never be.
There's an obvious problem with that, since once you sign up for something, you expect to get what you signed up for and not what someone else arbitrary decides is good for you, or in layman terms;
"I'd like to buy that chair, please."
"Excellent, sir. Sign here, pls. Expect it delivered tomorrow morning. Thank you."
(tomorrow morning)
"Good day, sir. Where can I unload your couch?"
Are we on the same page now?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kenny, I know that this isn't as simple as discovering the meaning of life if there only wasn't for that pesky bus, but let's try.
LM is trumpeting about how the F35 is equal or better than pretty much any 4th gen fighter in about all possible metrics (which by definition includes the F16), for as long as I can remember and it was surely one of the cornerstones around which partnership was formed and MoU signed....
On the other hand, Maj Gen George Meullner way back in 1994 (more than two DECADES ago!) when he was the head of the JSF program said this:
The JSF complements the F-22 in the high-low mix. The F-22, as the high-end of the force mix, is designed to dominate the air superiority arena through the combination of stealth, supercusise, integrated avionics, and large internal weapons bays. The JSF, as the low-end, will be designed as a stealthy multi-role air-to-ground fighter reliant on the enabling force of the air dominant F-22.
Two decades ago when the partnership was forming the head of the program firmly established that the JSF would be optimized for air-to-ground, NOT air-to-air, as you (falsely) claim. AND he said that it would be "reliant" on an air-dominant fighter and would not BE an air-dominant fighter, as you (falsely) claim. Have you got a single quote from LM that contradicts MajGen Meullner? Just one? May I gently suggest that what you "remember" is subject to all sorts of (false) assumptions.
Are we on the same page now?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flynn's claims are far-reaching and the results of tests against the F-16 certainly cast doubt on them
And "certainly?" Why?
And "cast doubt?" How so? What assumptions are required for the test to "cast doubt"?
1. Flynn never said nor suggested F-35 was equal to an F-16 in close-in dog fight performance, nor has LM ever claimed the F-35 would be equal to an F-16 in close-in dog fight performance. And nothing has been provided that "casts doubt" in the least on any of Flynn's claims regarding the F-35's maneuverability. In point of fact, over two DECADES ago the head of the program said the JSF would be optimized for air-to-ground (NOT air-to-air) AND that it would "be reliant" on an air-dominant fighter.
2. The test you refer to was not designed nor intended to test close-in dog fight performance and provided nothing that casts any sort of doubt on Flynn's claims.
As for the eyeball-tracking Gen IV helmet, I owned up to that error and apologized for it.
As for the cost of the Gripen E vs the Gripen C/D, there's been zero evidence provided that my statement was wrong, and I've provided reasoning (and evidence, which you rejected out of hand) why it was correct. If it does turn out I was wrong I will be happy to concede my error.
May I ask if you are claiming you have made zero errors in your arguments regarding the F-35? Not one? I don't recall you ever admitting to any. Sorry if I missed that.
Last edited by KenV; 3rd Aug 2015 at 20:08.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
Two decades ago when the partnership was forming the head of the program firmly established that the JSF would be optimized for air-to-ground, NOT air-to-air, as you (falsely) claim. AND he said that it would be "reliant" on an air-dominant fighter and would not BE an air-dominant fighter, as you (falsely) claim. Have you got a single quote from LM that contradicts MajGen Meullner? Just one? May I gently suggest that what you "remember" is subject to all sorts of (false) assumptions.
No one is saying anything about air-dominance, but specific metrics.
F16 isn't an 'air-dominance' (whatever that means) fighter either, but commands certain FP, which LM claimed the JSF had surpassed.
AFs decide about a certain model based on various metrics not nomenclature, so 'air-dominance', or 'air-superiority' is meaningless.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, LM claimed and claims F35 being superior in flight performance (FP) to 4th gen.
No one is saying anything about air-dominance, but specific metrics.
No one is saying anything about air-dominance, but specific metrics.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take on it. Back in 2000. The JSF was going to match a clean f-16 and FA-18. Trading off for wanted performance for 2007, first flight and the reality of a F-35. Now it's going to match a dirty f-16 for a F-35 type mission.
The EM is said to fall between the F-16 and a FA-18E/F. I Would think that when the FCS is sorted, it will get it's share of BFM.
The sustained turn and acceleration was downgraded from the 2000 wishes. These have been published. I haven't seen it said that it doesn't match a clean FA-18 or super hornet.
The manuals are online for both and can be measured against the released data, for those that can read them.
Oh, as a passing thought, I think I might wait till SDD is finished and read the OT&E.
The EM is said to fall between the F-16 and a FA-18E/F. I Would think that when the FCS is sorted, it will get it's share of BFM.
The sustained turn and acceleration was downgraded from the 2000 wishes. These have been published. I haven't seen it said that it doesn't match a clean FA-18 or super hornet.
The manuals are online for both and can be measured against the released data, for those that can read them.
Oh, as a passing thought, I think I might wait till SDD is finished and read the OT&E.
Last edited by a1bill; 3rd Aug 2015 at 23:21.
The original performance 'target' was a clean F-16C; the 'threshold' (ie the minimum acceptable) was a clean F/A-18C [albeit with a few more details on the actual required performance table].
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O/T.
Reminds me of a date long ago, when I could not afford to have a kid ...
I'd like to address the Russian Threat rhetoric.
This news inspired bit of the sky falling regarding "Russians make a nuclear threat versus Denmark" is a bit of hyperbole, to say the least.
Two reasons for that:
1. Of all the places to expend nukes, it's a low payoff target.
2. Article V.
As to the time lag between Denmark's threat assessment that led to "buy some F-35's" and now, that's a few years shy of 20 years, right?
Stuff changes over time.
I'd like to address the Russian Threat rhetoric.
This news inspired bit of the sky falling regarding "Russians make a nuclear threat versus Denmark" is a bit of hyperbole, to say the least.
Two reasons for that:
1. Of all the places to expend nukes, it's a low payoff target.
2. Article V.
As to the time lag between Denmark's threat assessment that led to "buy some F-35's" and now, that's a few years shy of 20 years, right?
Stuff changes over time.
"This was not included in the new doctrine,however, which says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear strike or a conventional attack that endangered the state's existence.
Ref. [1] Insight - Russia's nuclear strategy raises concerns in NATO | Reuters
[2] RUSSIAN POSTURES AND POLICIES ON NUCLEAR DETERRENCE, FIRST USE, AND THE NUCLEAR THRESHOLD: BALANCING ON A TIGHTROPE | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)
Last edited by glad rag; 4th Aug 2015 at 11:55.
Yes, the claims about outclassing Gen4/4.5 aircraft were made, but no longer appear on the various websites - certainly gone from the headlines on the LM one. Hardly surprising.
As for WVR manoeuvre, this was discussed here at some length back in (what?) 2013? My point there was that without knowing the F-35 (A, B and C) figures, we can't do meaningful SEP/rate/radius/g comparisons. We can only read what a man that flies it says about these things - there are a million (insert your own frealistic figure) uses of phrases such as, "do you have a link for that?". Yes, the man that raised some issues about manoeuvre.
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT anti-F-35; but I am happy to debate and enquire about its capabilities. Both the "pro" and "anti" factions need to appreciate that being critical does not mean being burnt at the stake any more. To be fair, I think most of the so-called "nay-Sayers", "Detractors" one"antis" are actually firmly in the same camp; it's just that we are too readily labelled by fans that don't like heresy.
But, yes, the claims about all metrics were made. Sorry I can't be arsed to look any further to fail to find them.
As for WVR manoeuvre, this was discussed here at some length back in (what?) 2013? My point there was that without knowing the F-35 (A, B and C) figures, we can't do meaningful SEP/rate/radius/g comparisons. We can only read what a man that flies it says about these things - there are a million (insert your own frealistic figure) uses of phrases such as, "do you have a link for that?". Yes, the man that raised some issues about manoeuvre.
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT anti-F-35; but I am happy to debate and enquire about its capabilities. Both the "pro" and "anti" factions need to appreciate that being critical does not mean being burnt at the stake any more. To be fair, I think most of the so-called "nay-Sayers", "Detractors" one"antis" are actually firmly in the same camp; it's just that we are too readily labelled by fans that don't like heresy.
But, yes, the claims about all metrics were made. Sorry I can't be arsed to look any further to fail to find them.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 4th Aug 2015 at 12:33.
P.S. For those that missed it, manoeuvre was around page 130, stealth and EW a couple of weeks earlier and the conclusions from various simulations were a couple of weeks before that. Some stuff will have changed since then.