F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far better to attack me than read the interview, keep dancing
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...112fighter.pdf
It is well reported that the f-22 has a 100mile 1.5 dry dash, now it's reported that the f-35 has a 150mile 1.2 dry dash.
Do you think that make the f-35 better? I didn't make that point.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...112fighter.pdf
It is well reported that the f-22 has a 100mile 1.5 dry dash, now it's reported that the f-35 has a 150mile 1.2 dry dash.
Do you think that make the f-35 better? I didn't make that point.
Last edited by JSFfan; 17th Jan 2013 at 08:52.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and who was quoted in that, as you say, glossy magazine article ?
It seems that you are the one claiming stuff that wasn't said, not me
It seems that you are the one claiming stuff that wasn't said, not me
Last edited by JSFfan; 17th Jan 2013 at 08:56.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Errrr, a Lockheed Martin VP in charge of F-35 PR?
One who, what's more, had the check to say that, quote:
"Lockheed Martin Vice President Stephen O’Bryan, the company’s point man for F-35 affairs, declared that the fighter meets requirements."
Which, with the revelation concerning the transonic acceleration really tells you all you need to know..........
One who, what's more, had the check to say that, quote:
"Lockheed Martin Vice President Stephen O’Bryan, the company’s point man for F-35 affairs, declared that the fighter meets requirements."
Which, with the revelation concerning the transonic acceleration really tells you all you need to know..........
Last edited by ORAC; 17th Jan 2013 at 09:01.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I guess that's an acknowledgement that it was official and not some hack journalist glossy magazine claim.
The info is there to read on the trans acell and whether it's considered operationally significant and the action that will be taken if it was decided that it is.
I'm unaware of the context of "declared that the fighter meets requirements"
It is exceeeding a lot 2001 expections and not meeting some initial ones.
They have decreased the 4:1 LER, it is now 6:1 on 4 blue vs 8 red and better than 6:1 when both red and blue are on piloted sims, as per the reports to aussie gov.
The info is there to read on the trans acell and whether it's considered operationally significant and the action that will be taken if it was decided that it is.
I'm unaware of the context of "declared that the fighter meets requirements"
It is exceeeding a lot 2001 expections and not meeting some initial ones.
They have decreased the 4:1 LER, it is now 6:1 on 4 blue vs 8 red and better than 6:1 when both red and blue are on piloted sims, as per the reports to aussie gov.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some more info on the state of the software from someone that knows but is not directly tied to LM.
DoD Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, J. Michael Gilmore,
F-35 Software: DoD's Chief Tester Not Impressed - IEEE Spectrum
DoD Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, J. Michael Gilmore,
F-35 Software: DoD's Chief Tester Not Impressed - IEEE Spectrum
In his report, Gilmore states that in regards to operational suitability, the F-35 currently “demonstrates [a] lack of maturity… as a system in developmental testing and as a fielded system at the training center.” While Gilmore’s report details a host of other engineering-related issues as well, software remains a major area of concern.
...
“The program made virtually no progress," Gilmore’s report says, "in the development, integration, and laboratory testing of any software beyond 2B.” In other words, forget about having a fully combat capable F-35 any time soon.
Gilmore points out that because of the concurrence of F-35 production and its testing, a practice that the DoD acquisition leadership admits was “acquisition malpractice,” the tide is not likely to turn in the software battle anytime soon. “Simultaneous development of new capabilities, associated with the next blocks of software, competes with the flight test resources needed to deliver the scheduled capability for the next lot of production aircraft,” Gilmore writes.
The problems extend beyond the plane itself. Gilmore also notes that software issues with its helmet continue. “Boresight alignment between the helmet and the aircraft is not consistent between aircraft and requires calibration for each pilot,” as do issues with the aircraft's Autonomic Logistics and Information System (ALIS), which the report states “Is immature and behind schedule.” Bogdan has said that without a functional ALIS, “the “airplane doesn’t work.”
Of course, the F-35’s program management knows of all the problems that Gilmore’s report highlights (and probably many more). It's only the Congress, the U.S. taxpayer, and the taxpayers of nine other countries who are helping underwrite the program who may not. Perhaps that's why the DoD felt free to buy two more lots of F-35s at a cost of $3.8 billion and $4.9 billion respectively last month. After all, these are seen as being just “normal teething problems" for an aircraft that has so much impressive combat capability, at least in the simulator.
...
“The program made virtually no progress," Gilmore’s report says, "in the development, integration, and laboratory testing of any software beyond 2B.” In other words, forget about having a fully combat capable F-35 any time soon.
Gilmore points out that because of the concurrence of F-35 production and its testing, a practice that the DoD acquisition leadership admits was “acquisition malpractice,” the tide is not likely to turn in the software battle anytime soon. “Simultaneous development of new capabilities, associated with the next blocks of software, competes with the flight test resources needed to deliver the scheduled capability for the next lot of production aircraft,” Gilmore writes.
The problems extend beyond the plane itself. Gilmore also notes that software issues with its helmet continue. “Boresight alignment between the helmet and the aircraft is not consistent between aircraft and requires calibration for each pilot,” as do issues with the aircraft's Autonomic Logistics and Information System (ALIS), which the report states “Is immature and behind schedule.” Bogdan has said that without a functional ALIS, “the “airplane doesn’t work.”
Of course, the F-35’s program management knows of all the problems that Gilmore’s report highlights (and probably many more). It's only the Congress, the U.S. taxpayer, and the taxpayers of nine other countries who are helping underwrite the program who may not. Perhaps that's why the DoD felt free to buy two more lots of F-35s at a cost of $3.8 billion and $4.9 billion respectively last month. After all, these are seen as being just “normal teething problems" for an aircraft that has so much impressive combat capability, at least in the simulator.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ones in the 9 nations that need to know, do know. Most in the gov aren't cleared to know anything above the basics and even less for us others, this is why there is so much misinformation being propagated.
Really the report has said there is nothing new in 2012 of any significance and the known problems are being worked on. This won't stop the naysayers acting as if they have proof of the Second Coming though.
I think a 50% increase in capability from 4:1 to 6:1 is very significant
Really the report has said there is nothing new in 2012 of any significance and the known problems are being worked on. This won't stop the naysayers acting as if they have proof of the Second Coming though.
I think a 50% increase in capability from 4:1 to 6:1 is very significant
Last edited by JSFfan; 17th Jan 2013 at 11:26.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a 50% increase in capability from 4:1 to 6:1 is very significant
Just to illustrate the point that so many people are trying to make to you, but you seem to be missing; the F3 had a top speed of mach 2.2 as a high level interceptor. However, what we got was something that was quite asthmatic at high level and I NEVER got it close to M2.2.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no, it's a 50% increase working with the current knowns, it is exceeding expectations. The 'hypothetical' was 4:1, the facts are giving 6:1 and more than 6:1 when the blue and red sims are piloted.
Now I know you guys love the doom and gloom of SDD helmet jitter etc, but those in the know, going by what is being said are concerned with when not if.
"Every issue that we have in view today is very much in the category of normal development for a fighter tactical aircraft," Venlet said in testimony. "Good old-fashioned engineering is going to take care of every one of those." - VADM David Venlet
Now I know you guys love the doom and gloom of SDD helmet jitter etc, but those in the know, going by what is being said are concerned with when not if.
"Every issue that we have in view today is very much in the category of normal development for a fighter tactical aircraft," Venlet said in testimony. "Good old-fashioned engineering is going to take care of every one of those." - VADM David Venlet
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF and all those other Fan's
We could go endlessly debating the merits or failures of the F35 program
but maybe it would be better to explain why so many are so sceptical about this whole F35 program.
They pretty much have done every trick in the book to let this thing go ahead and keep it alive, starting from over-promising and underpricing the whole project, while basing too many of its systems and technologies on underdeveloped or even non-existing technology, setting future goals that cannot be met (wait until something like an MLU needs to be done) and promising a 1 fighter for all tasks from the get-go, a failed policy on almost all defense programs in the past and present.
A good read is this 2008 piece on why the weapons acquisition seems to be no longer working as it should.
Extrapolating for the F35, it is sinning on most, if not all of the issues explained and that is why I think that the F35 is just not a good idea for most of our military.
What's Wrong with Weapons Acquisitions? - IEEE Spectrum
Another thing you might want to consider is the fact that so many high placed military men and people deeply involved in the program have been openly critical about the whole JSF debacle.
If you have any experience operating in a military environment you would know that it takes a lot of wrongdoing before people speak out openly and critically about projects like these.
Loyalty towards the military and everything related to it is usually much higher than in the normal civil world, it takes a lot for so many people to be so openly critical about the F35.
We could go endlessly debating the merits or failures of the F35 program
but maybe it would be better to explain why so many are so sceptical about this whole F35 program.
They pretty much have done every trick in the book to let this thing go ahead and keep it alive, starting from over-promising and underpricing the whole project, while basing too many of its systems and technologies on underdeveloped or even non-existing technology, setting future goals that cannot be met (wait until something like an MLU needs to be done) and promising a 1 fighter for all tasks from the get-go, a failed policy on almost all defense programs in the past and present.
A good read is this 2008 piece on why the weapons acquisition seems to be no longer working as it should.
Extrapolating for the F35, it is sinning on most, if not all of the issues explained and that is why I think that the F35 is just not a good idea for most of our military.
What's Wrong with Weapons Acquisitions? - IEEE Spectrum
Another thing you might want to consider is the fact that so many high placed military men and people deeply involved in the program have been openly critical about the whole JSF debacle.
If you have any experience operating in a military environment you would know that it takes a lot of wrongdoing before people speak out openly and critically about projects like these.
Loyalty towards the military and everything related to it is usually much higher than in the normal civil world, it takes a lot for so many people to be so openly critical about the F35.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We just had the usual stuff with our Wedgetails and Vigilair, late, over budget etc. The same was with our old hornet and F111 fleet. It's the way US procurement works [or doesn't work, depending on your view]
I have no doubt the f-35 will continue in that tradition and it may even slip more.
Worse case is our old hornets won't last, Aussie's have to buy more supers and finish up with a hi-lo fleet. With 48 there is no chance we will scrap them to the US in the mid to late 2020's
If you don't like it, you do what some of the smaller forces do and buy existing off the shelf and don't push for bleeding edge new tech
It doesn't diminish the fact that the f-35 even exceeds the f-22 in 'the system' and it's doubtful it will ever catch up.
It also doesn't change the facts about euro procurement and development problems, as the eurocanards and our helo fleet shows
also your reference to a f-35 MLU only shows you haven't a clue about the f-35
I have no doubt the f-35 will continue in that tradition and it may even slip more.
Worse case is our old hornets won't last, Aussie's have to buy more supers and finish up with a hi-lo fleet. With 48 there is no chance we will scrap them to the US in the mid to late 2020's
If you don't like it, you do what some of the smaller forces do and buy existing off the shelf and don't push for bleeding edge new tech
It doesn't diminish the fact that the f-35 even exceeds the f-22 in 'the system' and it's doubtful it will ever catch up.
It also doesn't change the facts about euro procurement and development problems, as the eurocanards and our helo fleet shows
also your reference to a f-35 MLU only shows you haven't a clue about the f-35
Last edited by JSFfan; 17th Jan 2013 at 13:55.
IOC for the F-35C is when?
IOC for the F-35B is when?
IOC for the F-35A is when?
When the first F-35 two ship formation takes off on an alert and does what the Hornets, Vipers and Strike Eagles are doing now, I'll begin to believe it has arrived.
IOC for the F-35B is when?
IOC for the F-35A is when?
When the first F-35 two ship formation takes off on an alert and does what the Hornets, Vipers and Strike Eagles are doing now, I'll begin to believe it has arrived.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 17th Jan 2013 at 14:05.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The F-22 has a M1.5+ 100 mile dash and the f-35 has a M1.2+ 150 mile dash."
JSFFan, dash is dash and cruise is cruise.
Those two aren't the same and marathon runners would have cruised through the 42km race at 100m dash speed, if they could, but they can't, can they?
JSFFan, dash is dash and cruise is cruise.
Those two aren't the same and marathon runners would have cruised through the 42km race at 100m dash speed, if they could, but they can't, can they?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no, it's a 50% increase working with the current knowns, it is exceeding expectations. The 'hypothetical' was 4:1, the facts are giving 6:1 and more than 6:1 when the blue and red sims are piloted.
Originally Posted by JSFFan
no, it's a 50% increase working with the current knowns, it is exceeding expectations. The 'hypothetical' was 4:1, the facts are giving 6:1 and more than 6:1 when the blue and red sims are piloted.
I can tell you from bitter experience, your arguments are deeply flawed, JSFFan. The results of this simulation only have meaning if you know exactly what assumptions the experiments were based upon.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 17th Jan 2013 at 14:36.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and you know that the sims are using the 2001 data? try again, the redesign was 2005 and I'm sure they ran the numbers and entered the right data, as was said its the 9 top air forces in the world that are running the sims, it's not LM locked in a cupboard making up numbers
but think what you want, you may even think how fast, high it goes the better with a WW1 plane vs plane dogfight mentality
The sims are conservative which is why you get better numbers when it is piloted
but think what you want, you may even think how fast, high it goes the better with a WW1 plane vs plane dogfight mentality
The sims are conservative which is why you get better numbers when it is piloted