Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 4th Apr 2019, 16:19
  #11781 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
In the last five or so years, and this is directly related to the "coup" and the reaction to it, the intelligensia in Turkey has come under political attack by Erdogan's government: educators, etc. This is the kind of thing that can (though may not) lead to a brain drain wherein that core of any modern / industrial society may begin to migrate. Has that happened to a damaging extent? Unclear at this time, and it hopefully won't.
Erdogan didn't come from nowhere. Turkey or rather the Ottoman Empire was a powerful state in the Middle East. They fought twelve wars with Russia alone (6-3 to Russia with three ties). They crushed Syrians, Persians, Arabs, Brits. But after Attaturk reforms Turkey became more peaceful and many people thought that some other countries took advantage. So Erdogan's ideas of "more Turkey" were initially met with a lot of long-supressed patriotism. He later lost a lot of that support, particularly in scientific and legal communities. But I definitely don't see any brain drain from Turkey, other than the usual "better life" seekers.

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
We see a bit of the Venezuelan brain drain where I live, as people have arrived from there over the past five years. The Brain Drain coming out of Mexico and into Texas has been happening for decades. A good number of my neighbors and friends are either related to, or are, educated people (many of them are graduates of the university in Monterry) who cannot find opportunity in their home country. So they come here.
No idea where you live and I definitely can't say anything about Venezuela or Mexico. I suspect that political instability and drug wars respectively drive a lot of people out of the country. "And some of them are good people" (c).

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
As to the "need" for Turkey to be part of the F-35: we have plenty of allies, and that "plan" preceded the Erdogan government showing up. If they become politically unreliable, a deal can be made with someone else. (I suspect that UK industry would not mind a plus up in terms of engineering/manitenance business, for one). What I think was the attraction of Turkey was cost/burdened hour, or the perception of lower labor costs.
Turkey is chepER not cheap. I'll use shipbuilding as an example again. Turkey is cheaper than, say, Germany or Norway, but much more technologically advanced than, for example, China or Poland. That's their strong part. I don't think, however, that they were chosen because of their cheaper labor. Turkey is the key partner in the NATO. Turkey leaves, and Germany will follow. And after that, keeping France and Spain will be nye on impossible. Again, maybe dismantling NATO is the purpose of these shenannigans, who knows.

You (I suppose you mean the US?) have other allies that can take over that work, but how much will it cost to transfer the production of something as complicated as the wingbox to another country? My guess is, hundreds of millions. Not to mention it will take a lot of time to get this done and reroute all logistics. It may push the program back years. I just don't think this project will survive such a blow.

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
I agree with you that the longer term plan for the F-35 has run into Erdogan's choosing to change course for Turkey, and the US reacting to that. Where I disagree is your implication that the Pentagon is acting in isolation. No, it isn't. This whole mess is a part of the political continuum. Politics never ends; there is no stop in play in politics.
I never said Pentagon is acting in isolation. On the contrary, Pentagon is trying to distance itself from the political aspects of their decision. But it seems that their goal is to bury this project. I don't think they want the F-35 anymore. They'd much rather redirect resources (and purchase power) towards unmanned fighters. I just don't see any other reason for this horns-in-the-ground standoff with S-400.

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
As to the skunk works and the "one size fits all" - One Size Fits All was a Congressional Mandate.
I didn't know that. My understanding was that Lockheed proposed this idea. Very interesting. If it was the Congressional Mandate, then it was a stupid one. One size fits all NEVER works. And if this same project is any indication, it would be much cheaper and faster to develop three different planes by three different manufacturers. They could've given the F-35A to Boeing, F-35B (is that the vertical liftoff?) to Lockheed, and F-35C to EADS+BAE. THAT would be a great political and technological move.
ProPax is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2019, 18:47
  #11782 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,338
ORAC is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2019, 21:59
  #11783 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 62
Posts: 5,674
Originally Posted by ProPax View Post
I didn't know that. My understanding was that Lockheed proposed this idea. Very interesting. If it was the Congressional Mandate, then it was a stupid one. One size fits all NEVER works.
This "joint" thing traces back to the comms and interoperatiblity snafus during Grenada, 1983. From that came Goldwater Nichols Act. But there was a heck of a lot more to it than that. Joint Doctrine became a bit thing in the 90's, and the "roles and missions" power play between all four services also ran into the "why can't we do it cheaper and generically to reduce cost." And so on. There were Joint Requirements Documents writtend for V22 in the 80's. (Won't go off topic on that either). And there is the perception that Joint will save money. (As above, so it was believed with F-111) The common platform requirement guaranteed that nothing would be optimized. That LM came up with some neat ideas that eventually had a lot do to with JSF hardly made F-35 As Is inevitable. Boeing could have won the bid, but didn't.
And I think I remember correctly that the loss of the A-12 (A-6 replacement) left the USN in a "we got no Stealth" mode that they had not planned on, which made getting on the band wagon with the stealthy "low cost" fighter an easier decision because that Roles and Missions debate was a huge motivator on "From the sea" strategy (read "fund me") posture in the 90's and the later versions of the martitime strat after that.
It's a real hairball.
As to Moving from Turkey to somewhere else: yeah, I'd expect to see a price increase.
As to Turkey being the "key" NATO ally. That's a reach. But they are certainly sitting in a decent piece of real estate at the moment.
But wait, other NATO allies have pulled people out, to include the Germans.
IMO, the Critical NATO ally in the Southern Region is, and remains, Italy.
Location, Location, Location.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2019, 15:04
  #11784 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
Erdoğan asks Turkish scientists abroad to return home
Thanks, ORAC, I will try to read all this as soon as I can.
ProPax is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2019, 15:33
  #11785 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
IMO, the Critical NATO ally in the Southern Region is, and remains, Italy.
As I started to read this sentence I had a sinking feeling in my stomach expecting you to shoot down my argument too easily. I honestly expected to see "Greece" at the end of this sentence. But ITALY!? The problems I see with Italy (in the NATO context) are:

1. Government corruption the depth and prevaence of which can only compete with that of Nigeria (and I'd be hard pressed to name the winner). Whatever money you give Italy to build anything will be stolen. Any dealings with Italy will by definition be plagued with endless "funds misapropriations". I have very limited information about corruption in Turkey but I haven't heard any horror stories, either.

2. (As a potential F-35 partner) Quality of work. Italians are world-notorious for shoddy workmanship. And it doesn't matter which area you touch, from rusting cars to 787 delaminating fuselages. Twenty people quit Scuderia Ferrari when Jean Todt banned Chainti bottles on workbenches in 1997. Turkey, on the other hand, are well-known for making good stuff. I heard good reviews of Renault Symbol and some Ford trucks they make.

3. Weak army. Italy is the only participant of WWII who lost to ALL opposing parties from Brits in Africa to Americans in Europe to Soviet and Yugoslavian partisans in the north. The latter, if I remember correctly, stole an object as large as Benito Mussoulini and later hanged him. I just don't remember ANY significant (or actually any) victories by Italian army. They managed to lose a battle in Africa in the absence of an opponent. Whereas Turkey, as I said earlier, has a long and victorious battle history. They were the ones who defeated the unbeatable Persians, Arabs, Crusaders, Russians, etc. I'm not a historian, so correct me if I'm wrong.

4. Location. THAT is Italy's weakest point, methinks. It is either too far from or too close to just about everything. It's too far from the Middle East and Africa to launch any serious fighter or bomber missions with anything smaller than B-52. But at the same time they are close enough for a naval attack or an air raid from the opposite side. Under the current INF Treaty, Italy is too far to launch a nuclear attack on the "potential opponents". However it can easily be reached by things like Tu-22M3 or Su-34.

It's geopolitical position is both advantageous and useless. On the one hand, it's well positioned to control the Mediterranean Sea, but on the other, the Mediterranean is controled by those who control the Dardanelles, the Suez Canal and Gibraltar, and that's NOT Italy.

Turkey, however, is positioned almost ideally having common borders with Syria and Iran (Or is it Iraq? Or both?) on one side, and with Greece, Armenia, and Russia on the other. Thus it also wins on location, location, location.

As a side note I can also add Italy's zero respect from the surrounding countries. It is valued as a tourist destination but hardly anything else. Turkey, on the other hand, is a force to be reckoned with, both within the region and internationally. The US southern offensive on Iraq didn't happen because Turkey said "No". Can you imagine Italy saying no to the US?

All-in-all, I believe Turkey is much more important to NATO and the US.
ProPax is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2019, 21:22
  #11786 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 62
Posts: 5,674
Turkey, however, is positioned almost ideally having common borders with Syria and Iran (Or is it Iraq? Or both?) on one side, and with Greece, Armenia, and Russia on the other. Thus it also wins on location, location, location.
If the assumption is that NATO is who wants to go to a fight in the Middle East. I am not convinced.
But no worries, two people can look at the same geostrategic situation and arrive at different conclusions. If one presumes that NATO is, in a unified sense, committed to going off to fight in the Middle East - Iran, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and so on, yeah, what you laid out makes sense and fits a perfectly TurkoCentric view of the Eastern Med.
Eastern Med.
The NATO Southern Region goes from the straits of Gibraltar to Istanbul. Not just the Eastern Med.
I do not believe that NATO is so committed. (The US might, or might not be, depending upon which clown-of-the-week we have in the White House)

Aside:
I worked for a Turk for about 3 years in NATO. Good man, and I hope Erdogan's purges have not harmed him. Learned quite a bit from him about trying to see the world from a Turko Centric view. Enlightening, to say the least.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2019, 10:28
  #11787 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
If the assumption is that NATO is who wants to go to a fight in the Middle East. I am not convinced.
If the past 16 years of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen are any indication, I don't think it's an assumption. And it's no longer about wanting to go to war. I just don't think NATO, i.e. the US, have any choice. They try to "withdraw" but they get get drawn back into it, deeper each time. Their dear friends Saudi Arabia makes more enemies in the region every day and have now become a rogue state in everything but the official definition.

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
But no worries, two people can look at the same geostrategic situation and arrive at different conclusions. If one presumes that NATO is, in a unified sense, committed to going off to fight in the Middle East - Iran, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and so on, yeah, what you laid out makes sense and fits a perfectly TurkoCentric view of the Eastern Med.
Israel maybe not, they fight their own wars and love every minute of it. But other countries - very likely. NATO is already involved in Iraq and Syria; Egypt and Lybia will follow soon, likely to be joined by Nigeria and Sudan who also share the anti-Western sentiments. Just like Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS before them, this whole "Arab spring" will backfire tremendously on the US in the coming years, and NATO will be drawn in those wars. And while Turkey is not quite the ticket geographically, for those potential conflicts, it is a Muslim country that can mediate a lot of rough edges.

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
The NATO Southern Region goes from the straits of Gibraltar to Istanbul. Not just the Eastern Med.
I do not believe that NATO is so committed. (The US might, or might not be, depending upon which clown-of-the-week we have in the White House)
True. But NATO is not about where they ARE, but from whom they are defending themselves. And that area is slightly different. Most of NATO potential enemies lie to the east and south-east of Europe. Turkey is the ideal (and very willing!) "buffer" between the NATO and the Orient. Losing it as a NATO partner will be devastating, because then Greece becomes the buffer, and I seriously doubt they are capable or willing to do that particular job. Losing Italy as a NATO partner means no good capuccino at NATO summits, quite an acceptable damage.

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
I worked for a Turk for about 3 years in NATO. Good man, and I hope Erdogan's purges have not harmed him. Learned quite a bit from him about trying to see the world from a Turko Centric view. Enlightening, to say the least.
Erdogan is not Pol Pot or Ronald Reagan, don't worry. I worked with Turks a few years ago. Didn't have any personal friendships but was pleased to see how hardworking and thorough they are. Turkish may be misled at the moment, but they are far from radical, and what they need right now is a boost to their pride, NOT being told what to do, which is exactly what Pentagon and the Hair Force One are doing. Turkey needs to be told loudly and publicly that they are the cherished and respected partner without whom nothing will work. This latest F-35 disaster (NOW we're back on topic!) will only drive them further away and deeper into the nationalist tempest.
ProPax is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2019, 13:53
  #11788 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 62
Posts: 5,674
Originally Posted by ProPax View Post
If the past 16 years of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen are any indication, I don't think it's an assumption.
The amount of support for those varies, and it seems to decrease (among the allies) as time goes on. That the US had a serious and public fracas with Turkey in re what was going on in Northern Syria, to the point that they pulled people out of the country, isn't a small thing. (Though such rifts can be healed if there is good will on both sides).
I just don't think NATO, i.e. the US, have any choice. They try to "withdraw" but they get get drawn back into it, deeper each time.
I think it is very much choice since the decision to go into Iraq in 2003. The Germans and French chose to provide some support in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. Each such situation will be colored by national interests, as does Aircraft Buying. (Hey, back on topic) The Germans are not buying the F-35; that recently became clear. You make the point that you think Turkey leaving NATO means Germany soon follows. Not sure how that works, but perhaps the Germans can underwrite the new Turkish fighter needs, rather than the Americans, when the German requirements and planning goes into full swing. That does not help NATO, though, in terms of commonality and support for operations with a common air frame. But we already deal with that and know how to.
Their dear friends Saudi Arabia
With friends like those, who needs enemies? I was personally glad to see the Turkish response to that killing ...
. NATO is already involved in Iraq and Syria; Egypt and Lybia will follow soon,
Here we disagree. Libya has come and gone as a NATO operation and I disagree that NATO will go into Egypt. The desire to untangle / disengage in Syria is palpable but does fall afoul of the point you raised previously: hard to get out.
likely to be joined by Nigeria and Sudan who also share the anti-Western sentiments.
Significantly different geostrategic situations, particularly Nigeria.
Just like Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS before them, this whole "Arab spring" will backfire tremendously on the US
It already has. What began as support for it has cooled/faded.
in the coming years, and NATO will be drawn in those wars.
Given the public response to both the Syria and Libya across NATO, I very much doubt it.
And while Turkey is not quite the ticket geographically, for those potential conflicts, it is a Muslim country that can mediate a lot of rough edges.
Yes. the question here is the confidence, or lack there of, in the Erdogan regime's ability to play the honest broker. He's pissed away a lot of good will.
Turkey is the ideal (and very willing!) "buffer" between the NATO and the Orient.
So Far. Mr Erdogan has demonstrated a Turkey First and Turkey as local regional leader platform (understandable if you look at the world from where he sits) which may or may not align with the broader NATO goals (whatever those may be). His cuddling up with Putin sends a powerfully negative signal.
Losing it as a NATO partner will be devastating, because then Greece becomes the buffer,
Yeah, that's a clear eyed take on it. Your underselling of Italy's position I'll simply disagree with.
This latest F-35 disaster (NOW we're back on topic!) will only drive them further away and deeper into the nationalist tempest.
This latest F-35 kerfluffle is a symptom, not a cause.
As with the Israelis, who was really paying for the F-35's there? I remember some loan guarantees on an FMS contract from 20 years ago that underwrote the Turks 'buying' modern aircraft. They didn't have the money, so who was paying the bill? Washington.

As bloody expensive as the F-35 is, do you really think Turkey is playing cash and carry? I don't.

I'll guess at less NATO, not more, in Libya soon unless the Italians and French decide that they have to go in.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 8th Apr 2019 at 15:59. Reason: Libya update
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2019, 11:19
  #11789 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 75
Posts: 1,248
F-35B aircraft will head to Cyprus later this year

On UK Defence Journal.

F-35B aircraft will head to Cyprus later this year for their first overseas deployment.

The UK currently owns 17 F-35B aircraft with the reformed 617 Sqn having arrived back in the UK last year.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said:

“These formidable fighters are a national statement of our intent to protect ourselves and our allies from intensifying threats across the world.

This deployment marks an important milestone in this game-changing aircraft’s journey to becoming fully operational.”




Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2019, 12:07
  #11790 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
As with the Israelis, who was really paying for the F-35's there? I remember some loan guarantees on an FMS contract from 20 years ago that underwrote the Turks 'buying' modern aircraft. They didn't have the money, so who was paying the bill? Washington.
And here's where my favorite point arrives. Who the heck needs F-35 at all? Washington?

F-35 per se started in 2000. But it can easily be traced to a Joint Strike Fighter program which started in 1993!!! But even if we take the X-35 as a starting point, it's been 19 years since its inception. The technology has stepped so far forward that it is now possible to fly planes via a satellite while sitting in a shipping container somewhere in the wild west.

F-35 is, as close as makes no difference, obsolete. As usually, it took Lockheed too long to develop a fantasy concept. It has a pilot onboard which in today's world is considered Victorian. Recent UAV developments showed that the signal can be transmitted fast enough to even perform SOME evasive maneuvers and launch air-to-air missiles.

F-35 was made for the Big War, like a WWIII. It's designed to attack or repel a massive armada of enemy forces. Anything other than that, and it's useless. As with the F-22 it's "too valuable to...". F-22 started flying in 1997 but managed to avoid all conflicts where it could be useful - Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria. Pentagon was worried that it could fall into enemy's hands and reveal its secrets. The same will happen to the F-35. It will be kept on friendly bases and guarded from any exposure.

Erdogan doesn't risk anything by losing F-35. Turkey, like no other country, knows what an old but thoroughly upgraded fighter is capable of. Their Israel-upgraded F-4 Terminator 2020 are still flying. Su-35S is a fifth-generation fighter in everything but "stealth". But "stealth" characteristics is hardly anything but a "selling point". The planes are still very well visible on the radars and enemy missiles can see them just as well. However, "stealth" reduces maneuverability and flight characteristics due to a certain shape the plane has to take.

Ergo, my humble opinion - this whole Turkey affair is little more than a badly made show. And my personal prediction - F-35 will soon be gone just like the F-22 was with a couple of hundred built.
ProPax is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2019, 13:44
  #11791 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
JASDF F-35 missing?

It seems the JASDF may have lost an F-35...

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2...ific-govt.html

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2019, 13:57
  #11792 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,338
I was going to make a joke about radar contact being lost - but if no calls were made it seems something catastrophic. Let’s just hope the pilot got out.
ORAC is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2019, 15:34
  #11793 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 62
Posts: 5,674
Someone started a separate thread on that; I suggest we use that to discuss this unfortunate incident.
No matter the plane - be it Cessna 172 or F-35 - one eventually goes down.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2019, 16:59
  #11794 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1
So to summarize, F-35 is not "stealth" for the foreign buyers with some saying it's worse than the 40-year-old F-16. Most of its advertized features, like the helmet vision toys, don't work. AND it falls out of the sky for no apparent reason. Who the heck still wants to buy a $100m thing that's worse than most of $30-50m things available in abundance on the market!?
ProPax is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2019, 20:51
  #11795 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by gums View Post
Salute ProPax!
Where are the factual basis for :

The helmet is working very well or we would have had numerous crashes when the folks are doing things you have not thought of or can imagine. Have you seen the optical and other sensor systems that dwarf anything previous fighter/attack planes have? You can actually look thru the floor using that : helmet toy".
Makes it real easy to land on a small carrier like the Marines do. Awfully nice to "check six", ya think? The radar is an orderr of magnitude more capable than existing attack planes anyone has flying.

And then this
:

Where is that news breaking headline coming from?

This plane has had a lower crash/loss/whatever in its first few hundred thousands than we have seen since the F-106 in the 60's, and maybe the USAF A-7D in the 70's.

There is a lotta difference between "falling outta the sky" and "hitting the ground when you do not want to". The only in-flight loss of the F-35 was a Bee model that USMC flies and it had a fuel line failure. We had one takeoff motor failure here in Florida, no "crash", and USAF plus P&W motor folks figured out how to cure the problem.
And then,

Price is now less than the $100 million unit cost, and remember that military unit price includes "x" years of repairs, modifications, upgrades and the amortized amount that the whole program costed from concept to contract to testing to tooling up to all the training and such. Hell, even Boeing sold the 737 Max, with its fatal flaw, arguing that no additional training costs or such woukld be required of the buyers. Explain that to the families over 300 folks such as yourself, the " Professional passenger ", from your profile. Oh yeah, your small SUV would cost a million dollars if the company only made 1,000 of them and tacked on a percentage of the design, development and such of your cost. SO it's more a basic economis lesson than a political assertion.
++++++++++++++++++
I flew three planes within one year of when they were adopted by USAF ( although one was not declared "operational" for the military mission for another year). So my opinions of the F-35 safety record is not without a few thousand hours of experience.
And then.....
Flash.......................
Typhoondriver is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2019, 21:33
  #11796 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,338
First the purchase of new F-15EX to cover until the new PCA fighter comes into service in the 2030s. Now the F-16 fleet gets an upgrade to last until the same timeframe.

And the only place the money comes from is stretching out and reducing the F-35A buy.

https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven...EiIztCPrSWE0w/
ORAC is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2019, 12:57
  #11797 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 174
You shouldn't follow nonsense blogs. You might want to google it, but the aesa radar for the f-16 actually saves money on maintenance, over its time and pays for itself
golder is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2019, 21:58
  #11798 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by gums View Post
Where are the factual basis for
Oh, let's not get there. You didn't give any factual basis for anything you said, so let's keep it civil.

Originally Posted by gums View Post
The helmet is working very well or we would have had numerous crashes when the folks are doing things you have not thought of or can imagine. Have you seen the optical and other sensor systems that dwarf anything previous fighter/attack planes have? You can actually look thru the floor using that : helmet toy".
You can. IF you are short enough and your head is far enough from the canopy to be able to actually move that helmet in that cockpit. One of the pilots complained that he could not use all those wonderful systems because he simply couldn't turn his head.

Originally Posted by gums View Post
Makes it real easy to land on a small carrier like the Marines do. Awfully nice to "check six", ya think?
I think they did that even when the helmet wasn't operational. As a matter of fact they made NINETEEN vertical landings on USS Wasp AT SEA without that Nintendo gadget.

Originally Posted by gums View Post
This plane has had a lower crash/loss/whatever in its first few hundred thousands than we have seen since the F-106 in the 60's, and maybe the USAF A-7D in the 70's.
Well, back then the loss of "only" 10% of a passenger plane issue made a good safety record. We now expect a bit more from our planes, don't we? And losing a plane two weeks after the first Japanese squadron was declared operational is a bit 1970-ish, don't ya think?

Originally Posted by gums View Post
There is a lotta difference between "falling outta the sky" and "hitting the ground when you do not want to".
Really? What exactly is the difference? The result is still a "BOOM!".

Originally Posted by gums View Post
I flew three planes within one year of when they were adopted by USAF ( although one was not declared "operational" for the military mission for another year). So my opinions of the F-35 safety record is not without a few thousand hours of experience.
In your own words, explain that to the family of the Japanese pilot who has likely lost his life in that plane.

Originally Posted by gums View Post
If I told you that the F-35 looks like a small bird on basic air traffic control radar or various air defense radar systems. I would not be bragging. It is not completely invisible, but so small that it can be too close for you to react.
If you told me that, I would remind you that it is only true for the USAF planes. For the export ones, it's more like the same as F-16 and maybe a bit larger. And the "Level 1 partners" paid a lot of money for that program BEFORE they knew that. And quite a few air forces around the world have either dropped the plane completely or reduced the orders by A LOT.

Originally Posted by gums View Post
The jet has a transponder for "peacetime" use when training and to allow civilian ground radar to "see" it.
As far as I know, ALL military planes have those, even the Tu-95. Because civilian ATC don't use primary radars but rather get the information from those transponders.

Originally Posted by gums View Post
Otherwise, go to the military websites and see what the opposing pilot reports are when encountering the beast.
Would you be so kind as to point me to the right quote? The "opposing pilots" is who? Chinese? Russian? North Korean? I'd love to see what they say about the beast.

Originally Posted by gums View Post
Oh yeah, go to other sites and see how much of a "dog" the thing is at an airshow. See:
OH, WOW! It banks almost as much as an A340!!! And gains altitude almost as fast! When the afterburner is on. COOL!
And now, this:

Check out the 2:25 mark and WEEP! If you show that video to F-35, it won't stop running until its only engine stalls.
ProPax is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2019, 05:50
  #11799 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 174
A lot of words, Propax. I'll only correct your first point, re the f-16 pilot and seeing behind. You may find that the wide seat headrest, in an early block without EODS, that restricted his view. Let me know when they put mirrors on the Bow, like other aircraft

It was a nice video though. I'm unable to do an EM chart from a video, so I'll leave it to those that can. I'm not that good on flight departure and recovery. The SU does kinetic energy stunts well, as you pointed out at 2:25. One of the test pilots commented on the SU and it's airshow and how the f-35 wasn't designed for show. Perhaps it was sour grapes, perhaps not. I find both put on a good display.

Though both wouldn't like an IR missile at them, while doing their air show maneuvers. It's not that entertaining to have the announcer say that a f-35 is in the area and took out aircraft, but you can't see it.



talking about a kinetic display

Last edited by golder; 15th Apr 2019 at 14:27.
golder is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2019, 06:20
  #11800 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,002
Propax

I think it would be fair to say that your understanding of the roles and capabilities of the F35 fall a little short.

Clearly the SU35 is very manoeuverable and looks great at an air show but which would die first in a fight?

Anyone who judges the F35 by its manoeuverabity immediately demonstrates their own lack of understanding.

I realise your mind is already made up so I won’t waste my own time arguing.

Enjoy RIAT this year though. It promises to be quite a show.

BV
Bob Viking is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.