F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If I had to go to war again tomorrow, air-air or air-ground, I'd take the F-35B (at Block 2B standard) every single day of the week and twice on Sunday
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS,
Welcome back to a thread where , rather than being more appropriately viewed as credible, you are accused of being biased just because you have flown F-35?! I don't know many people with your experience and level of comparison to base your opinion on but as I wrote a page or so ago, there is absolutely no convincing certain people on here.
LO, Longeron,
Once again, we should be using 3F as the baseline capability and you and I both know that in acquisition you lock capabilities down a fair time in advance so that you're not constantly moving the goalposts for those trying to achieve them; I cite Rover, 4K sensors etc as such moves after they locked down 3F. If I was asked to go war tomorrow against a near-peer foe I'd choose F-35 Block 2B over Rafale; in fact pretty much anything save Raptor. Again, like SS, my personal choice based on a significant amount of study and operational practise of the art of flying combat ac. So am I biased? Think what you want.
There is quite a lot of legacy mindset to much of the theorycrafting on this forum, and elsewhere, which purposefully obfuscates the whole point of 5th Gen.
Welcome back to a thread where , rather than being more appropriately viewed as credible, you are accused of being biased just because you have flown F-35?! I don't know many people with your experience and level of comparison to base your opinion on but as I wrote a page or so ago, there is absolutely no convincing certain people on here.
LO, Longeron,
Once again, we should be using 3F as the baseline capability and you and I both know that in acquisition you lock capabilities down a fair time in advance so that you're not constantly moving the goalposts for those trying to achieve them; I cite Rover, 4K sensors etc as such moves after they locked down 3F. If I was asked to go war tomorrow against a near-peer foe I'd choose F-35 Block 2B over Rafale; in fact pretty much anything save Raptor. Again, like SS, my personal choice based on a significant amount of study and operational practise of the art of flying combat ac. So am I biased? Think what you want.
There is quite a lot of legacy mindset to much of the theorycrafting on this forum, and elsewhere, which purposefully obfuscates the whole point of 5th Gen.
Whether anyone pulled the wool over anyone's eyes...
I would suggest comparing the cost, schedule and capability promised in 2001 (after five years and >$4 billion in risk reduction) with the situation today.
If I was asked to go war tomorrow against a near-peer foe I'd choose F-35 Block 2B over Rafale; in fact pretty much anything save Raptor.
That's a fascinating statement, particularly the final two words. However, are we assuming that there is another air force somewhere helping out? Because if not, how do you propose to stop the enemy's land and sea forces with 2x JDAM or a few SDBs per cab?
I don't think a GX is a threat in itself. On the other hand, the mission of QRA these days is often to determine whether something is a lost civvy, diverted with hostile intent or a furrin probe, so it's nice to be able to match its altitude.
I'd accept that 3F should be the baseline (that wasn't SS's case, and as I think I have said before, the 2B/3I should really be called service-test capabilities). Yes, the requirement was kept stable - but the other reason that things like HDTV and Rover aren't there yet is that the program is still not delivering what should have arrived years ago.
And when we talk about Block 4 we confuse the issue again, because we talk about capabilities up to a decade away.
We all have our biases. Me, I am heavily biased in favor of programs that come in on time and schedule and deliver what it says on the tin. Because when they don't, budgets being limited by definition, they suck the life out of other capabilities.
I respect professional experience and qualifications, but also skeptical about people who hang their hats on it, whatever it is, because of history and personal experience of the times that the experts, professionals, great and good, pilots and engineers have collaborated to create epic cock-ups. One of the first stories I had to write about was the service entry of Concorde, a lovely airplane but in business terms an entirely self-inflicted catastrophe.
And as for the "whole point of 5th Gen", if 5thGenTM means so much, why did it take nine years from the start of JSF to the point where anyone called it "5th Gen"? It's the best advertising slogan since A Diamond Is Forever, but is it any more than that?
I would suggest comparing the cost, schedule and capability promised in 2001 (after five years and >$4 billion in risk reduction) with the situation today.
If I was asked to go war tomorrow against a near-peer foe I'd choose F-35 Block 2B over Rafale; in fact pretty much anything save Raptor.
That's a fascinating statement, particularly the final two words. However, are we assuming that there is another air force somewhere helping out? Because if not, how do you propose to stop the enemy's land and sea forces with 2x JDAM or a few SDBs per cab?
I don't think a GX is a threat in itself. On the other hand, the mission of QRA these days is often to determine whether something is a lost civvy, diverted with hostile intent or a furrin probe, so it's nice to be able to match its altitude.
I'd accept that 3F should be the baseline (that wasn't SS's case, and as I think I have said before, the 2B/3I should really be called service-test capabilities). Yes, the requirement was kept stable - but the other reason that things like HDTV and Rover aren't there yet is that the program is still not delivering what should have arrived years ago.
And when we talk about Block 4 we confuse the issue again, because we talk about capabilities up to a decade away.
We all have our biases. Me, I am heavily biased in favor of programs that come in on time and schedule and deliver what it says on the tin. Because when they don't, budgets being limited by definition, they suck the life out of other capabilities.
I respect professional experience and qualifications, but also skeptical about people who hang their hats on it, whatever it is, because of history and personal experience of the times that the experts, professionals, great and good, pilots and engineers have collaborated to create epic cock-ups. One of the first stories I had to write about was the service entry of Concorde, a lovely airplane but in business terms an entirely self-inflicted catastrophe.
And as for the "whole point of 5th Gen", if 5thGenTM means so much, why did it take nine years from the start of JSF to the point where anyone called it "5th Gen"? It's the best advertising slogan since A Diamond Is Forever, but is it any more than that?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Totally agree on cost & schedule.
If Typhoon had cost the UK the £7bn forecast in 1988 instead of the £22bn the NAO think it cost us (= 60% of 37bn http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/upl...03/1011755.pdf), and had entered Service in the late 90s then we might still have an Air Force rather than a couple of QRA dets. Even using today's money, take off the $2.5bn we paid to be a Level 1 development partner of the F-35, and spend the rest on procuring F-35s at today's (rapidly reducing) price tag of around $130m and we could buy over 425 of them, rather than the 160 Typhoons we got. But that money's spent and gone so it's all rather academic.
You're right to be skeptical of experts. But shouldn't you be equally, if not more, skeptical of journalists, openly biased and agenda-carrying 'analysts' like Kopp, and the ravings of ignorant web bloggers and Dassault's PR folks? With all due respect I don't think this is a Concorde thing. This is every single western Air Force who are in the market to buy a new multirole fighter (apart from France) doing due diligence with their scientific and military experts and coming to the conclusion that while they may not like the price tag much they think the jet's worth it.
You can call the F-35 whatever Gen you want. Call it 2nd Gen - I don't care. But there are major tactical benefits to flying an airplane with a very small radar cross section, that has some fantastic sensors and that has a cockpit that is a pilot's dream in terms of intuitiveness and information displayed. You can nit-pick all you want about niche capabilities like HDTV or Rover - but they didn't exist when the requirements for F-35 were written, and requirements creep is a major cause of cost and schedule over-runs so aren't you talking yourself in circles? Finally, if the not-terribly-mighty F-3 was good enough for QRA against biz jets, then to suggest that an F-35 isn't good enough seems very odd to me.
Respectfully,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Totally agree on cost & schedule.
If Typhoon had cost the UK the £7bn forecast in 1988 instead of the £22bn the NAO think it cost us (= 60% of 37bn http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/upl...03/1011755.pdf), and had entered Service in the late 90s then we might still have an Air Force rather than a couple of QRA dets. Even using today's money, take off the $2.5bn we paid to be a Level 1 development partner of the F-35, and spend the rest on procuring F-35s at today's (rapidly reducing) price tag of around $130m and we could buy over 425 of them, rather than the 160 Typhoons we got. But that money's spent and gone so it's all rather academic.
You're right to be skeptical of experts. But shouldn't you be equally, if not more, skeptical of journalists, openly biased and agenda-carrying 'analysts' like Kopp, and the ravings of ignorant web bloggers and Dassault's PR folks? With all due respect I don't think this is a Concorde thing. This is every single western Air Force who are in the market to buy a new multirole fighter (apart from France) doing due diligence with their scientific and military experts and coming to the conclusion that while they may not like the price tag much they think the jet's worth it.
You can call the F-35 whatever Gen you want. Call it 2nd Gen - I don't care. But there are major tactical benefits to flying an airplane with a very small radar cross section, that has some fantastic sensors and that has a cockpit that is a pilot's dream in terms of intuitiveness and information displayed. You can nit-pick all you want about niche capabilities like HDTV or Rover - but they didn't exist when the requirements for F-35 were written, and requirements creep is a major cause of cost and schedule over-runs so aren't you talking yourself in circles? Finally, if the not-terribly-mighty F-3 was good enough for QRA against biz jets, then to suggest that an F-35 isn't good enough seems very odd to me.
Respectfully,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
My three friends who ejected from A-7's, over the ocean, came to disagree with that glib point of view. The two engines on the Hornet made them a hell of a lot happier. While engine reliability has increased over the years, I seem to recall that the Falcon/Viper earned it's nickname "lawn dart" for a good reason.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach Two, thanks for your reasoned response. I will attempt to respond in kind.
Agreed. To a point. My point being that a number of national air arms accepted the Tornado's poor turn performance on the basis that it was optimized for the air-to-ground role, not the air-to-air role. The Tornado's turn performance relative to its opponents did not make the aircraft "defective" and its other features overcome its poor turn performance relative to the opponents it would face. That turn performance did not even make Tornado "defective" when the RAF flew for decades a (supposedly) air-to-air optimized ADF Tornado. In short, I was attempting to point out the inconsistency in arguments regarding turn performance for the Tornado vs the F-35. If Tornado's turn performance was "good enough" to counter its opponents, then F-35's turn performance is more than likely "good enough" to counter its opponents.
Well, very recent (June 2015) Green Flag exercises (similar to Red Flag exercises, but Green Flag is optimized toward Air-To-Ground while Red Flag is optimized toward Air-to-Air) that involved F-35s, ONLY the F-35 hit all the targets and ONLY the F-35 did so without a single loss. Yes this was the first time F-35 was in Green Flag and folks will figure out how to operate against it, but the fact remains, the performance was stellar and nothing beat it.
I refer you to the Green Flag exercises of June 2015 for the F-35s "stellar" air-to-ground performance. And maneuverability was "good enough" that the F-35 was able to defeat both SAMS and fighters sent up against it. And by "defeat" not necessarily shoot down the defending fighters, but maneuver (DACM) so as to prevent being shot down while STILL accomplishing the mission.
Again, my intent was not to compare the F-35 against the Phantom or Tornado. My intent was to show that while the Phantom and Tornado were some of the best of their respective periods, BOTH were significantly worse than their opponents (1960/70 vintage Sukhoi's and MiGs) when it came to turn performance. Moving forward to our time, while the F-35 is worse than many other current fighters (21st century Sukhoi's and MiGs) in turn performance, like the F-4 and Tornado before it, it is "good enough" to enable it to use its other characteristics to advantage to defeat them. (and once again "defeat" does not necessarily mean shoot down their opponents, but maneuver to complete the F-35 mission without being shot down.)
Hope this clarified.
"Tornado" - different generation, different threat, very different conops, different load, different range, not supposedly air-to-air (refer you to John Farley's recent support of claims that F-35 is a magnificent air-to-air fighter). You'd have to be ill-informed or clutching at straws to make that comparison.
"NOTHING (not even A-10) beats the F-35 in the air-to-ground role in a contested air environment" - as yet, it has proved nothing. The Project Office and LM have claimed what you claim. So far, the test pilots have released some weapons. It will be a long time before that bold claim can be proved.
"stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance" - Stellar? And good enough? No proof of "stellar" yet. "Good enough" was not the claim until a few years ago. It was supposed to be indestructible and invisible. Look at the claims and links in the first 150 pages of this thread alone. Why have all those claims suddenly gone away? In who's service will it be only just "good enough"?
As for better than the Phantom and the Tornado (not sure which model you mean), it should be better than the one that first flew in 1958 (Phantom) and it is in a different class (not saying better nor worse, just different) to any Tornado (E, F or GR).
Hope this clarified.
Again, my intent was not to compare the F-35 against the Phantom or Tornado. My intent was to show that while the Phantom and Tornado were some of the best of their respective periods, BOTH were significantly worse than their opponents (1960/70 vintage Sukhoi's and MiGs) when it came to turn performance.
So, when we look at energy management (aka Q) ... which SSE can speak to with authority ... does the F-35 have that going for it? I realize that we are once again tripping over apples and oranges comparisons in different eras, but I don't think that the basics of lift, energy management, and physics have changed since the Phantom flew over SEA fifty years ago.
If I am wrong, I am very happy to be corrected.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stella Performance of F35
Ken
Do you happen to know what software version etc the F35s that took part in Green Flag?
I only ask as it would be interesting to know what targeting pods or should one say subsystem they were using and communicating to the ground troops with and what besides 1,000lbs bombs they used for this stellar performance.
If I was at all cynical I could read into the press release a good dig at the US Congress that seems to insist that the A10 stays in the armoury when the USAF wants to save money by retiring them all and using the maintenance crews on F35s.
I noticed the other day that there was a report of the first live bomb release from an F35, if the reports of a "stellar" performance as a CAS platform are true when many of the systems do not work with 2B or 3i software and that there are no external stores cleared one can only imagine what the performance will be described as when 3F planes and later versions take part in Green Flag.
Do you happen to know what software version etc the F35s that took part in Green Flag?
I only ask as it would be interesting to know what targeting pods or should one say subsystem they were using and communicating to the ground troops with and what besides 1,000lbs bombs they used for this stellar performance.
If I was at all cynical I could read into the press release a good dig at the US Congress that seems to insist that the A10 stays in the armoury when the USAF wants to save money by retiring them all and using the maintenance crews on F35s.
I noticed the other day that there was a report of the first live bomb release from an F35, if the reports of a "stellar" performance as a CAS platform are true when many of the systems do not work with 2B or 3i software and that there are no external stores cleared one can only imagine what the performance will be described as when 3F planes and later versions take part in Green Flag.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-Dramatic overstatement. NOTHING (anyone ought to know what capitals mean) beats the F-35 in A2G. Countering such screaming hyperbole factually takes time and effort.
- The "appeal to authority" fallacy. "I would assume the folks... are smart enough".
Sure, these smart folks gave LockMart a contract for an airplane they couldn't build, for a budget they couldn't meet, on a schedule that was a joke.
As you point out, "stellar" A2G? No HDTV sensor, no Rover, no moving-target weapon... Even in 3F.
And oh yes!! "No HDTV sensor"? Really? You're right, but only because the F-35 has six! Google AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System. If Googling is problematic for you, try this link:
AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) for the F-35
And no Rover? Really? You're right, but only because the F-35 has a far more capable, more jam resistant, with far lower probability of intercept datalink than Rover.
And no "moving-target weapon"? Really? This time you're trollishly wrong because UK F-35s includes Brimstone integration and all F-35's include AGM-154C JSOW integration. Or are you trollishly claiming Brimstone and JSOW cannot hit a moving target? If so that's a fault of the weapon, not the platform that launches it.
Let's be real. The guy is here to derail the discussion, for whatever reason.
And on the subject of definitions of logical fallacies: look up "ad hominem fallacy". Then "be real" and explain to us how your post does not fit that definition. Is ad hominem trollish behavior? Hmmmmm?
Last edited by KenV; 7th Jul 2015 at 16:28.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a suspicion the first British pilot to go to war in an operational F-35B is still wearing a pair of short trousers or a gym slip..........
Last edited by KenV; 7th Jul 2015 at 16:18. Reason: corrected typo
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, when we look at energy management (aka Q) ... which SSE can speak to with authority ... does the F-35 have that going for it? I realize that we are once again tripping over apples and oranges comparisons in different eras, but I don't think that the basics of lift, energy management, and physics have changed since the Phantom flew over SEA fifty years ago.
If I am wrong, I am very happy to be corrected.
If I am wrong, I am very happy to be corrected.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I only ask as it would be interesting to know what targeting pods or should one say subsystem they were using and communicating to the ground troops with and what besides 1,000lbs bombs they used for this stellar performance.
....if the reports of a "stellar" performance as a CAS platform are true....
....if the reports of a "stellar" performance as a CAS platform are true....
Why are so many media pundits keen to jump on the anti f-35 bandwagon?
No, the F-35 was not beaten by an F-16
...it should be noted that the specific F-35 involved was ‘AF-2′, this airframe is designed for flight testing, it’s designed to fly in certain restricted flight envelopes. It does not feature the majority of systems present in frontline aircraft. The aircraft, due to it being a test aircraft, had also not had the software installed that is required to use the sensors and mission systems that would be used in combat. Additionally, ‘AF-2′ does not feature the radar-absorbent material coating that operational aircraft have.
Despite the claims that the F-35 is inferior to a decades old aircraft, previous exercises tell a different story. Over the last few years there have been occasions where a flight of F-35s have engaged a flight of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios, the F-35s reportedly won each of those encounters because of its sensors and low visibility. This seems to be a case of comparing a test aircraft still in trials, that has a restricted flight envelope, against a mature dogfighter with no such restrictions.
No, the F-35 was not beaten by an F-16
...it should be noted that the specific F-35 involved was ‘AF-2′, this airframe is designed for flight testing, it’s designed to fly in certain restricted flight envelopes. It does not feature the majority of systems present in frontline aircraft. The aircraft, due to it being a test aircraft, had also not had the software installed that is required to use the sensors and mission systems that would be used in combat. Additionally, ‘AF-2′ does not feature the radar-absorbent material coating that operational aircraft have.
Despite the claims that the F-35 is inferior to a decades old aircraft, previous exercises tell a different story. Over the last few years there have been occasions where a flight of F-35s have engaged a flight of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios, the F-35s reportedly won each of those encounters because of its sensors and low visibility. This seems to be a case of comparing a test aircraft still in trials, that has a restricted flight envelope, against a mature dogfighter with no such restrictions.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
If you could answer the points I made.
If you could answer the points I made.
Do you happen to know what software version etc the F35s that took part in Green Flag? I only ask as it would be interesting to know what targeting pods or should one say subsystem they were using and communicating to the ground troops with and what besides 1,000lbs bombs they used for this stellar performance.
If I was at all cynical I could read into the press release a good dig at the US Congress that seems to insist that the A10 stays in the armoury when the USAF wants to save money by retiring them all and using the maintenance crews on F35s.
I noticed the other day that there was a report of the first live bomb release from an F35, if the reports of a "stellar" performance as a CAS platform are true when many of the systems do not work with 2B or 3i software and that there are no external stores cleared one can only imagine what the performance will be described as when 3F planes and later versions take part in Green Flag.
Did that clarify/satisfy?
I did read the reports on GF. The JSF survived against a set of threats that defeated USAF F-16s and A-10s. That doesn't make it best in the world given the EA equipment of those aircraft. Indeed it's a pretty low bar.
Far from being HDTV, EODAS has cellphone-like resolution - a megapixel sensor scanning a 60 x 60 deg. field. That's why a different sensor is fitted to the helmet for landing.
The F-35 data link (MADL) is no substitute for Rover because there is no ground-based terminal for it, and none is planned.
Brimstone is not in Block 3. JSOW is a moving maritime target attack weapon and its procurement is being terminated.
All these things could have been checked easily, which leads me to conclude that your mission here is to jam the thread.
PS - The use of all caps on the Internet is the equivalent of screaming. Do you not know this?
Far from being HDTV, EODAS has cellphone-like resolution - a megapixel sensor scanning a 60 x 60 deg. field. That's why a different sensor is fitted to the helmet for landing.
The F-35 data link (MADL) is no substitute for Rover because there is no ground-based terminal for it, and none is planned.
Brimstone is not in Block 3. JSOW is a moving maritime target attack weapon and its procurement is being terminated.
All these things could have been checked easily, which leads me to conclude that your mission here is to jam the thread.
PS - The use of all caps on the Internet is the equivalent of screaming. Do you not know this?
Last edited by LowObservable; 7th Jul 2015 at 19:42.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
In turn:
How many cabs are you talking about? Define the enemy's land and sea forces in size, capability and dispersion. Define the battlespace and the synergy of all air, sea and land power combined in the face of the enemy. I'm sorry but there are too many variables within that statement as it's a totally subjective argument to point at the limited internal carriage capability of F-35 (which I think you're trying to do here).
A technophile argument from my perspective - technology often moves on much faster than an acquisition program does, because being better than the other company is key, along with profitability. The consumer market demands more of their Go Pros and home movie experience. Militarily, by far the biggest advance and edge to a fast jet was the jump from older pods such as TIALD to Sniper or Litening III. A jump to 4K is nowhere near as great unless the General is demanding that you ID individual hair widths on an enemy combatant to satisfy ROE (hint: he isn't!) Where is the 4K sensor on Raptor, Typhoon, Tornado; none of which are in concurrent development? If technology insertion was rapid on a concurrent Program like JSF all the latest gadgets would be delivered at Block 3F, trust me - hell by 2017 there could be a 8K Carl Zeiss™ sensor for all I care and if it wasn't immediately on the F-35 would you start crying "shame on you again F-53 Program!" I can't answer that....but please, let's get a grip of such paper thin arguments and nit-picking.
I am heavily biased in favour of Unicorns. Both statements are imaginary i'm afraid LO and don't reflect the real world however I've never seen the fauna around Oakdale, MN, so they may actually exist!
5th Gen isn't an advertising slogan - it's a concept. Being literally unable to get one's head around that, and truly understand what it is and how it changes and challenges one's prejudices and preconceptions, is analogous to the struggle of trying to explain to a religious zealot why gay marriage is 'ok'. If you don't like 5th Gen as a term, use another which you're happier and less cynical about - it doesn't change what it means.
In turn:
That's a fascinating statement, particularly the final two words. However, are we assuming that there is another air force somewhere helping out? Because if not, how do you propose to stop the enemy's land and sea forces with 2x JDAM or a few SDBs per cab?
but the other reason that things like HDTV and Rover aren't there yet is that the program is still not delivering what should have arrived years ago.
Me, I am heavily biased in favor of programs that come in on time and schedule and deliver what it says on the tin. Because when they don't, budgets being limited by definition, they suck the life out of other capabilities.
5th Gen isn't an advertising slogan - it's a concept. Being literally unable to get one's head around that, and truly understand what it is and how it changes and challenges one's prejudices and preconceptions, is analogous to the struggle of trying to explain to a religious zealot why gay marriage is 'ok'. If you don't like 5th Gen as a term, use another which you're happier and less cynical about - it doesn't change what it means.
Last edited by MSOCS; 7th Jul 2015 at 18:20. Reason: Sp
The reason I posted about 'bias' is merely because somebody who has flown the F35B presumably works for Lockmart or flies for the USN/Marines or RAF/RN - either way their future employment may depend on the F35B going into full production ; )
My general comments are not about Flying/Operational capabilities (I am not qualified to comment on these areas) but I am qualified to comment on technical aspects of the whole sorry concept ; )
My general comments are not about Flying/Operational capabilities (I am not qualified to comment on these areas) but I am qualified to comment on technical aspects of the whole sorry concept ; )