F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Mach Two]

Originally Posted by ORAC

IIRC in most scenarios the empty pylon has a higher signature than the pylon+weapon due to the exposed face/catches.

Well done, ORAC. You remember correctly all the way to post #9060 when I explained the same thing almost 48 hours ago.


Lonewolf 50, yes, your choice of words was better than mine. It is just speculation on a very complex subject. If we could do the maths, we wouldn't need the big RCS measuring rigs.

[MSOCS]

KenV, don't pander to the bait old chum. The MO is to try and get you so utterly infuriated - to try and make you join him playing the Player, not the Ball - then close ranks with the usual suspects and point and jeer. Relative to other blogs and fora, this is still quite gentlemanly though.

[ORAC]

Sorry Mach Two, didn't see it.

Had major surgery on the 16th and only got home a couple of days ago for several weeks pottering at home. Not quite with it keeping up.

[MSOCS]

Get well soon old boy.

[LowObservable]

Ken: "KC-30 is Frankentanker." "The F-35 overruns are due to the customer constantly changing requirements."

Remind me when I fell back on "hard data is classified and not available". I'm usually the one ing about that.

And if you'd raised a squeak about actual defamation of character on this forum I'd care about your feelings about criticism, maybe, but you didn't and I don't.

[riff_raff]

Unfortunately, the notion of a low-cost expendable tactical UAV is not realistic. Consider that the relatively low performance turboprop MQ-9 UAV still costs around $17M each.

[MSOCS]

riff_raff, I think the notion is somewhere between MQ-9 at the higher end (not necessarily in sensor capability but platform complexity) and Scan Eagle. Add in some economy of scale price reductions and I would imagine a sub-$5M platform plus modular payload choice ($) would appeal. Then it's down to the operator how much is spent on the overall package. Different UAS's for different roles.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by riff_raff

Unfortunately, the notion of a low-cost expendable tactical UAV is not realistic. Consider that the relatively low performance turboprop MQ-9 UAV still costs around $17M each.

MQ-9 need not be expendable, as the family of weapons it can carry will include weapons that have range. Ten of those versus one and a half F-35's. Hmmm, interesting decision point.


@LO: it has long since stopped being entertaining, this personal bone you have to pick with at least on participant. Maybe you could trade PM's with the personal disagreements, not clutter up the discussion* that a variety of others participate in.


* Such as it is; as the dead horse being beaten is nearly glue at this point

[Maus92]

The USAF is soliciting the industry wrt low cost engine technology for use in expendable air vehicles:

USAF Seeks Industry Wisdom On Disposable UAS Engines | Defense content from Aviation Week

[Lyneham Lad]

F-35 goes on global publicity tour

On Flight Global F-35 goes on global publicity tour in battle for hearts and minds

The F-35 Lightning II might be the most sophisticated combat jet on the market today, but US programme officials and lawmakers worry that the fifth-generation stealth aircraft is losing the battle for hearts and minds.

That acknowledgement within the Pentagon and among the international partners has already seen the US Air Force establish an F-35 Heritage Flight Team that will fly at 14 events this year, with shows booked in cities from New York to Las Vegas.

The public relations battle is being waged abroad, with the Royal Netherlands Air Force planning to bring its two F-35A home in June “so that they can tell their story”. The first eight of the nation's 37 stealthy F-16 replacements aren’t formerly due to arrive until 2019 with the establishment of the first domestic base.

American and British F-35s will also be attending the UK’s Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough Airshow in July.

Click the link for the full article.

[glad rag]

TV

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

MQ-9 need not be expendable, as the family of weapons it can carry will include weapons that have range. Ten of those versus one and a half F-35's. Hmmm, interesting decision point.


@LO: it has long since stopped being entertaining, this personal bone you have to pick with at least on participant. Maybe you could trade PM's with the personal disagreements, not clutter up the discussion* that a variety of others participate in.


* Such as it is; as the dead horse being beaten is nearly glue at this point

Really

It is often the case on this particular Mil forum that certain participants have either willfully deceived and/or claim that they are being persecuted when "challenged"

As for this thread, why the hell shouldn't people question the acquisition management of the airframe and the actual capability it may (or may never) bring?

[KenV]

KenV, don't pander to the bait old chum. The MO is to try and get you so utterly infuriated.....

Good point and excellent advice.

[MSOCS]

I promise you, gr, that I have not and will not set out to wilfully deceive. That's a dangerous game. That said, you'll appreciate as a military or ex-military guy that not saying everything or being exact isn't deceitful but a necessity. As for the whole defamation that goes on here...well, I couldn't agree more with Lone's statement. We'd get far more out of civilised debate and discussion. Mostly it erupts or spirals downward quickly because the same (yes, the SAME) people take huge offence at information they neither recognise nor agree (or want to agree) with, rather than casually asking for a source or explanation of their PoV. Their response goes from 0 to 600kts in a heartbeat instead of staying appropriate.

That gets people's backs up and it's a vicious circle.

Anyway, you're absolutely entitled to know as a taxpayer what you're getting. You're getting the most brutally honest test reports ever seen in public that detail the deficiencies in a late, expensive jet. Those reports massage a narrative of negativity which fuels one side of the F-35 demograph. What you don't get is verbal, private accounts of the jet and mission systems and how mind blowing it is. How it isn't like the multitude of F-16 vs F-35 articles. But that's the way it is mate. There are issues but they're being worked by amazing people, and as quickly as they can.

[t43562]

Anyway, you're absolutely entitled to know as a taxpayer what you're getting.

Some of us, from the honest information provided are not impressed. Why should we be?

[Rhino power]

Originally Posted by t43562

Some of us, from the honest information provided are not impressed. Why should we be?

That's a good point, given the large amounts of information (both official and unofficial) detailing all the problems and shortfalls, where are all the reports (both official and unofficial) detailing the 'mind blowing' things it has achieved (not hoped/hoping to achieve)? As taxpayers, are we not entitled to see some of that too? Could it be that such reports are actually somewhat thin on the ground? Given the ruinously expensive development costs and increasingly late to service delivery of any meaningful combat capability, it's not too much to ask is it?

-RP

[MSOCS]

RP, they're not thin on the ground but something tells me you know why they aren't downloadable on Amazon.

[airpolice]

aren’t formerly due to arrive until 2019

With writing that bad, he should be working for the BBC.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by glad rag

As for this thread, why the hell shouldn't people question the acquisition management of the airframe and the actual capability it may (or may never) bring?

Done, and done, and freaking glue.


If you'll bother to read the title of this thread, which began about six years ago, the F-35 still isn't cancelled. Some orders either have been, or will be soon, due to the two problem that NOBODY disagrees with:
a) late (in terms of schedule and program objectives)
b) pricy, even in terms of original price point and some of the usual (and almost reasonable) cost growth that all new programs seem to have. That "reasonable level" left the barn a while back.

A personal aside: I am glad that my extremely small involvement with the JSF program was done with in 2003. We were working the training and readiness side, and basing priorities (while BRAC was still in fing progress). Some of our projects included Environmental Impact Statements and addressing how loud the engine is compared to the Hornet and how angry the fing fruitbats in California would be with a noisy jet engine. At the time, the EIS had to do with the area near NAS Lemore, one of the garden spots of the San Joaquin valley.
The problems with a litany of airframe and mission systems weren't even on the table at that point. (In retrospect: if I'd have had the stomach for it, maybe I should have gone all in on that program when I retired as it seems to be a neverending source of funding and jobs ... somewhere)
When I handed over my box of folders and notes to a another staff section it was like taking the most satisfying dump in a lifetime.


Delivered capability: it is interesting to note that the USAF has almost two full squadrons delivered and they are in their usually thorough operational testing and tactics development program.
We don't actually know what's inside that box.
I have no idea if this 5th gen fighter will eventually do as the F-18, prove to be a fine edition to the order of battle, or if it will be a time and money sink for its entire life.
Maybe a mix of both.
Regardless of that future, the political decision to only fund a one size fits all strike fighter aircraft has long since been made so that we, in the US, are going to dance with this girl at the prom since she's the only date who is available for the dance. For better AND for worse.

If you can't be with the one you love, brother, love the one you're with. (See Stephen Stills, Buffalo Springfield).

[Rhino power]

Originally Posted by MSOCS

RP, they're not thin on the ground but something tells me you know why they aren't downloadable on Amazon.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Amazon wasn't the first place I looked...
But the question remains, I'm not expecting that any of it's full capabilities (promised or otherwise) be laid bare for all to see, but surely something, a little taster of those 'brochure' capabilities is not to much to ask for? The odd news item about dropping a couple of LGB's in a relatively benign test just doesn't cut it, considering the investment!

-RP

[t43562]

Regardless of that future, the political decision to only fund a one size fits all strike fighter aircraft has long since been made so that we, in the US, are going to dance with this girl at the prom since she's the only date who is available for the dance. For better AND for worse

Some countries are locked into that, some are only partly locked in, some are totally free to do something else so it is a bit relevant to question it. Not that anything said here matters.