The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

@sferrin, please stop repeating because the customers are buying the F-35, it is proof that the F-35 is a success or it's concept is valuable for all customers.


I'll have to pay with my tax money for it in the case Belgian Defense will buy it. And I consider myself therefore a potential customer.
The chances Belgium will buy the F-35 are high, because the instant sunshine devices at Kleine Brogel have a USA sticker on them, our fiends in the north committed already to buy the F-35, and i spare you Belgian politics... I do not see any reason why we need F-35 for Air Defense, Gripen C with Meteor/Iris-T would be more than enough for such a tiny country. Buy the time Pak-Fa cross the Belgian-German Border, the civilized world will end soon anyway, with F-35 or not. And to bomb insane Belgians playing Jihad in the desert, our good old F-16 are more than enough...


We will get that thing pushed down our throat, if we need and like it or not. And it has nothing to do with the performance of the F-35,...


I do not want to start a flame war, just to illustrate countries buying F-35 means nothing in relation to it's actual performance.
 
gTg said:
@sferrin, please stop repeating because the customers are buying the F-35, it is proof that the F-35 is a success or it's concept is valuable for all customers.
Click to expand...

Why? Surely if it sucked the customers (you know, those who actually know what's what with the aircraft) would cancel their orders, no? And no, you are not the customer. Your military is.
 
No, what i tried to illustrate, some customers do not really have the choice...
And from what i can read in this thread, even in the US are some poeple that feel for the purchase like I do for the potential Belgian one.


As a taxpayer i see it that way:
Gripen: Adequate for our needs, cheapest option, fixed price garantee, comes with offset packages that are respected, and operational costs are known and garanteed as well
F-35: Overkill for our needs, no idea when it will be ready, no idea what it will cost in the end, no idea what it will cost to operate, no offsets,


But the Swedes will not sell to us, because we intend to put nukes on the planes.
US nukes -> US plane to drop them. It hasn't to do anything with the actual performance of the plane itself.


EDIT: i see you added the bit about customer. The miltiray is there to serve me the Belgian citizen, and i pay for their service with my tax money.
And since when does the Military really decide what they get? I vote for politcians that decide how my money is spend and what the respective state services will get as toys.
The Miltiary is just the end-user, and they'll take happily any new toy that the politicians decide to offer them. For me the customer is the body who pays the bill : taxpayer
 
gTg said:
No, what i tried to illustrate, some customers do not really have the choice...
Click to expand...

Except they do. And no, you the citizen, are NOT the customer, no matter how much you may wish to see it that way. And thank baby Jesus for that. If citizens got to weigh in on the matter everybody would be flying useless hot rods that could do nothing but airshow maneuvers and have flames painted on the sides.
 
You have a strange sense of democracy. I'll not further comment.
 
gTg said:
You have a strange sense of democracy. I'll not further comment.
Click to expand...

Did you vote on whether to purchase the F-16, Mirage F-1E, or Viggen? I didn't think so. Furthermore, Belgium is part of NATO. If called on to go to war what would your Gripens do, sit on the runways while F-35s do all the heavy lifting making it safe for Belgian pilots to participate? Or would you be perfectly happy with your Gripen-flying pilots being tasked with taking down S-400 sites in areas with late model Russian/Chinese aircraft flying top cover?
 
sferrin said:
gTg said:

You have a strange sense of democracy. I'll not further comment.
Click to expand...


Did you vote on whether to purchase the F-16, Mirage F-1E, or Viggen? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...



I specifically mentioned i will spare you Belgian politics...
I do not want to derail this thread about performance,I just wanted to make my point that performance of the F-35 has NOTHING to do with decisions to buy.
Or how do you explain that after 2 Nunn-Mccurdy breaches this project is still alive? ;)


sferrin said:
Or would you be perfectly happy with your Gripen-flying pilots being tasked with taking down S-400 sites in areas with late model Russian/Chinese aircraft flying top cover?
Click to expand...
It's one way anyway... put ASMP on a Gripen and be done with it.But this is politically impossible.
 
gTg said:
I specifically mentioned i will spare you Belgian politics...
I do not want to derail this thread about performance,I just wanted to make my point that performance of the F-35 has NOTHING to do with decisions to buy.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. If it didn't, everybody would be flying Cessnas.

gTg said:
Or how do you explain that after 2 Nunn-Mccurdy breaches this project is still alive? ;)
Click to expand...

Could you explain how Nunn-Mccurdy has anything to do with performance? ;)

gTg said:
sferrin said:
Or would you be perfectly happy with your Gripen-flying pilots being tasked with taking down S-400 sites in areas with late model Russian/Chinese aircraft flying top cover?
Click to expand...

It's one way anyway... put ASMP on a Gripen and be done with it.But this is politically impossible.
Click to expand...

In other words, no, you would not feel comfortable. (Hence your reluctance to be clear.)
 
I can't speak for other countries, but the Dutch decision to become a level 2 JSF partner was heavily influenced by the desire of the Dutch government at the time to retain an aeronautical manufacturing base in the Netherlands. In the late eighties, Fokker nearly went bust trying to finance the development of the Fokker 50 and Fokker 100. The Dutch government helped by providing an aid package to the tune of more than 200 million guilders ~ 100 million euros, on condition of Fokker finding a 'strategic partner'; British Aerospace and Daimler-Benz subsidiary DASA were candidates.

In 1992 negotiations with Daimler-Benz were finally concluded, with control of Fokker passing to D-B. Four years later, Fokker was declared bankrupt, partly as the result of some intriguing business decisions made by D-B management.

To salvage some of the aeronautical knowledge base, the Dutch government decided to invest in two big aeronautical projects, one military, one civilian. The civilian project was investing heavily in materials development, specifically aimed at what was to become the A380 airliner. The military project was to become a level 2 JSF partner - because the government thought the JSF project was where the money was, hopefully combined with cutting-edge performance, at a reasonable price, for the finished product.

In Dutch politics, JSF partnership is, and always has been, not simply a military matter, it is also a matter of state economics. To what extent the decision for partnership was skewed either way I can't possibly tell.

With initial plans calling for 85 aircraft, current planning calling for 37 aircraft for the same inflation-corrected budget - if that many can be acquired for that price at all - grave doubts have been expressed in Dutch political circles about the wisdom of the original decision to become a partner. Not to mention the reservations expressed by the Dutch Accounting Office about the realism of the Ministry of Defence's funding operations.
 
Arjen said:
I can't speak for other countries, but the Dutch decision to become a level 2 JSF partner was heavily influenced by the desire of the Dutch government at the time to retain an aeronautical manufacturing base in the Netherlands.
Click to expand...

Any particular reason they couldn't have done the same with Typhoon, Rafale, or Gripen?
 
sferrin said:
Arjen said:
I can't speak for other countries, but the Dutch decision to become a level 2 JSF partner was heavily influenced by the desire of the Dutch government at the time to retain an aeronautical manufacturing base in the Netherlands.
Click to expand...

Any particular reason they couldn't have done the same with Typhoon, Rafale, or Gripen?
Click to expand...
Probably the same as for Belgium: The plane will drop US nukes if the sh!t hits the fan
 
sferrin said:
Of course it does. If it didn't, everybody would be flying Cessnas.
Click to expand...
If the US would decide a Cessna is the only plane they will sell us wired to drop Nato (read US) Nukes, then our politicians would buy it.
Cessna is at least a proven airplane, it went already to downtown Moscow. ;)
 
gTg said:
sferrin said:
Of course it does. If it didn't, everybody would be flying Cessnas.
Click to expand...
If the US would decide a Cessna is the only plane they will sell us wired to drop Nato (read US) Nukes, then our politicians would buy it.
Cessna is at least a proven airplane, it went already to downtown Moscow. ;)
Click to expand...

LOL! Touche'
 
sferrin said:
Any particular reason they couldn't have done the same with Typhoon, Rafale, or Gripen?
Click to expand...
1. Part of the reasoning was, with the US ordering thousands, having a share in the single-digit percentage range would be of more benefit than a percentage in a smaller production run of the Eurocanards.
2. There was also a heavy pro-US bias when choosing equipment with all senior RNethAF officers being trained in the USA.
3. Rafale and Eurofighter were expected to cost significantly more than JSF, which is yet to materialise.
4. Gripen C was dismissed out of hand, Gripen E/NG was given a hearing that lasted all of an hour because of pressure from Stork and other Dutch industry.
5. The Dutch Defence establishment genuinely believed JSF would deliver the best fit at the best price for Dutch needs.

At the moment, Army and Navy see their interests under threat, with the Air Force pushing for a second jet to mitigate some of the cost issues of doing everything with the F-35.
 
Arjen said:
sferrin said:
Any particular reason they couldn't have done the same with Typhoon, Rafale, or Gripen?
Click to expand...
1. Part of the reasoning was, with the US ordering thousands, having a share in the single-digit percentage range would be of more benefit than a percentage in a smaller production run of the Eurocanards.
2. There was also a heavy pro-US bias when choosing equipment with all senior RNethAF officers being trained in the USA.
3. Rafale and Eurofighter were expected to cost significantly more than JSF, which is yet to materialise.
4. Gripen C was dismissed out of hand, Gripen E/NG was given a hearing that lasted all of an hour because of pressure from Stork and other Dutch industry.
5. The Dutch Defence establishment genuinely believed JSF would deliver the best fit at the best price for Dutch needs.

At the moment, Army and Navy see their interests under threat, with the Air Force pushing for a second jet to mitigate some of the cost issues of doing everything with the F-35.
Click to expand...

Okay, so what has changed since then? Costs? Costs are coming down. Performance? Based on what? One bloggers misinterpretation of a flight test?
 
Really? Compare the cost of an F-16A Block 5 to an F-16E Block 60. (Or even an F-16 purchased in 1979 to one purchased today.)
Click to expand...

Come on sferrin, you’re really pulling the string on your bow now.
The F-16A/B purchased in the 1979 entered service at a far more realistic price….or should I say at least it entered service! ;)
Secondly the difference in price of the F-16E Block 60 you refer to, is literally a new plane in its entirety – the increased costs have everything to do with the fact that its evolved greatly in systems, avionics and capabilities far from its original brethren the F-16A/B! How do you seriously compare the two? The differences between the F-16A/B of 1979 and the F-16E Block 60 are justifiable. This will undoubtedly be the case of the F-35 if it ever enters full service. Unfortunately for most air forces that have sacrificed their back teeth for it will discover that the stupid price that they’ve paid for this lemon, is nothing compared to the immediate updates and further mods its going to need once they enter service – let alone the natural and warranted evolution of a good design like the F-16A/B to F-16E Block 60 over a period of 25+ years


Regards
Pioneer
 
You mean like all the modifications required to make it into an aircraft that was actually useful? Compare a Block 5 F-16 to a Block 30. (By the way, they actually have to make two separate versions of each block to have the "interchangeable" engines. That's why you have block 30/32, 40/42, and 50/52. But hey, at least it didn't require any "ridiculous modifications" right? ;))
Click to expand...

Sorry sferrin, but now you’re splitting hairs to the umpteenth.
Surly you must recall that the F-16A/B design was derived from its original USAF RFP pertaining to a ‘Lightweight fighter’ (LWF) and the ‘Air Combat Fighter’ (ACF). Actually in truth General Dynamics did an outstanding job with its design submission – the Model 401 / F-16A! Please keep in context the fact that the RFP submitted by the USAF dictated – ‘a simple clear weather senor capability, a very simple and cost effective radar, two Aim-9 Sidewinders and a single 20mm M61 cannon! You have to keep in mind my friend that the USAF didn’t want this LWF competing for funds and prestige of their sexy FX (F-15 Eagle).
So when NATO was looking at purchasing ‘The deal of the century’, to maximise the potential of capitalism someone in the Pentagon said to General Dynamics ‘hey guys how about we add a few changes to your excellent optimised ACF design…by say adding a strike/interdiction and anti-shipping capability to your design, so it will look sweet for the NATO competition!’

To General Dynamics they took their beautiful optimised design cheap and affordable Model 401 and stuck, swapped, changed and added bits and pieces to it, which not just effected its excellent air-to-air capability, it added weight and of course cost!! But hey correct me if Im wrong, but is the F-16 (in all its variants) not the most manufactured multi-role fighter in the West? Oh and isn’t it the most prolific fighter in the same USAF that ideologically hated it?

So yeah in a sense its cost went up from its original and intended design purpose, but this wasn’t the fault of the designer or design. Ironically it would be really interesting to ascertain from Lockheed Martin, how many former General Dynamics personal from the original F-16 program were employed in the F-35 design program?

And yet the F-35 in its original design is still over a decade from entering full production and operational service, its costs have blown out by how much?, even before its had the opportunity of showing its ‘true’ untethered worth and capability in operational, let alone combat experience?
Sferrin, in all due respect, I don’t buy your splitting of hairs in comparing the F-16 vs the F-35 comparison. ;)

Respectively
Pioneer
 
Isn't a pity that the Wall Street had to be shut down for hours, lest it could be heard the decision "against" the F-35 was once again repeated?
 
“If called on to go to war what would your Gripens do, sit on the runways while F-35s do all the heavy lifting making it safe for Belgian pilots to participate?”
Click to expand...

Sorry sferrin, but I jokingly wanted to ask if you had shares in the F-35 program!
But now I’d rather ask you if you are the same public relations person that made those Lockheed Martin infomercials? That’s gold!

But in reality sir, the Gripen is and has been in operational service for a good few years with a couple of happy customers!

Like many people, politician’s and Air Force chiefs, I guess they too will be interested to see how the F-35 goes when tasked with taking down S-400 sites in areas with late model Russian/Chinese aircraft flying top cover! Once its confirmed to work, safe and capable to go into full scale production and maybe even operational service ;)

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
Surly you must recall that the F-16A/B design was derived from its original USAF RFP pertaining to a ‘Lightweight fighter’ (LWF) and the ‘Air Combat Fighter’ (ACF). Actually in truth General Dynamics did an outstanding job with its design submission – the Model 401 / F-16A! Please keep in context the fact that the RFP submitted by the USAF dictated – ‘a simple clear weather senor capability, a very simple and cost effective radar, two Aim-9 Sidewinders and a single 20mm M61 cannon! You have to keep in mind my friend that the USAF didn’t want this LWF competing for funds and prestige of their sexy FX (F-15 Eagle).
Click to expand...

Actually, in truth, most of these upgrades were planned before the first F-16 was delivered.

Pioneer said:
And yet the F-35 in its original design is still over a decade from entering full production and operational service,
Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of calendar you're using but on mine the F-35 enters service in the next month or two not "over a decade from now".
 
mkurt said:
Isn't a pity that the Wall Street had to be shut down for hours, lest it could be heard the decision "against" the F-35 was once again repeated?
Click to expand...

Do you buy your tinfoil by the ton or the acre?
 
Pioneer said:
But in reality sir, the Gripen is and has been in operational service for a good few years with a couple of happy customers!
Click to expand...

Let's see how happy they are if they ever have to use it in combat. ;)
 
sferrin said:
mkurt said:
Isn't a pity that the Wall Street had to be shut down for hours, lest it could be heard the decision "against" the F-35 was once again repeated?
Click to expand...

Do you buy your tinfoil by the ton or the acre?
Click to expand...

We have our underground production facilities, next to our UFO base.
 
mkurt said:
sferrin said:
mkurt said:
Isn't a pity that the Wall Street had to be shut down for hours, lest it could be heard the decision "against" the F-35 was once again repeated?
Click to expand...

Do you buy your tinfoil by the ton or the acre?
Click to expand...

We have our underground production facilities, next to our UFO base.
Click to expand...
I found a picture

th
 
sferrin said:
Pioneer said:
Surly you must recall that the F-16A/B design was derived from its original USAF RFP pertaining to a ‘Lightweight fighter’ (LWF) and the ‘Air Combat Fighter’ (ACF). Actually in truth General Dynamics did an outstanding job with its design submission – the Model 401 / F-16A! Please keep in context the fact that the RFP submitted by the USAF dictated – ‘a simple clear weather senor capability, a very simple and cost effective radar, two Aim-9 Sidewinders and a single 20mm M61 cannon! You have to keep in mind my friend that the USAF didn’t want this LWF competing for funds and prestige of their sexy FX (F-15 Eagle).
Click to expand...

Actually, in truth, most of these upgrades were planned before the first F-16 was delivered.

Pioneer said:
And yet the F-35 in its original design is still over a decade from entering full production and operational service,
Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of calendar you're using but on mine the F-35 enters service in the next month or two not "over a decade from now".
Click to expand...

Na your right Sferrin, I did stuff up - what I was trying to say is that the F-35 is like a decade over its development/service entry period!
Thanks for highlighting my error ;)

Regards
Pioneer
 
Somebody can't count... try 5 years... and even that had more to do with the collapsing economy and less with actual development.


SRMcM1T.jpg
 
Not exactly.


First, it F-35A Block 3I hits its threshold IOC date,it will be FY17, not FY16.


Second, in the initial plan, Block 2 was much closer to Block 3F; even Block 1 was to be combat-ready. The schedule date for Block 3 IOT&E completion and IOC, the completion of SDD, was mid-CY12. That's currently 6-6.5 years late (objective/threshold) if it happens on time and with no capabilities deferred.


Third, SDD has always been fully funded, as you well know. The first delays were caused by the fact that the contest-winning design was hopelessly overweight. This cascaded into a second series of delays because the impact of redesign (which decreased airframe commonality) was underestimated, resulting in late delivery of test aircraft. A third major factor (not unique to F-35) was an optimistic view of the ability of the SIL/Catbird process to deliver good S/W to the jet.
 
When the issues arose and they were aware that more time & money would be required to complete SDD, they decided to spend time and not money.


They did this by extending the SDD phase to the right & not spending more money per annum in order to stick to the same SDD schedule. They also cut back on several SDD airframes, a decision which came back to haunt them, which in turn forced them to "borrow" LRIP 1 airframes and dedicate them to SDD service.


In either case, it's not a decade late by any measure.
 
SpudmanWP said:
When the issues arose and they were aware that more time & money would be required to complete SDD, they decided to spend time and not money.


They did this by extending the SDD phase to the right & not spending more money per annum in order to stick to the same SDD schedule. They also cut back on several SDD airframes, a decision which came back to haunt them, which in turn forced them to "borrow" LRIP 1 airframes and dedicate them to SDD service.


In either case, it's not a decade late by any measure.
Click to expand...

The thing most disturbing here is that some actually believe if you always quit at the first sign of difficulty that, by some miracle, a program will happen that has none.
 
I heard it can out maneuver an F-35 ;D

https://www.facebook.com/Kurdsat/videos/10153343521339390/?fref=nf
 
Please, for those of us barbarians who don't know what facebook is...

What is it that people ignore the simplest "Don't!" yet spend inordinate efforts to prove it was never the case? What is it that US, the hidden hand that controls everything everywhere, has condoned the rise of a new kind of Turkey that's somehow in proxy warfare against the so called interests of the West by supporting ISIL and yet the same US still insists on selling us the very best? What is it that uniformed US officers "forget" the name of this country as a customer with the blatantly obvious smirk yet the ball keeps rolling? What is it that the US insists on knowing our national interests better than us and in such a magnamious gesture refuse the cancellation, even with no demands for a refund? What is it that some of the staunchest supporters turn out to be paid salesmen and some others are indeed smart enough to shut up and there is not the slightest mercy on the most obscure of posts so that slurring all can go on unabated, "painting" any opponent in only slightly different hues so that the must-be-unreal weak spots can be covered and even go away in PR? What is it that gets the US so hooked on selling the F-35 where it is not wanted?

Why is it that ? Why the combination of an informed and heavy forum presence with no doubt real accomplishments in life and career and devotion of the minion to search out the slightest dumb statement and bring it to attention of the forum where the majority of participants are sure to be 100% equals in knowledge and sanity and all the good one might have aspired to? So that they can identify the veracity of claims for and against?

Will mocking, slurs, insults after the obligatory tinfoil entry convince those unworthy, those without brains, to accept what's good for them or is it deemed really possible that some obscure bellyaching over the web can be a threat?

[LM only:
Not only the company word, but almost engineering the entire opposition to the company word, so that people can find total justification to name anyone they want an idiot? This requires one of the viewpoints vindicated and in the light of 20 years of name calling it's only fair that faces will be rubbed in it.]
 
http://www.hill.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123453867

First F-35 fighter squadron activated at Hill
 
I've no competence to judge, and it's going to be one more viewpoint among many, but the author, Tim Robinson, is editor in chief of the Royal Aeronautical Society's magazine, 'Aerospace' and his opinions are worth a read at least.


http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/3272/Does-the-F35-really-suck-in-air-combat



https://medium.com/war-is-boring/don-t-think-the-f-35-can-fight-it-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4


Essentially, he's run simulations and argues that provided their advantages of stealth and communications integration are fully exploited and the enemy is not allowed to use their advantages in agility, F-35s in a group win against Su-35s. The crucial thing is that the F-35s make use of full data sharing and co-ordination and are not acting one-on-one.


The obvious objection begins "Yes, but that's in an ideal world..." but this offers an insight into the changing nature of air combat doctrine, whether or not the F-35 itself is the solution. Anyhoo...
 
Rhinocrates said:
The obvious objection begins "Yes, but that's in an ideal world..."
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the arguments back in the day about the "toy" F-16 replacing the F-4. "No BVR? It will be completely outclassed by the Mig-23." I can only imagine the headlines if we'd had the internet back then.
 
I don't know if you were there at the time, Sferrin, but that calculus was driven on one side by many Western intel agencies and leakers, who had assiduously threat-inflated the MiG-23 in order to justify F-15s. The F-16A would have been pretty useless against the multirole monster that the West saw in the MiG. It was only after people flew the thing that we realized it was crap.
 
LowObservable said:
I don't know if you were there at the time, Sferrin, but that calculus was driven on one side by many Western intel agencies and leakers, who had assiduously threat-inflated the MiG-23 in order to justify F-15s. The F-16A would have been pretty useless against the multirole monster that the West saw in the MiG. It was only after people flew the thing that we realized it was crap.
Click to expand...

The fact remains that, compared to the F-4 the F-16 was replacing in many units, the F-16 was portrayed by many as a useless toy. No BVR, "only carries 2 heaters instead of 8 missiles", "no long range radar", "can't fight at night", "low payload", "no PGMs", etc. etc. etc. Sound familiar? Of course everybody knows the truth of it now. (Though, until it got AIM-120, the Mig-23 DID outgun the F-16 in BVR.) 10-15 years from now crows will become an endangered species so many of them will have been eaten over the F-35. ;) BTW I heard the UK is already starting to put it's Typhoons out to pasture. Not worth upgrading?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom