The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Triton]

Weren't the three XF8B prototypes the last fighters built by Boeing in the late 1940s after the Boeing P-26 Peashotter? So to claim that the P-26 Peashotter was the last fighter built by Boeing is false and the Nova documentary got its facts wrong.

In addition, Boeing acquired the aviation assets of Rockwell International in August 1996. Rockwell International and North American Aviation were no strangers to fighter development. A name for the X-32 could have been chosen from the Rockwell International and North American Aviation fighter legacy.

If Boeing had changed its name to Boeing North American Aviation after acquiring the aviation assets of Rockwell International would it have given the company more pedigree in fighter development?

And what about the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA) strike at Boeing during the X-32 fly-off? Didn't the strike damage Boeing's chances with the JSF competition? If the strike hadn't occurred, would the X-32 design have been a stronger contender?

 

[LowObservable]

GTX

To read some of the comments here, you would think that Lockheed Martin (and their partners around the world) have never built a aircraft before and that they are some ma & pa operation operating out of a garage that has somehow managed the biggest con job in history with a cardboard cutout of a plane!

I don't think anyone has suggested that. Lockheed Martin is a huge organization full of smart people, some of whom no doubt had a good idea of how much money and time it would take to do JSF. However, the company had more important and smarter people who realized that a reality-based response to the SDD RFP was a loser.

Get a grip people! The program is a complex one and has had some hiccups (just like any comparable one has).

I think it's probably true that anyone would have had the same problems meeting the JORD. The problem is that the contractors and JPO bosses promised an unprecedentedly hiccup-free program, testing-is-validation and the rest of the hoop, then failed to perform, and failed to take action to correct that nonperformance until forced to by outsiders, making things much worse.

These are simply magnified by the current economic situation the world finds itself in.

Insofar as nobody has an infinite credit line to cover the overruns, true. But the program has to all intents and purposes always been granted its planned funds, year by year, or more.

It is however delivering and is flying.

Delivering what? Ordnance? Parcels? Babies? And if it was not flying it would be in a bigger mess than it is.

Moreover it is getting outstanding assessments by all closely connected with the program...especially those who will operate it in conflict!

From the QLR report: "On October 20, 2011, the Commanders of the U.S. Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC), the U.S. Navy Operational Test and Evaluation Force (OPTEVFOR), and the United Kingdom (UK) Royal Air Force Air Warfare Center (AWC) released their Operational Assessment (OA) OT-IIE report of the F-35 program’s progress toward readiness for Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). The operational test community expressed concern that, with IOT&E officially scheduled for 2015; the program was not making sufficient progress toward meeting operational effectiveness criteria for the helmet mounted display, night vision capability, aircraft handling characteristics, and certain classified issues."

But never mind, forget that, here's a pilot on a LockMart promotional video, and he says that the plane is hot! (And by the way, he'll probably be flying a desk by the time Porky hits IOC.)

 

[sferrin]

Weren't the three XF8B prototypes the last fighters built by Boeing in the late 1940s after the Boeing P-26 Peashotter? So to claim that the P-26 Peashotter was the last fighter built by Boeing is false and the Nova documentary got its facts wrong.

In addition, Boeing acquired the aviation assets of Rockwell International in August 1996. Rockwell International and North American Aviation were no strangers to fighter development. A name for the X-32 could have been chosen from the Rockwell International and North American Aviation fighter legacy.

If Boeing had changed its name to Boeing North American Aviation after acquiring the aviation assets of Rockwell International would it have given the company more pedigree in fighter development?

You're going to let facts get in the way? What's the matter with you? (Don't forget, Boeing also has McDonnell Douglas who has also designed a fighter or two.)

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

F-35 can be fixed, it's just going to be poor value for money.

Compared to what?

Wasn't comparing it so maybe a poor choice of words. Just meant that we will have to pay more than we want for less than we want. Same as every other program really

Maybe the key requirement of a 6th generation combat aircraft should be that it's easy to make! No risk technology, proven techniques, off the shelf kit, predictable costs.

Theoretically that's impossible. When we talk about "next generation" we typically mean more advanced. More advanced means new, and new means risk. eventually you have to let go of the side of the pool, take off the water wings, and swim. everything you have right now is because someone, somewhere took a risk. Thats why I know you aren't typing this from a cave lit by a fire as you sharpen your spear. Fire, caves, and spears are all very well proven things though.

From the QLR report: "On October 20, 2011, the Commanders of the U.S. Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC), the U.S. Navy Operational Test and Evaluation Force (OPTEVFOR), and the United Kingdom (UK) Royal Air Force Air Warfare Center (AWC) released their Operational Assessment (OA) OT-IIE report of the F-35 program’s progress toward readiness for Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). The operational test community expressed concern that, with IOT&E officially scheduled for 2015; the program was not making sufficient progress toward meeting operational effectiveness criteria for the helmet mounted display, night vision capability, aircraft handling characteristics, and certain classified issues."

But never mind, forget that, here's a pilot on a LockMart promotional video, and he says that the plane is hot! (And by the way, he'll probably be flying a desk by the time Porky hits IOC.)

OTOH Are we freaking out because they expressed concern about the current timeline? Concern. I get concerned when I can't get to sleep on time. Is it the end of the world or something I can improve and make adaptations to now that I know it needs work? There are dozens of concerns from everyone involved in a military program from top to bottom. Thousands of those concerns have to be addressed in the long life span of a program and everyone does their part to fix them. Stop the presses-- someone is concerned.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Weren't the three XF8B prototypes the last fighters built by Boeing in the late 1940s after the Boeing P-26 Peashotter? So to claim that the P-26 Peashotter was the last fighter built by Boeing is false and the Nova documentary got its facts wrong.

In addition, Boeing acquired the aviation assets of Rockwell International in August 1996. Rockwell International and North American Aviation were no strangers to fighter development. A name for the X-32 could have been chosen from the Rockwell International and North American Aviation fighter legacy.

If Boeing had changed its name to Boeing North American Aviation after acquiring the aviation assets of Rockwell International would it have given the company more pedigree in fighter development?

You're going to let facts get in the way? What's the matter with you? (Don't forget, Boeing also has McDonnell Douglas who has also designed a fighter or two.)

I think they meant production fighter.

 

[sferrin]

OTOH Are we freaking out because they expressed concern about the current timeline? Concern. I get concerned when I can't get to sleep on time. Is it the end of the world or something I can improve and make adaptations to now that I know it needs work? There are dozens of concerns from everyone involved in a military program from top to bottom. Thousands of those concerns have to be addressed in the long life span of a program and everyone does their part to fix them. Stop the presses-- someone is concerned.

Keep in mind that much of the anti-F-35 noise is from corners with a vested interest in seeing the F-35 fail.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

OTOH Are we freaking out because they expressed concern about the current timeline? Concern. I get concerned when I can't get to sleep on time. Is it the end of the world or something I can improve and make adaptations to now that I know it needs work? There are dozens of concerns from everyone involved in a military program from top to bottom. Thousands of those concerns have to be addressed in the long life span of a program and everyone does their part to fix them. Stop the presses-- someone is concerned.

Keep in mind that much of the anti-F-35 noise is from corners with a vested interest in seeing the F-35 fail.

Well honestly, its concerning ;D

 

[LowObservable]

Goodness, Sferrin, would you mind explaining who exactly you're talking about, and what those "vested interests" are?

Oh, and while you're at it, perhaps you could tell the class why the "noise" has been more accurate than the "signal" coming out of the program.

TT - "Freaking out", no. Worried about continuation of this wearisome series of annual restructurings and rebaselinings, and about the fact that nobody has the confidence to declare an IOC? You bet.

 

[sferrin]

Goodness, Sferrin, would you mind explaining who exactly you're talking about, and what those "vested interests" are?

Jeez, from your reaction, one might think I struck a nerve.

 

[SteveO]

F-35 can be fixed, it's just going to be poor value for money.

Compared to what?

Wasn't comparing it so maybe a poor choice of words. Just meant that we will have to pay more than we want for less than we want. Same as every other program really

Maybe the key requirement of a 6th generation combat aircraft should be that it's easy to make! No risk technology, proven techniques, off the shelf kit, predictable costs.

Theoretically that's impossible. When we talk about "next generation" we typically mean more advanced. More advanced means new, and new means risk. eventually you have to let go of the side of the pool, take off the water wings, and swim. everything you have right now is because someone, somewhere took a risk. Thats why I know you aren't typing this from a cave lit by a fire as you sharpen your spear. Fire, caves, and spears are all very well proven things though.

I see your point but what I'm getting at is that I'd like to see all the latest versions of existing engines, radars and other systems that get proposed for existing airframes placed into a new airframe.

The new airframe provides new levels of capability with existing systems and should be designed to allow new technology engines and systems at a later date.

Basically I want an end to all the pain and frustration of an all new design!

 

[sferrin]

Basically I want an end to all the pain and frustration of an all new design!

That's how you get a mediocre design that's outclassed almost before it's in service. (See F/A-18E "Super" Hornet). Also it may very well be that there isn't an available engine that could do the job. Neither the F100 or F110 could have stepped in for the F119 or F135. Go further back and the J-75 or TF-30 wouldn't have worked for the F-15 or F-16. Further still and now you're trying to power a Blackbird with. . .well, there wasn't anything. And the F-4 wouldn't have been near the performer it was if we'd tried to stuff J57s in it.

 

[SteveO]

Basically I want an end to all the pain and frustration of an all new design!

That's how you get a mediocre design that's outclassed almost before it's in service. (See F/A-18E "Super" Hornet). Also it may very well be that there isn't an available engine that could do the job. Neither the F100 or F110 could have stepped in for the F119 or F135. Go further back and the J-75 or TF-30 wouldn't have worked for the F-15 or F-16. Further still and now you're trying to power a Blackbird with. . .well, there wasn't anything. And the F-4 wouldn't have been near the performer it was if we'd tried to stuff J57s in it.

Ah but we live in mediocre times. You're talking about the good old days when we didn't have to make up the competition.

I suppose my idea doesn't really work for a program like the JSF. I'm thinking along the lines of sticking all the systems out of a Typhoon and some derated EJ200 engines into an A-12 like high subsonic, long range Tornado replacement. If it's got better performance with an existing supply and support chain for a reasonable price it's not mediocre.

Bit like this http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12006.0.html

 

[sferrin]

Basically I want an end to all the pain and frustration of an all new design!

That's how you get a mediocre design that's outclassed almost before it's in service. (See F/A-18E "Super" Hornet). Also it may very well be that there isn't an available engine that could do the job. Neither the F100 or F110 could have stepped in for the F119 or F135. Go further back and the J-75 or TF-30 wouldn't have worked for the F-15 or F-16. Further still and now you're trying to power a Blackbird with. . .well, there wasn't anything. And the F-4 wouldn't have been near the performer it was if we'd tried to stuff J57s in it.

Ah but we live in mediocre times. You're talking about the good old days when we didn't have to make up the competition.

I suppose my idea doesn't really work for a program like the JSF. I'm thinking along the lines of sticking all the systems out of a Typhoon and some derated EJ200 engines into an A-12 like high subsonic, long range Tornado replacement. If it's got better performance with an existing supply and support chain for a reasonable price it's not mediocre.

Bit like this http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12006.0.html

"Make up the competition"? What, you think the T-50 and J-20 are make believe? Please tell me you're not going to try the "oh well they won't be in service for ten more years so we have time" nonsense.

 

[LowObservable]

Sferrin - "one might think I struck a nerve".

You are mistaking me for some hypothetical being who worries about what you say. I'm just curious about who you might be referring to.

Of course, if you don't have any facts to support your insinuation that some JSF critics stand to benefit materially in some way, this might be a good time to retract it.

 

[SteveO]

"Make up the competition"? What, you think the T-50 and J-20 are make believe? Please tell me you're not going to try the "oh well they won't be in service for ten more years so we have time" nonsense.

No I'm not, so chillax! ;D

 

[sferrin]

Sferrin - "one might think I struck a nerve".

You are mistaking me for some hypothetical being who worries about what you say. I'm just curious about who you might be referring to.

Of course, if you don't have any facts to support your insinuation that some JSF critics stand to benefit materially in some way, this might be a good time to retract it.

Controversy sells. Or am I missing something? Surely if there were no bias we'd be seeing more than the constant, repetitive barrage of negativity that we do. No?
edit: Let me be clear here. I do not think anybody in particular is getting a check from Boeing, EADS, Dassault, SAAB, etc. to spew venom about the F-35.

 

[GTX]

I think there are many (including members here) who do want to see the F-35 fail if only to have 'the notch on their belt' and to say "I told you so"! The fact that this would be devastating to the companies/industries involved (well beyond just Lockheed Martin) as well as to the Defence Forces wanting this weapon system is of no interest to them. Of course to get them to admit to this is a whole different matter!


I should also add: this sort of individual will also claim that they are just trying to hold others accountable or that they are just trying to ensure at the taxpayers/government get the best value for money or that they want to ensure the 'troops' get the very best weapon at the end of the day...or some combination thereof. The fact that what they do does nothing to aid any of that is again immaterial to them!

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Sferrin - "one might think I struck a nerve".

You are mistaking me for some hypothetical being who worries about what you say. I'm just curious about who you might be referring to.

Of course, if you don't have any facts to support your insinuation that some JSF critics stand to benefit materially in some way, this might be a good time to retract it.

Controversy sells. Or am I missing something? Surely if there were no bias we'd be seeing more than the constant, repetitive barrage of negativity that we do. No?
edit: Let me be clear here. I do not think anybody in particular is getting a check from Boeing, EADS, Dassault, SAAB, etc. to spew venom about the F-35.

If Boeing counts as a critic it stands to gain quite a lot since its seems to be the "runner up" amongst nations that have already opted for the F-35. And if you think that they are just humming along and not making strategic moves behind the scenes, I would love to sell you some magic beans.

Super Hornet and super committee

A major argument made by Super Hornet supporters on Capitol Hill is that the aircraft -- assembled at Boeing's facility in Hazelwood -- is less expensive than the F-35, thoroughly battle-tested and always delivered on time.

McCaskill has been highly critical of the F-35 program, condemning it recently as the "poster child of a bloated, out-of-control, over-budget, behind-schedule aircraft." While a Super Hornet costs about $50 million, an F-35 can cost three or four times that amount, depending on the model and the production schedule.

"A strong case can be made on the merits, that in terms of capability and price, that the F/A-18 -- in this budget climate -- should be our fighter jet of choice," McCaskill told Beacon political reporter Jo Mannies on Friday.

Akin calls the Super Hornet "a critical asset for our defense." In a statement criticizing the Missouri House resolution backing the F-35, Akin said that the Super Hornet "has operated extensively in every major military engagement of the last 25 years and is critical to our national security. Without the Super Hornet, the Navy's carriers would be suffering a tremendous shortfall in its fighter inventory."

In a mini-dispute among Hornet backers, Akin (left) -- who is running for the Republican nomination to oppose McCaskill next year -- accused the senator of "failing to defend" the aircraft in the Senate Armed Services Committee, which he alleged "jeopardizes Missouri jobs and threatens our national defense capabilities."

Both Akin and McCaskill are senior Armed Services members who chair a subcommittee -- in Akin's case, the seapower panel, while McCaskill's chairs a readiness and management subcommittee.

Akin told the Beacon that the Senate Armed Services committee approved "eight [Super Hornets] short of where we were on the House side." But he conceded that the separate Senate Appropriations Committee's defense spending bill funded 28 Super Hornets. According to a committee summary, the Senate defense appropriations bill, which allocates the funding, includes $2.27 billion to buy 28 Super Hornets. That is close to the House-passed appropriation of $2.3 billion for the same number of aircraft.

McCaskill dismissed such criticism, telling Mannies that the appropriations level is a stronger mark for the Super Hornet in the Senate. She said that talks in support of F/A-18 spending levels already were underway as senators waited for the House authorization bill, which she said was loaded with earmarks.

from:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2799486/posts

Boeing is the 5th largest contributor to Senator McCaskill.

Now I am not trying to be political, I am just showing that a senator from the state where the Super Hornet is built is highly critical of the F-35, and she stands to gain quite a lot by bashing it into the ground. Its not a zero sum game. If the F-35 loses, someone else will win, and those potential winners have various incentives to see the F-35 fail. So I am implying that she is critical because she makes money and keeps jobs in her state. I have a feeling if the X-32 had been selected here tune may be a bit different.

Theres nothing abnormal about what the senator is doing. Its very common of course and there will be people that stand to benefit from the F-35 in big ways. I just don't want us pretending that lockmart is a big, evil, monolithic, manipulating, corporation and Boeing is the sweet old guy next door who wouldn't hurt a fly and just wants to sell us something nice and simple that our mom will love.

So remember, if its positive and for lockheed its evil propaganda with a corporate motive, and if its negative and about lockheed thats just good honest reporting right there-- beyond reproach really.

 

[sferrin]

I should have specified "journalists". I don't doubt there are people being paid to trash the program but "LowObservable" seemed to have his panties in a bunch over the idea that anybody might think journalists anything but paragons of integrity and it wasn't with arguing about.

 

[Arjen]

Keep in mind that much of the anti-F-35 noise is from corners with a vested interest in seeing the F-35 fail.

And much of 'the anti-F-35 noise' is from people who are actually worried about this multi billion JSF project being late, over budget, etc. Would you care to classify the various contributors? Much of the noise has been proved accurate.

 

[Thorvic]

Thats becuase the fan boys generally have a vested in the continuation of this program, regardless of the costs, schedules and knock on effects. When those issues become so blatant that even they cannot credible disregard them they either attempt to turn attention away by directing attacks at those who do bare the bad news, other eqivialant programs or aircraft to make out their own F-35 isn't doing that bad when compared to others (rather than its own schedule) or use the excuse thats its the only option left and think of the poor companies that will be devistaed by its loss (so they may be doing a shit job at the momemt, but please bare with them carry on pumping money in and eventually you may get your product late and at a somewhat extra cost.
On that last point i feel the Defence system is too blame for that they over hyped the JSF program up as the last manned combat aircraft in the western world, so whilst it was imperitive to win it, it does have a demotional impact in that this could be many peoples last program and subconsioucly may well have resulted in the programs being dragged out.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

On that last point i feel the Defence system is too blame for that they over hyped the JSF program up as the last manned combat aircraft in the western world, so whilst it was imperitive to win it, it does have a demotional impact in that this could be many peoples last program and subconsioucly may well have resulted in the programs being dragged out.

That is an opinion so out of touch with reality I boggle to see it expressed here.

 

[LowObservable]

That's all you've got, Sferrin?

"Controversy sells". Sure it does. News is new information that may change the way people think and act. And any news that presents more than one view of what is happening is controversial.

The program is getting a lot of negative press, for two reasons.

The first is that the facts are negative: the pattern of serial negative discovery that's been ongoing since the joke schedules of 2009 collapsed and Heinz was fired. 2010, 2011 and 2012 have all seen restructuring and baselines and IOC has gone from 2013-14 to... well, nobody wants to say.

The second is that every journo covering the program now realizes that LockMart has consistently been spinning happy fairy tales about how well the program's going, none of which have come true yet - but the company doesn't change its front men, which is a pretty strong signal that it doesn't care.

 

[sferrin]

That's all you've got, Sferrin?

"Controversy sells". Sure it does. News is new information that may change the way people think and act. And any news that presents more than one view of what is happening is controversial.

The program is getting a lot of negative press, for two reasons.

The first is that the facts are negative: the pattern of serial negative discovery that's been ongoing since the joke schedules of 2009 collapsed and Heinz was fired. 2010, 2011 and 2012 have all seen restructuring and baselines and IOC has gone from 2013-14 to... well, nobody wants to say.

The second is that every journo covering the program now realizes that LockMart has consistently been spinning happy fairy tales about how well the program's going, none of which have come true yet - but the company doesn't change its front men, which is a pretty strong signal that it doesn't care.

Has there ever been a ground-breaking aircraft that was on time, on budget, and on performance? None come to mind.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Thats becuase the fan boys generally have a vested in the continuation of this program, regardless of the costs, schedules and knock on effects. When those issues become so blatant that even they cannot credible disregard them they either attempt to turn attention away by directing attacks at those who do bare the bad news, other eqivialant programs or aircraft to make out their own F-35 isn't doing that bad when compared to others (rather than its own schedule) or use the excuse thats its the only option left and think of the poor companies that will be devistaed by its loss (so they may be doing a shit job at the momemt, but please bare with them carry on pumping money in and eventually you may get your product late and at a somewhat extra cost.
On that last point i feel the Defence system is too blame for that they over hyped the JSF program up as the last manned combat aircraft in the western world, so whilst it was imperitive to win it, it does have a demotional impact in that this could be many peoples last program and subconsioucly may well have resulted in the programs being dragged out.

All these things were said about the V-22 osprey "fan boys" and Time magazine still managed to put a hit piece on it before it deployed in 2007. Unfortunately the V-22 went to Iraq and performed superbly.

That's all you've got, Sferrin?

"Controversy sells". Sure it does. News is new information that may change the way people think and act. And any news that presents more than one view of what is happening is controversial.

The program is getting a lot of negative press, for two reasons.

The first is that the facts are negative: the pattern of serial negative discovery that's been ongoing since the joke schedules of 2009 collapsed and Heinz was fired. 2010, 2011 and 2012 have all seen restructuring and baselines and IOC has gone from 2013-14 to... well, nobody wants to say.

The second is that every journo covering the program now realizes that LockMart has consistently been spinning happy fairy tales about how well the program's going, none of which have come true yet - but the company doesn't change its front men, which is a pretty strong signal that it doesn't care.

Lockheed may not have changed its front men, but the journalists are pretty much the same too. Even if the F-35 is a total and utter dog, Its lost in all the other negative press about military programs since about the 1970's. The F-22 program got schwacked pretty hard, then canceled --and now we lament its lack of numbers. Even recent stories about the F-22's oxygen problems are framed with phrases like "which has yet to see combat" and "unneeded in today's environment"

So I really can't tell anymore if a program is a wolf, or if we are just crying "wolf"

The F-22 was the biggest taxpayer funded boondoggle ever! Until the F-35 came along. Before the F-22 it was the F-15. Even the vaunted and safe solution Super Hornet was getting some nasty press.

 

[sferrin]

Thats becuase the fan boys generally have a vested in the continuation of this program, regardless of the costs, schedules and knock on effects. When those issues become so blatant that even they cannot credible disregard them they either attempt to turn attention away by directing attacks at those who do bare the bad news, other eqivialant programs or aircraft to make out their own F-35 isn't doing that bad when compared to others (rather than its own schedule) or use the excuse thats its the only option left and think of the poor companies that will be devistaed by its loss (so they may be doing a shit job at the momemt, but please bare with them carry on pumping money in and eventually you may get your product late and at a somewhat extra cost.
On that last point i feel the Defence system is too blame for that they over hyped the JSF program up as the last manned combat aircraft in the western world, so whilst it was imperitive to win it, it does have a demotional impact in that this could be many peoples last program and subconsioucly may well have resulted in the programs being dragged out.

All these things were said about the V-22 osprey "fan boys" and Time magazine still managed to put a hit piece on it before it deployed in 2007. Unfortunately the V-22 went to Iraq and performed superbly.

That's all you've got, Sferrin?

"Controversy sells". Sure it does. News is new information that may change the way people think and act. And any news that presents more than one view of what is happening is controversial.

The program is getting a lot of negative press, for two reasons.

The first is that the facts are negative: the pattern of serial negative discovery that's been ongoing since the joke schedules of 2009 collapsed and Heinz was fired. 2010, 2011 and 2012 have all seen restructuring and baselines and IOC has gone from 2013-14 to... well, nobody wants to say.

The second is that every journo covering the program now realizes that LockMart has consistently been spinning happy fairy tales about how well the program's going, none of which have come true yet - but the company doesn't change its front men, which is a pretty strong signal that it doesn't care.

Lockheed may not have changed its front men, but the journalists are pretty much the same too. Even if the F-35 is a total and utter dog, Its lost in all the other negative press about military programs since about the 1970's. The F-22 program got schwacked pretty hard, then canceled --and now we lament its lack of numbers. Even recent stories about the F-22's oxygen problems are framed with phrases like "which has yet to see combat" and "unneeded in today's environment"

So I really can't tell anymore if a program is a wolf, or if we are just crying "wolf"

The F-22 was the biggest taxpayer funded boondoggle ever! Until the F-35 came along. Before the F-22 it was the F-15. Even the vaunted and safe solution Super Hornet was getting some nasty press.

Yep. It's always, "if we'd done the other thing it would have been so much better". You know, like ending the Burkes to go with the more modern Zumwalts. Whoops, I mean ending the Zumwalts to go back to the Burkes. Or is it "uh, the Burkes are too expensive now so we may go back to the Zumwalts"? ;D

 

[Stargazer]

Has there ever been a ground-breaking aircraft that was on time, on budget, and on performance? None come to mind.

Lockheed P-80? Mirage III? De Havilland Twin Otter? I'm sure there must have been many.

 

[Arjen]

A3D, A4D, F-4. Draken.

 

[sferrin]

Note, I said, "ground breaking".

 

[Arjen]

Define.

 

[sferrin]

Define.

It's pretty self-explanitory I'd think. Of the six you guys listed I'd think *maybe* the F-4 might be considered ground-breaking. And that's a stretch. On the other hand it ended up with a droopy tail and bent wings. Imagine the outrage if we had to droop the tail and bend the wings on the F-35 to get it to fly right.

 

[Arjen]

it ended up with a droopy tail and bent wings. Imagine the outrage if we had to droop the tail and bend the wings on the F-35 to get it to fly right.

That was realised within a reasonable amount of time, at limited expense, with most satisfactory results. As for the others, think again. BTW, I count seven.

Define.

 

[Stargazer]

If the Lockheed P-80/T-33 wasn't "groundbreaking" (first operational, mass-produced U.S. military jet, developed in a little over a year with no fatalities and within planned budget) then what is?

 

[LowObservable]

Sferrin - The F-16 had its issues, but not close to the F-35's magnitude, and I'd say it has turned out to be historically quite important.

OK, can you name a program that's now considered a great success but missed its IOC by six years, without a breath of political interference? And that's if Block 3 is in 2017, but nobody's naming a date. The IOC miss is more likely seven or eight years.

TT - The V-22 has not "performed superbly". It's done OK - but at 2x the cost of a Chinook, and half the payload, it should, because the justification for its existence is more than just niche long missions. Many of its Iraq operations have been milk runs, and it chews through engines at an alarming rate.

The F-22 was pretty much off the media radar when it was cancelled, which was done to protect F-35. JSF sailed through its first decade of delays, weight blowouts and overruns without a tenth of the flak that the B-2 and F-22 took in the 1990s.

 

[sferrin]

If the Lockheed P-80/T-33 wasn't "groundbreaking" (first operational, mass-produced U.S. military jet, developed in a little over a year with no fatalities and within planned budget) then what is?

What did it do that the Me262 and Meteor didn't do years earlier?

 

[sferrin]

it ended up with a droopy tail and bent wings. Imagine the outrage if we had to droop the tail and bend the wings on the F-35 to get it to fly right.

That was realised within a reasonable amount of time, at limited expense, with most satisfactory results. As for the others, think again. BTW, I count seven.

Define.

What was ground breaking about the A3D, A4, Mirage III or Draken?

 

[sferrin]

Sferrin - The F-16 had its issues, but not close to the F-35's magnitude, and I'd say it has turned out to be historically quite important.

Was there a STOVL or CV version of the F-16? Hmmm. It didn't even have BVR capability or the ability to designate for LGBs (or even see the targets if it had a designator). Aside from relaxed stability, what exactly was ground breaking about it? The engine? Developed for the F-15. Radar? Better radars were already in the F-14 and F-15. Composites? Composites were used on both the F-14 and F-15 (albeit not as high of a percentage). Blended wing/body? Blackbird had it a decade earlier. Weapons? Nope.

 

[Arjen]

Stealth: done before on F-117, B-2, F-22
Supersonic: done before on F-100
STOVL: done before on Harrier
Networked operation: done before on Gripen
Sensors 'fusion': yet to be realised, with 10 million lines of code involved that's going to be interesting

Combining the lot *is* new.
Consider the F-16 again, and it combines some characteristics not combined before it. It had to be forced on the military as well.

What was ground breaking about the A3D, A4, Mirage III or Draken?

A3D - drastic weight control during design process, carrier-borne nuke carrying jet.
A4D - have you been paying attention?
Draken - double delta supersonic interceptor, on a budget, that could operate from public roads.
<edit>
Mirage III - mass produced mixed power delta wing fighter (yes, Stéphane, that's one of my favourites too)

 

[LowObservable]

Now who was talking about negativity?

F-4 and F-16: Set the baseline for fighters for their eras. Both were important, not so much because everything on them was new tech, but because they blended new and available tech in what turned out to be very adaptable and useful configurations.

A3D - Its predecessor was the AJ. Say no more.

This is pretty much a useless argument, because Sferrin has decided what is "groundbreaking" and what isn't. As far as I can tell, the F-22, F-35 and the B-2 are groundbreaking. I'd guess he'd also add the A-12/SR and U-2. (I'd throw in the MiG-25, as a more-or-less day-to-day usable M=2.8+ aircraft.) And most of these were years late and way over-budget or quite specialized.

And of course, the F-35 is not all-new either. Sensors and weapons? State of the art. Up-and-away aero? Not so exciting. Signatures? no better than F-22, probably not as good. Propulsion? CV and CTOL variants (Rafale anyone)?

It brings STOVL to the party. Makes the Marines happy, and that's about it.

 

[GTX]

Why is it that people can't simply agree to disagree? I know that sounds lame, but read on.


It is obvious that certain members here simply do not like the F-35, regardless of what is said in its favour by those involved in the program (Yes, I am part of one of the many very minor companies involved in this program - I have never hidden that fact and in fact are proud to say it!). However, rather then just say so and get over it they have to keep producing negative posts etc (with constantly changing approaches, but all heading in the same direction) just to somehow 'stroke' that dislike. If you really believe it is such a bad program that deserves to be cut, then this is not the place to achieve that (sorry, nothing against the forum, but it is simply not that influential ). What you need to do is to contact your respective government representative with your views - hell, maybe if enough of you do it, you may even have your dreams come true! Failing that, why don't you travel to Ft Worth, TX and camp outside Lockheed Martin's main production facility and protest.


Until then, could we simply keep this thread to factual posts about the F-35 rather then the constant flame wars?