The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[sferrin]

I recall reading the soviets too were pleased by the rapid selection of MD design without fly off competition. The soviets regarded the North America Rockwell airframe design to be the best of the bunch, and is the one which they could not easily surpass. They thought the MD airframe design was mediocre, and was confident they could surpass it in fuel fraction, payload, performance and maneuverability.

Apparently the McD F-15 was so mediocre that Sukhoi had to go back to the drawing board after discovering their answer (the T-10) wouldn't cut it. ;D

 

[chuck4]

It doesn't matter if it took them some time and a few trial and errors. But the fact that production Su-27's airframe is indeed superior to F-15 in every way that the Soviets thought they could make it superior proves their intial judgement was essentially correct.

.

 

[chuck4]

I recall reading the soviets too were pleased by the rapid selection of MD design without fly off competition. The soviets regarded the North America Rockwell airframe design to be the best of the bunch, and is the one which they could not easily surpass. They thought the MD airframe design was mediocre, and was confident they could surpass it in fuel fraction, payload, performance and maneuverability.

by that measure, the US has been very pleased by most soviet decisions as well. ;D I'm sure if the USSR was around today you could just add them to the list of detractors proven wrong.

Chuck whats your point? For as excellent as the F-15 is we really could have had more excellent had we bought something else?

F-15 only seemed excellent because its never had to fight the Su-27 operated by a real airforce. However, the results of the F-X program could have been better, and could have matched from the beginning what Su-27 would later achieve, if DoD had ran some descent competitive prototype competitions between MD and North America Rockwell.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I recall reading the soviets too were pleased by the rapid selection of MD design without fly off competition. The soviets regarded the North America Rockwell airframe design to be the best of the bunch, and is the one which they could not easily surpass. They thought the MD airframe design was mediocre, and was confident they could surpass it in fuel fraction, payload, performance and maneuverability.

by that measure, the US has been very pleased by most soviet decisions as well. ;D I'm sure if the USSR was around today you could just add them to the list of detractors proven wrong.

Chuck whats your point? For as excellent as the F-15 is we really could have had more excellent had we bought something else?

F-15 only seemed excellent because its never had to fight the Su-27 operated by a real airforce. However, the results of the F-X program could have been better, and could have matched from the beginning what Su-27 would later achieve, if DoD had ran some descent competitive prototype competitions between MD and North America Rockwell.

What an incredible set of assertions!

Theoretically since the Flanker was developed to be a counter to the F-15, wouldn't the russians just counter the Rockwell proposal as well? What you are saying is if the russians could develop an aircraft that was better than the F-15, but certainly not Rockwell? Or would they have invented something better than that too?

 

[sferrin]

It doesn't matter if it took them some time and a few trial and errors. But the fact that production Su-27's airframe is indeed superior to F-15 in every way that the Soviets thought they could make it superior proves their intial judgement was essentially correct.

.

Not really. The NAA F-15 was evaluated as inferior overall by those with all the data. Just because Sukhoi thought differently (without access to all the data) means nothing. It took them two attempts and years of work to surpass the Eagle.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

If only airplanes fought on paper instead of the air :'(

The only reason we brought up the F-15 is because its an aircraft that has had a lot of the same charges leveled at it that the F-35 has, and of course despite your opinion, the F-15 has proven to be a wonderful aircraft. We can play this game all day X-35 vs X-32, YF-23 Vs YF-22, etc.

So in short, back on subject.

 

[sferrin]

If only airplanes fought on paper instead of the air :'(

The only reason we brought up the F-15 is because its an aircraft that has had a lot of the same charges leveled at it that the F-35 has, and of course despite your opinion, the F-15 has proven to be a wonderful aircraft. We can play this game all day X-35 vs X-32, YF-23 Vs YF-22, etc.

So in short, back on subject.

To add insult to injury, the part Sukhoi liked the best about NAA's design was the gothic wing - which they put on the T-10. Guess what got jettisoned in the revised Flanker? ;D Maybe the USAF knew what they were talking about eh?

 

[chuck4]

Theoretically since the Flanker was developed to be a counter to the F-15, wouldn't the russians just counter the Rockwell proposal as well? What you are saying is if the russians could develop an aircraft that was better than the F-15, but certainly not Rockwell? Or would they have invented something better than that too?

No, the Soviets had a pretty precise notion in their heads of what an optimal design of the era looks like and what it could achieve. This is probably why Su-27 and Mig-29 are so similar in configuration. They thought the Rockwell design was nearly optimal, so they didn't believe they could do significantly better. They also thought the MD design wasn't close to being optimal and they could do substantially better.

 

[chuck4]

If only airplanes fought on paper instead of the air :'(

The only reason we brought up the F-15 is because its an aircraft that has had a lot of the same charges leveled at it that the F-35 has, and of course despite your opinion, the F-15 has proven to be a wonderful aircraft. We can play this game all day X-35 vs X-32, YF-23 Vs YF-22, etc.

So in short, back on subject.

To add insult to injury, the part Sukhoi liked the best about NAA's design was the gothic wing - which they put on the T-10. Guess what got jettisoned in the revised Flanker? ;D Maybe the USAF knew what they were talking about eh?

I would think Sukhoi like the podded engines hanging beneath a volumnious blended LEX - wing - fuselage structure, a little bit like the Su-27? No? Afterall, it is that structure that gave Su-27 its high fuel fraction. Come to think of it, F-16 that came after F-15 also had something like this.

 

[sferrin]

If only airplanes fought on paper instead of the air :'(

The only reason we brought up the F-15 is because its an aircraft that has had a lot of the same charges leveled at it that the F-35 has, and of course despite your opinion, the F-15 has proven to be a wonderful aircraft. We can play this game all day X-35 vs X-32, YF-23 Vs YF-22, etc.

So in short, back on subject.

To add insult to injury, the part Sukhoi liked the best about NAA's design was the gothic wing - which they put on the T-10. Guess what got jettisoned in the revised Flanker? ;D Maybe the USAF knew what they were talking about eh?

I would think Sukhoi like the podded engines hanging beneath a volumnious blended wing fuselage structure, a little bit like the Su-27? No?

The NAA design didn't have podded engines, Republic's did. They got that from the Tomcat.

 

[chuck4]

Okay, so the two engines shared the same pod in the NAA design.

 

[sferrin]

Okay, so the two engines shared the same pod in the NAA design.

What you're trying to say (while trying not to say it) is they liked the pod/pancake of the Tomcat. The only thing they liked about the NAA design was the wing - which got jettisoned after being a failure on the T-10.

 

[chuck4]

No, I think they liked the blended fuselage - LEX - Wing structure of the NAA design, probably also the configuration that puts engines partly outside of this structure.

 

[sferrin]

No, I think they liked the blended fuselage - LEX - Wing structure, probably also the configuration that puts engines partly outside of this structure.

Regardless, all things considered, the NAA design was inferior to the McD design. (Hey, I like the NAA design better too but let's be realistic.)

Here's a fixed-wing Tomcat study from back in the day:

Slide the intakes aft and extend the wing roots into strakes and what do you have?

 

[GTX]

F-35 Airframe Completes the Journey of A Lifetime

(Source: BAE Systems; issued September 19, 2012)

Eight thousand hours, or one complete lifetime of durability testing is now complete on the F-35 conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant.

Durability testing of the CTOL airframe to 8,000 hours was completed ahead of schedule, proving the airframe is able to handle a variety of flying conditions it will experience when in service. Work continues on schedule for proving the aircraft for up to two lifetimes or 16,000 hours.

The 350 tonne structural test rig at our Brough facility was purposely built to ‘fly’ the F-35 through a series of flight scenarios. Over 20 miles of wiring, 2,500 strain gauges and 160 loading actuators subject the aircraft to a range of loads that it would typically encounter in actual flight.

We are also contracted for the static and fatigue testing for horizontal tails and fatigue testing on vertical tail.

Fifteen per cent of F-35 Lightning II work is carried out in the UK and over 130 British companies contribute to the supply chain. It is worth over £1Bn to UK industry each year and will support around 25,000 British jobs over the next 25 years.

-ends-

 

[GTX]

This isn't an opinion piece, looks like Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, deputy director of the Joint Strike Fighter program office for the past five weeks, and designated successor to VAdm Dave Venlet, isn't happy.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:16281529-8b87-4942-8aca-099f3abaf493&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

Actually that was pretty much as I suspected...a carefully edited article deliberately written to convey a message the author wanted you to accept (might as well be treated as an opinion piece!)...regardless of whether it was entirely accurate or not. The fact that the actual transcript of Maj Gen Bogdan's speech is available to compare to certainly makes for an interesting side-by-side comparison... :

 

[DD]

This isn't an opinion piece, looks like Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, deputy director of the Joint Strike Fighter program office for the past five weeks, and designated successor to VAdm Dave Venlet, isn't happy.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:16281529-8b87-4942-8aca-099f3abaf493&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

Actually that was pretty much as I suspected...a carefully edited article deliberately written to convey a message the author wanted you to accept (might as well be treated as an opinion piece!)...regardless of whether it was entirely accurate or not. The fact that the actual transcript of Maj Gen Bogdan's speech is available to compare to certainly makes for an interesting side-by-side comparison... :

A similar observation can be made about GTX's opinionated monolith on Bogdan's briefing to the AFA Conference.

Trying to reinterpret what was said using sophistry, spin and bullshit is what the MICC people are now trying to do and is not a good look.

I agree it is very important to read the full transcript of the briefing and strongly endorse any encouragement to do so. When doing so, recommend the following approach:

• Read what has been said and in the sequence it was said.

• Note the boundaries in which it was said. Bogdan states these clearly. He is currently under the same constraints placed on Dave Venlet by those responsible for this program.

• Pay particular attention to the aspects of the program that are mentioned, almost in passing, but about which Chris provides little detail and reserves judgement.

• Importantly, note the key aspects of a program like this that don't even get a mention in this brief.

There are strong and valid reasons for this particular briefing at this particular time. These will become obvious over ensuing months with their purpose clearly evident early in the new year.

 

[sferrin]

This isn't an opinion piece, looks like Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, deputy director of the Joint Strike Fighter program office for the past five weeks, and designated successor to VAdm Dave Venlet, isn't happy.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:16281529-8b87-4942-8aca-099f3abaf493&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

Actually that was pretty much as I suspected...a carefully edited article deliberately written to convey a message the author wanted you to accept (might as well be treated as an opinion piece!)...regardless of whether it was entirely accurate or not. The fact that the actual transcript of Maj Gen Bogdan's speech is available to compare to certainly makes for an interesting side-by-side comparison... :

A similar observation can be made about GTX's opinionated monolith on Bogdan's briefing to the AFA Conference.

Trying to reinterpret what was said using sophistry, spin and bullshit is what the MICC people are now trying to do and is not a good look.

"MICC people"?

 

[DD]

MICC people = leadership of the military industrial congressional complex.

Their inappropriate influence is what the 34th POTUS warned his fellow Americans about in his final speech as President.

The JSF Program epitomises the consequences of ignoring such warnings.

 

[sferrin]

MICC people = leadership of the military industrial congressional complex.

Ah. I need to learn the lingo of the tinfoil, black helicopter crowd.

 

[Arjen]

MICC people = leadership of the military industrial congressional complex.

Ah. I need to learn the lingo of the tinfoil, black helicopter crowd.

Founding member:

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

MICC people = leadership of the military industrial congressional complex.

Their inappropriate influence is what the 34th POTUS warned his fellow Americans about in his final speech as President.

After he created it. Speaking of looking at speeches in context that one is well worth reading in full. Because the complex comment was kind of an afterthought.

Im sorry but it just makes me laugh every time Eisenhower is brought up warning against the Military industrial Complex. It would be like if people quoted Nixon warning of "increasingly criminal politicians." Hero.

 

[sferrin]

MICC people = leadership of the military industrial congressional complex.

Ah. I need to learn the lingo of the tinfoil, black helicopter crowd.

Founding member:

Hey I couldn't quite see that. Could you make it a little bigger?

 

[Void]

Why would they want to at this point? The majority of the development of the F-35A is done.

Because the Navy can't use the A, and the US needs to put something on it's carriers.

I don't think it will happen. But it would be the easiest way to rationalize the program.

 

[sferrin]

Why would they want to at this point? The majority of the development of the F-35A is done.

Because the Navy can't use the A, and the US needs to put something on it's carriers.

I don't think it will happen. But it would be the easiest way to rationalize the program.

Guess what, the Marines can't use the C.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

Why would they want to at this point? The majority of the development of the F-35A is done.

Because the Navy can't use the A, and the US needs to put something on it's carriers.

I don't think it will happen. But it would be the easiest way to rationalize the program.

Guess what, the Marines can't use the C.

You do realize the Marines are buying some Cs as well.

 

[sferrin]

Why would they want to at this point? The majority of the development of the F-35A is done.

Because the Navy can't use the A, and the US needs to put something on it's carriers.

I don't think it will happen. But it would be the easiest way to rationalize the program.

Guess what, the Marines can't use the C.

You do realize the Marines are buying some Cs as well.

To fly off amphibious assault ships? I don't think so.

 

[GTX]

A similar observation can be made about GTX's opinionated monolith on Bogdan's briefing to the AFA Conference.

'Monolith'?? Bit long for you was it?


I am also keen to see how you can accuse me of doing a carefully edited opinion article when I not once but twice actually encouraged people to read the entire transcript...

Trying to reinterpret what was said

Well, please show us how it should be interpreted...using the actual words used...I can't wait to see what you come up with.

• Read what has been said and in the sequence it was said.

So, are you implying that I have not critiqued it in sequence? Once again, please provide evidence.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

Why would they want to at this point? The majority of the development of the F-35A is done.

Because the Navy can't use the A, and the US needs to put something on it's carriers.

I don't think it will happen. But it would be the easiest way to rationalize the program.

Guess what, the Marines can't use the C.

You do realize the Marines are buying some Cs as well.

To fly off amphibious assault ships? I don't think so.

No, not off the gators. The USMC has been operating off of CVs for quite some time though, and will continue to do so.

 

[GTX]

MICC people = leadership of the military industrial congressional complex.

Their inappropriate influence is what the 34th POTUS warned his fellow Americans about in his final speech as President.

Please stop it...I am laughing myself silly here ;D


BTW, given I am an Australian do I qualify as part of the MICC?


Seriously though, on a forum dedicated to Secret Projects, the vast majority of which are military (whether you like it or not), complaining about undue military industrial influence is laughable...at best!

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Seriously though, on a forum dedicated to Secret Projects, the vast majority of which are military (whether you like it or not), complaining about undue military industrial influence is laughable...at best!

Especially when large sections are dedicated to cancelled projects, and the "idiot politicians" who canceled them ;D "If only my nation had more MICC!"

Yes the USMC will have 80 F-35Cs. I like to joke that we will sabotage the hooks and land base em LOL

 

[sferrin]

Why would they want to at this point? The majority of the development of the F-35A is done.

Because the Navy can't use the A, and the US needs to put something on it's carriers.

I don't think it will happen. But it would be the easiest way to rationalize the program.

Guess what, the Marines can't use the C.

You do realize the Marines are buying some Cs as well.

To fly off amphibious assault ships? I don't think so.

No, not off the gators. The USMC has been operating off of CVs for quite some time though, and will continue to do so.

Yes, but it's the operating off gators that brings unique capability. Operating off CVNs is nothing unique. May as well just buy the USN more F-35Cs. Makes no difference if it says "Marines" or "USN" on the side in the case of the C.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I see what Sferrin means. He is pointing out that although the USMC will be buying the C it is a sideshow, and not a replacement for the B in any way.

 

[GTX]

• Note the boundaries in which it was said. Bogdan states these clearly. He is currently under the same constraints placed on Dave Venlet by those responsible for this program.

What boundaries/constraints are you referring to? Please be specific.

• Pay particular attention to the aspects of the program that are mentioned, almost in passing, but about which Chris provides little detail and reserves judgement.

Well please enlighten us to which you are referring to? What should have been said?

• Importantly, note the key aspects of a program like this that don't even get a mention in this brief.

Once again, please enlighten us?

There are strong and valid reasons for this particular briefing at this particular time. These will become obvious over ensuing months with their purpose clearly evident early in the new year.

Come on, give us a hint now won't you...

 

[GTX]

MICC people = leadership of the military industrial congressional complex.

Their inappropriate influence is what the 34th POTUS warned his fellow Americans about in his final speech as President.

The JSF Program epitomises the consequences of ignoring such warnings.

Let's have a look at what President Eisenhower actually said:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Source


Now, exactly what aspect of the JSF program "epitomises the consequences of ignoring such warnings.". Yet again please enlighten us. Please also specify what "inappropriate influence" you supposedly see... :

 

[bobbymike]

Seriously though, on a forum dedicated to Secret Projects, the vast majority of which are military (whether you like it or not), complaining about undue military industrial influence is laughable...at best!

Especially when large sections are dedicated to cancelled projects, and the "idiot politicians" who canceled them ;D "If only my nation had more MICC!"

Yes the USMC will have 80 F-35Cs. I like to joke that we will sabotage the hooks and land base em LOL

Yes and as sequestration looms damn the MICC has a lot of influence. Since the 1960's defense spending as a percentage of the federal budget and GDP has fallen precipitously SOOO much influence.

 

[sferrin]

Seriously though, on a forum dedicated to Secret Projects, the vast majority of which are military (whether you like it or not), complaining about undue military industrial influence is laughable...at best!

Especially when large sections are dedicated to cancelled projects, and the "idiot politicians" who canceled them ;D "If only my nation had more MICC!"

Yes the USMC will have 80 F-35Cs. I like to joke that we will sabotage the hooks and land base em LOL

Yes and as sequestration looms damn the MICC has a lot of influence. Since the 1960's defense spending as a percentage of the federal budget and GDP has fallen precipitously SOOO much influence.

What kills me is the number of useful idiots who whine about the military industrial complex. I guess it never occurred to them that they should be THANKING the "MICC" for providing the tools to enable our people in the military to keep their sorry asses safe.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

the MICC is only brought up with new weapon systems that have not proven themselves yet and are thus worthless. If its an old system that did prove itself, then it was just born awesome and the MICC had nothing to do with it. For example The F-4 Phantom was developed during Eisenhower's era. I don't hear many digs against it.

The MICC and Eisenhower is kinda applied whenever it suits someone.

 

[AeroFranz]

Sferrin, the "useful idiots" are entitled to their opinions, especially when expressed politely, even when you don't agree with them. Name calling will do nothing to educate them; in fact it achieves quite the opposite. I happen to disagree with hypotheses of behind-the-scene concerted machinations, but it is within the realm of the plausible.

 

[sferrin]

Sferrin, the "useful idiots" are entitled to their opinions, especially when expressed politely, even when you don't agree with them. Name calling will do nothing to educate them; in fact it achieves quite the opposite. I happen to disagree with hypotheses of behind-the-scene concerted machinations, but it is within the realm of the plausible.

Most of them I've encountered aren't interested in being educated. They know. :