The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[2IDSGT]

To add to what Spud has said:

the lift fan partly borrowed/bought from Yakovlev.

The Yak-141 doesn't use a lift fan

Separate engines. No lift fan or clutch or anything. This is another one of those internet falsehoods that doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny, yet persists.

Grossly simplifying what is trying to be accomplished by the F-35 and then complaining about its price without comparisons and context won't help you understand the F-35 or any other high end military tech for that matter.

Also, the Yak-141 is strikingly similar to some of the old sea-control concepts from the 1970s.

 

[quellish]

* The F-35 was designed from the beginning for ease of upgradeability. Not only are the hardware components cheaper due to economies of scale, the entire avionics suite is designed around “middleware” architecture. What this means is that you can change to a completely different CPU, IRST, display, radar, etc without having to rewrite everything. In fact the CPU has already been changed once (at Blk1) and will again get an upgrade with Blk2B/3I (along with other hardware upgrades).

GAO did a study of the "upgradability" of the F-22, which is a very similar platform (there are some differences of course) vs. previous fighters. They came to some interesting conclusions.

http://gao.gov/assets/600/590505.pdf

- "Stealth aircraft design and integrated avionics make retrofits complex and costly" This does apply to the F-35, even though the signature requirements are not as aggressive as the F-22. The F-35 has highly integrated avionics (like the DAS), which is not going to be as easy to upgrade as hanging on a new pod.

- "Reactively modernized when a new mission was added". Well this doesn't really apply to the F-35 since it already does everything, though we know that adding dedicated jamming capabilities would be.... challenging. And no, this is not yet easily solved by software for the AESA.

- "Retrofitting upgrades into fielded aircraft because production has ended". This should not be a problem for the F-35 unless numbers are cut or production ends at some point.

* The software is written in C++ so the pool of programmers is larger (read cheaper) to draw from.

Cheaper than what? And I do believe (I am not certain) that current F-22 software development is done in C-based languages, and the same is true of other avionics programs. Software for a platform like the F-35 and it's various systems is not easy or cheap for a number of reasons, and not many of those reasons are the cost of talent.

* All major components and A2G stations are connected via fiber optic high-speed interconnects. What this means is that as capabilities and data demands increase, there is no need to “re-wire” the aircraft (which is VERY expensive). This is what is often referred to when people say the F-35 is “NGJ ready”.

Well the avionics "backbone" is fibre channel, which does offer certain speeds, but is already becoming obsolete. It may not deliver all the advantages people assume it does.
As far as being "NGJ ready", power and apertures are a challenge.

 

[2IDSGT]

NGJ on F-35=gimmick for the time being.

No need to send false returns when the enemy isn't getting returns at all. Falls firmly in the *do-it-later* category.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Cheaper than what?

Cheaper than the F-22’s ADA or the myriad of other languages that fill the avionics bays of 4th gen assets.

And I do believe (I am not certain) that current F-22 software development is done in C-based languages

Nope, ADA 83 is Pascal based.

Software for a platform like the F-35 and it's various systems is not easy or cheap for a number of reasons, and not many of those reasons are the cost of talent.

Every piece of hardware in a modern fighter has software that drives it. In legacy assets, each subcomponent could have it’s own programming language that would change from supplier to supplier. This is one of the reasons that integration and upgrades cost so much.

By unifying the avionics under a single, very common and understood language it enables easier integration and upgrades. The reason it jacks up the total software line count is that it’s a single entity whereas previous systems were counted separately.

Software is always cheaper than hardware, especially to upgrade.

Well the avionics "backbone" is fiber channel, which does offer certain speeds, but is already becoming obsolete.

Based on what? The F-35 has the highest capacity data channels flying and are already looking into expanding that by 2000-3000% without the need to replace the fiber-optic cables.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/March/Pages/ChangesPossibleforF35sCommunicationNetwork.aspx

As far as being "NGJ ready", power and apertures are a challenge.

The NGJ pods provider their own power and house their own apertures.

Falls firmly in the *do-it-later* category.

True. I think we’ll see it first on the F-35 as a quasi self-protection pod on the centerline station. Use it only for last ditch AAM spoofing, jamming, EA, etc. I would also throw a HPM and DIRCM in it if you’re going to hang something there anyways.

 

[SlowMan]

Sums it up.

KPMG put the price of Canada's F-35 at $88 million.

Using old numbers.

F-18E/F without the pylons and pod is $67 million in FY2012.

And what is the flyaway rate of an F-35A? $150 million?

On what planet is that half? Boeing marketing term I guess.

That shows you haven't bothered to read the article.

Boeing was talking in terms of maintenance and operations cost, where the Super Hornet does cost less than half as much as the F-35 in terms of flight hour cost.

 

[SlowMan]

* The software is written in C++ so the pool of programmers is larger (read cheaper) to draw from.

Cheaper than what? And I do believe (I am not certain) that current F-22 software development is done in C-based languages, and the same is true of other avionics programs. Software for a platform like the F-35 and it's various systems is not easy or cheap for a number of reasons, and not many of those reasons are the cost of talent.

The F-22 avionics is ADA based.
The F-35 avionics is actually a mix of languages.

http://journal.thedacs.com/issue/53/158

I believe Boeing's new avionics for the Silent Eagle and the Silent Hornet is indeed C++ based, and this is how Boeing managed to cram more features into its avionics than the F-35's avionics in spite of a decade-late start.
The KFX avionics is mostly in Java.

The presence of garbage collection is a real productivity booster, as any one who has tried to program in C, C++, C#, and Java can testify.

 

[quellish]

The F-22 avionics is ADA based.
The F-35 avionics is actually a mix of languages.

The YF-22 was Ada-based, and that was built upon during F-22 development. Since then the amount of C and C++ on the F-22 has grown. For example, the store management set is in C++ now. A number of F-22 subsystems are driven by software written in languages other than Ada.
The F-35 resuses a lot of Ada from the F-22, as the article your graph was taken from indicates.

The presence of garbage collection is a real productivity booster, as any one who has tried to program in C, C++, C#, and Java can testify.

That depends on what you call productivity. It prevents you from having to allocate and free memory yourself, but it can also lead to all kinds of really bad things happening. Having done development work in all of the languages you mention, I can rattle off a number of good cases both for and against using garbage collection. Sometimes garbage collection is just handing an inexperienced engineer a loaded gun.
And then taking off the safety at random time.
But you could say that about just about anything. If I were asked to testify to garbage collection being a "productivity booster", I would say I have never seen that in the real world. I have seen garbage collection get in the way of the performance, reliability, and maintainability of software on multiple platforms and multiple environments. Though I am a crotchety old man, and an anti-everything crusader paid by Boeing and Symbolics.

But I do not see what garbage collection has to do with the software on the F-35.

 

[SlowMan]

The YF-22 was Ada-based, and that was built upon during F-22 development. Since then the amount of C and C++ on the F-22 has grown. For example, the store management set is in C++ now. A number of F-22 subsystems are driven by software written in languages other than Ada.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110519/DEFSECT05/105190304/F-22-Upgrade-Taking-Too-Much-Time-Money

Software development appears to be the primary cause of the delay.

Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, said the F-22's software is written largely in Ada, a programming language that was once a DoD standard but whose use has waned in the past 15 years.

"It tends to impede quick upgrades to the system to which it is the base software," Thompson said.

That depends on what you call productivity. It prevents you from having to allocate and free memory yourself, but it can also lead to all kinds of really bad things happening.

Well, I haven't experienced it. Actually there was an issue one time(.NET garbage collection is worse than Java garbage collection), but memory profiling tools make fixing the problems easy.

Now try to memory profile C applications; it's a nightmare. I know, because I went through that hell.

Sometimes garbage collection is just handing an inexperienced engineer a loaded gun.
And then taking off the safety at random time.

The schools don't even teach C++ anymore. The new breed of coders only know managed code.

If I were asked to testify to garbage collection being a "productivity booster", I would say I have never seen that in the real world.

I can testify that writing garbage collected code is 4~5 times faster than writing C++ code.

But I do not see what garbage collection has to do with the software on the F-35.

Lack of garbage collection impedes programming speed. In the modern development scene speed is everything, you have as little as two months to get something out.

 

[SlowMan]

I am a server/client kind of guy, I hear iOS/Android app programmers are even faster than me in turning out projects.

It isn't such a bad idea to scrap the existing F-35 avionics code and start over, using a modern OS and a modern managed language environment. This may allow Lockheed to catch up with Boeing, whose avionics has surpassed the F-35's avionics in terms of capability and features in spite of having been started a decade after.

Boeing circa 2012

F-35

 

[2IDSGT]

It isn't such a bad idea to scrap the existing F-35 avionics code and start over, using a modern OS and a modern managed language environment.

No, it's a stupid idea because by the time everything is certified to military standards of reliability/durability, the next several generations of software/electronics have already come and gone (and so on and so forth). That's just the way it is; get over it. You're like one of those gubers who complained about Curiosity having only a 2MP camera.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Just because it "may" look prettier does not mean it's more capable.

 

[Johnbr]

This is from the CBC on the F-35 Vs F-18 super.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/Canada/ID/2339344612/

 

[2IDSGT]

This is from the CBC on the F-35 Vs F-18 super.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/Canada/ID/2339344612/

OMG! And I thought LM's marketing was over-bullish. ;D Dumbass reporter also seems to forget that the Superbug was not Boeing's entry in the JSF competition... or maybe that was willful obfuscation by Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.

Mightn't Boeing be allowed to offer this to the Canadians? I'm sure they'd love it. :

 

[Mach42]

I am a server/client kind of guy, I hear iOS/Android app programmers are even faster than me in turning out projects.

It isn't such a bad idea to scrap the existing F-35 avionics code and start over, using a modern OS and a modern managed language environment. This may allow Lockheed to catch up with Boeing, whose avionics has surpassed the F-35's avionics in terms of capability and features in spite of having been started a decade after.


Boeing circa 2012


F-35

I like the minimalistic LM software better.

This is from the CBC on the F-35 Vs F-18 super.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/Canada/ID/2339344612/

Excellent Boeing marketing.

 

[quellish]

Well, I haven't experienced it. Actually there was an issue one time(.NET garbage collection is worse than Java garbage collection), but memory profiling tools make fixing the problems easy.

Now try to memory profile C applications; it's a nightmare. I know, because I went through that hell.

Well, having years of experience with C-based languages and Java, on the desktop, server, embedded and mobile platforms, I can tell you I have.
Java profiling and debugging tools have historically been crude in comparison to their C counterparts. A reasonable example is the process for profiling an Android application vs. profiling an iOS application. The quality of the tools is a night and day difference. Several years ago when J2ME, Brew, and Symbian were popular it was pretty much the same thing, though the Brew toolset was not very good at all. It was still better than the J2ME tools available. J2ME made a number of problems very obvious, as the VM could be dramatically different between devices. For example, some devices had compacting garbage collection, while others did not. On mobile and embedded devices, this can matter - A LOT. In those days - and today with Android - to profile and troubleshoot some problems you need tools that simply do not exist and have to be written from scratch (yes, sometimes in C).
I profile applications in both Java and C regularly. The quality of the tools for C is often considerably better. I do not know why it would be a "nightmare".

The schools don't even teach C++ anymore. The new breed of coders only know managed code.

I am not clear what you mean by "managed code" here.

I can testify that writing garbage collected code is 4~5 times faster than writing C++ code.

Your definition of productivity seems to be different than mine. You seem to be measuring productivity by the amount of code written or something similar. To those who may be a little lost here, in computer environments that do not support the concept of "garbage collection", the software engineer must allocate memory before using it, and then free that memory when done. Garbage collected environments allow some component of the system to do this on the engineer's behalf, taking those "allocate" and "free" steps off the engineer's plate. The garbage collection system can work a number of different ways, if you are interested in learning more you can check out the wikipedia page mentioned below. C-based languages typically do not have garbage collection, while java does (it's more complex than that, as garbage collection is a runtime rather than language feature, but anyway...).

I would measure it by the amount of defect free code, or by a metric based on the cyclometric complexity of the resulting code - more code is not better, less complex code is better. Quality rather than quantity.
The F-35 program has instituted practices and processes with the software engineering institute to cut down on the complexity of their code while improving quality, so they may agree.

But I do not see what garbage collection has to do with the software on the F-35.

Lack of garbage collection impedes programming speed. In the modern development scene speed is everything, you have as little as two months to get something out.


There are many, many issues with using garbage collected environments for embedded/RT systems and life-threatening applications. The wikipedia page for garbage collection summarizes some of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_collection_(computer_science)
Garbage collection is not typically deterministic, which is a major reason it is not used for these kinds of applications.

Two months would be a luxurious amount of time for a complex software system. I would envy that team.

Though again, I am not sure how this pertains to the F-35.

 

[quellish]

Cheaper than the F-22’s ADA or the myriad of other languages that fill the avionics bays of 4th gen assets.

Well one of the points that the GAO made was that the legacy aircraft had federated systems, while the F-22 is much more integrated.
On the legacy aircraft, you can replace an old box with a new one that runs the new hotness software. On the F-22 and F-35, you might have to replace a larger set of components for the same purpose.

And I do believe (I am not certain) that current F-22 software development is done in C-based languages

Nope, ADA 83 is Pascal based.

Not all of the F-22 software is ADA, and not all of the F-35 software is C++.

Software is always cheaper than hardware, especially to upgrade.

That is definitely not always true. Consider an accounting system written 30 years ago in assembly. Consider that system is still in use, running in emulation on x86 hardware. I can think of several examples of this and similar scenarios, examples that members of this forum probably use every day.

 

[GTX]

It isn't such a bad idea to scrap the existing F-35 avionics code and start over, using a modern OS and a modern managed language environment.

That idea is stupid beyond belief. Moreover, even if they did it, the likes of you would criticise them for doing so and introducing massive delays into the program.

 

[Sundog]

Mightn't Boeing be allowed to offer this to the Canadians? I'm sure they'd love it. :

Actually, they would be quite smart to take that, from a strict performance aspect, since it's performance was better than that of the F-35. It was the hover option and the NAVAL option that gave them the problems. 'A model' to 'A model', this was more maneuverable and faster than the F-35. In fact, if Boeing had been smart, they should have made both the Navy's and Marine's version the same and made them both STOL aircraft and called the vertical nozzles jet flaps.

I'm not saying they would have won, but they could have driven home commonality and given how little the vertical option is used, they could have pushed their case. I still think they would have lost, but considering this couldn't hover without hot gas re-ingestion and was marginal at S/L at best, I couldn't see the redesigned model being any better than the prototype.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

:-X

 

[sferrin]

Mightn't Boeing be allowed to offer this to the Canadians? I'm sure they'd love it. :

Actually, they would be quite smart to take that, from a strict performance aspect, since it's performance was better than that of the F-35. It was the hover option and the NAVAL option that gave them the problems. 'A model' to 'A model', this was more maneuverable and faster than the F-35. In fact, if Boeing had been smart, they should have made both the Navy's and Marine's version the same and made them both STOL aircraft and called the vertical nozzles jet flaps.

I'm not saying they would have won, but they could have driven home commonality and given how little the vertical option is used, they could have pushed their case. I still think they would have lost, but considering this couldn't hover without hot gas re-ingestion and was marginal at S/L at best, I couldn't see the redesigned model being any better than the prototype.

God, that is one ugly a** bird.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

God, that is one ugly a** bird.

I'm sure even Bar Refaeli looks bad in some photo angles.

It had its moments.

PS: Man I hate people who are precious about imagery they don't have copyright too...

 

[UpForce]

God, that is one ugly a** bird.

Dunno, it's kinda charming ... much in the same way that an AMC Pacer is. Looks implausible at first (... second, third ...) sight, but has an innate logic to its proportions.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Dunno, it's kinda charming ... much in the same way that an AMC Pacer is. Looks implausible at first (... second, third ...) sight, but has an innate logic to its proportions.

Especially with some flames on the side and Bohemian Rhapsody blaring through the speakers.

 

[piko1]

A few comments if I may. I had the opportunity to meet directly with Lt Gen Bogdan this week and also listened to some of the speeches at the Avalon Airshow. I find him highly impressive and a straight talker. A few points he made both individually and in his speeches that doesn't seem to make it to the news stories:

• He is just as critical/demanding of his own JPO staff as he is of LM, P&W or other industry, if not more so;
• He intends to have things change. As a start he has demanded that the contracting side happens much faster. Instead of the 14mths required to negotiate LRIP5, he has said that LRIP6&7 will be finalised by the end of the US Summer and that LRIP8 will be done so by the end of this calendar year. More importantly, this is already on track to happen;
• He also said that he is not concerned by technical issues - these are being resolved;
• He also made the comment that when it comes to the F-35, there are a lot of people with opinions though not necessarily with the facts : ; and
• Finally, he made the categoric statement that the F-35 is not going away; it is not going to be cancelled and it has strong support in both the political and military sides of all countries involved, especially the USA (despite what may be said in the media)

All up, I think Lt Gen Bogdan is the right man for the F-35 and he will ensure it is delivered.

hum any info of hes roots he have Slavic last name and that's interesting for me i'm not able to find anything on him other than the usaf bio

 

[GTX]

hum any info of hes roots he have Slavic last name and that's interesting for me i'm not able to find anything on him other than the usaf bio

Not really something I was thinking about I'm afraid - was more interested in business

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I'm continually impressed by what I see of the F-35's avionics suite, but I must admit that the recent performance shortfalls have me rather concerned. Is there anyway some of these shortfalls might be corrected or reduced somewhat? I'm no expert on the way our procurement system works, but considering everything we have invested in this program I would hope we could do better. Meaning an aircraft close to the target performance figures instead of missing the minimum requirements.

The particularly high increase in acceleration time for the F-35C seems a bit odd, is that all due to the larger wing and tail surfaces, or some other reason?

For comparison what do the F-16 and F/A-18 achieve in these categories? Can we still expect the F-35 to be an improvement over the rather "draggy" Super Hornet?

 

[aam641]

The particularly high increase in acceleration time for the F-35C seems a bit odd, is that all due to the larger wing and tail surfaces, or some other reason?

For comparison what do the F-16 and F/A-18 achieve in these categories? Can we still expect the F-35 to be an improvement over the rather "draggy" Super Hornet?

No idea. Both Lockheed and the military go to some lengths to pick performance targets that are difficult to compare to other aircraft.

 

[TurboGraphite]

For Australian contributors to this thread, here is the Four Corners Sky High Episode, if you haven't already seen it.

It's geo-blocked from other countries for rights reasons. It may be uploaded to YouTube at some point.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

For Australian contributors to this thread, here is the Four Corners Sky High Episode, if you haven't already seen it.

It's geo-blocked from other countries for rights reasons. It may be uploaded to YouTube at some point.

Be warned but its complete crap. Or as one respected Australian journalist called it "ludicrous" and "preposterous". Though the last time these know-nothings did a hatchet job on the F-35 and Australian defence they 'proved' the F-35 was no good with two people playing Dungeons & Dragons. This time they have upgraded to the Harpoon computer game. Still garbage in and garbage out but looks a bit more spectacular.

A much better Australian media report on the F-35:

For security's sake, Joint Strike Fighter is way of the future
by:GREG SHERIDAN, FOREIGN EDITOR
From:The Australian
March 02, 201312:00AM

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=For+security%27s+sake%2C+Joint+Strike+Fighter+is+way+of+the+future&oq=For+security%27s+sake%2C+Joint+Strike+Fighter+is+way+of+the+future&gs_l=hp.3...969.969.0.1716.1.1.0.0.0.0.350.350.3-1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.psy-ab.jeGCO34m6wY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43148975,d.dGY&fp=c25e45b6675ac0af&biw=1366&bih=619

You could argue, as the critics of the JSF argue (and this criticism was preposterously presented as fact in a ludicrous Four Corners episode recently), that in a dogfight, the JSF might lose.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

No idea. Both Lockheed and the military go to some lengths to pick performance targets that are difficult to compare to other aircraft.

It sure seems that way, which has me rather concerned and somewhat frustrated.

 

[TurboGraphite]

Be warned but its complete crap.

Hi Abraham!

I did wonder. Thank you for the link.

-Luke

 

[Arjen]

I haven't been able to watch the Four Corners episode. That being said, Nicholas Stuart's piece is well worth reading.

 

[TurboGraphite]

Thank you Arjen.

Having watched the Four Corners episode, Stuart is right on in that regard.

 

[Arjen]

I've just been watching the Four Corners episode.
As to 'Be warned but its complete crap': I completely disagree.

Focus was on cost, schedule and the way the decision was made to choose the F-35. I refer to comments made by McCain 'incredible, total loss of the taxpayers' dollars´ and Bogdan "Are they getting better at a rate that I want to see them getting better? No, not yet."

'two people playing Dungeons & Dragons' was a three-minute section in a forty-five minute documentary, with ample opportunity offered for counter-commentary.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

and the way the decision was made to choose the F-35

Like I said, total crap, that has little bearing on what actually happened.

'two people playing Dungeons & Dragons' was a three-minute section in a forty-five minute documentary,

As I made clear when I made that statement that was in a previous report made by the same program several years ago (5?).

 

[hagaricus]

Any idea what it is they're so busy "hiding" at about 6:45 in that video? only thing I see is the join between the jet nozzle and the fuselage, which might be a poor fit, or a bypass air duct? Or something with the landing gear doors.. Anyone with more of a clue figure it out?

Edit: it seems to be the open "scoop" on the fuselage?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

A friend of mine at a very dull Naval Air Station, had some F-22s stop by and he asked to take pictures "Yes-- except the back" was the answer.

and the way the decision was made to choose the F-35

Like I said, total crap, that has little bearing on what actually happened.

It needs to be remembered that a false story told calmy and rationally is still a false story, no matter how dryly "documentary style" Four Corners tried to make it. same goes for telling only part of the story.

One could equally do a story on the F-22 and make it look like the F-22 is the most superb fighter ever designed or you can do a story about its fantastic cost, how pilots refuse to fly it, how its killed one pilot, and being blamed for the suicide of another, and how its crewmen cough insistently due to the amount of oxygen required to fly where it does, how it was grounded for months, how the USAF canceled and retired other aircraft in order to get more of them, about the lobbying and troubled development of that very expensive warplane.

Its not hard to make any weapon system look like a disaster, with morons from top to bottom assisting in its creation. which was the gist of the Stuart article. There is this thing called "context" and a lot of get forgotten when people are trying to make weapon systems look bad. Combine that with a short memory "boy that F-22 rocks and was a piece of cake to develop" and you get garbage.

Example "The F-35 carries only one gun, WWII planes carried up to eight and usually at least four. the F-35 doesn't even have the firepower of a WWII plane. and yet it costs 100 times as much!!"

The four corners episode seems perfectly logical if you really don't know the full story. if you do then its a hit piece at best, and propaganda at worst. Even Nova's "battle of the X planes" was 2 hours long. this is 40 minutes of trying to tell a very complicated and often secret story based on first person accounts, computers sims, and "anonymous" contributers, along with outright morons like Goon and Kopp. I would think a fair and even handed documentary on the F-35s procurement to this day, would be a mind numbing 4 hours at least.

Arjen If I was take everything I knew about you from this site and make a documentary about you, having never met you and based on the limited (yet very well polished) piece I did on you, would you feel it really described you? Bicycles and Monkeys, the Story of Arjen.

'two people playing Dungeons & Dragons' was a three-minute section in a forty-five minute documentary, with ample opportunity offered for counter-commentary.

There shouldn't have to be "counter commentary" for something that is total crap. Arjen should I give you time to have comments to defend yourself if I made a computer program that said you were legendary 8 ft tall man/ape big foot? Its BS metrics in a made up world, You shouldn't have to comment. especially If I am trying to be credible. Just because someone says something doesn't mean its even worthy of refutation. Thats 3 minutes, with time for counter commentary that could have been used for something actually useful that educated the audience. instead of made up "he said/she said" simulation with someone who is KNOWINGLY biased to begin with. Its like going to a guy who thinks the moon landings were faked for an "honest even handed" insight on a Neil Armstrong Documentary. The second you included that nut you lost credibility.

 

[GTX]

I watched the full show. Unfortunately, it was the drivel I had expected. Constantly using the likes of Sprey and Goon as your "experts" with appearances from Winslow Wheeler and Repsim is hardly an objective presentation.

Also approaching someone currently taking LM to court and referring to 9yr old allegations shows the type of sensationalist crap this was. When the reporter attacked LM for refusing to comment on a legal action that was presently in front of the courts was especially pathetic. He would have known that LM couldn't comment and yet he persisted and then tried to make out as though they were hiding something. Very shoddy indeed and an example of bad journalism at its best!

Adding in some unnamed, shadowy figure who cowardly hides their face and name but then makes accusations about the highly respected former head of the ADF and RAAF (ACM Angus Houston) along with sensationalist language about secret deals in hotels, just shows that 4 Corners were only out to spin a story that might sound like a scandal.

The only thing decent in the whole program was the nice F-35 footage.

 

[Sundog]

A friend of mine at a very dull Naval Air Station, had some F-22s stop by and he asked to take pictures "Yes-- except the back" was the answer.

That's due to the RADAR blockers they have in the back of the engine.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Sprey

That guy was probably the funniest thing about that whole documentary. He tells the story of his little airplane, the F-16 that was completely counter to the embedded thinking of the old guard and how it triumphed. And now here he is, with with his embedded thinking as a member of the old guard saying the F-35 is counter to what we really need ;D

I really have to put an asterik on his F-16 concept to. His idea of a super lightweight WVR sidewinder Slinger, has grown bigger, fatter, and less manueveable (yet more capable) with more roles. So the only way to make "his" F-16 "work" for as long as it has is doing the exact opposite of what he believed was its core virtues. Success!! kind of!