The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Rlewis]

What are we supposed to do now GTX and other pro f-35 supporters?

Realise the situation isn't half as bad as you paint it to be. Or even 25% as bad, 10%... The F-35 partners and customers are going to get the most lethal fighter in the world at a bargain price. It will be a few years late and a few % over price but nothing isn't critical.

Why do they get dibs on F-22's then ? as that the most lethal

Not according to Sprey there. is the F-15 no good also? did I miss something? my grandpa rants about the 70's and doesn't believe in technology either

 

[bobbymike]

Another David Axe hit piece linked at Ares as Gomer Pile said, 'Surprise, surprise, surprise!!'

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/8bdf5ceac17a

 

[GTX]

Just for you Bill...

 

[LowObservable]

So one of you can't spell an iconic TV character and the other can't link an image, so I'd guess material fact-based discussion is out of the question.

 

[GTX]

so I'd guess material fact-based discussion is out of the question.

Only when you are involved Bill...

 

[Triton]

Meanwhile in Canada:


"Military’s fighter-jet reports to put ball in Ottawa’s court on F-35s"

DANIEL LEBLANC
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jan. 02 2014, 10:00 PM EST
Last updated Thursday, Jan. 02 2014, 10:21 PM EST

Source:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/militarys-fighter-jet-price-reports-to-put-ball-in-ottawas-court-on-f-35s/article16180717/

The Canadian Forces have finished exploring the world market for fighter jets, putting pressure on the government to decide whether to launch a competition or forge ahead with the sole-sourced purchase of F-35s before the next election.

According to documents posted on a federal website on Thursday, the Canadian Forces have already prepared draft reports on the price, the technical capabilities and the strategic advantages of the four fighter jets in the running.

“The process is nearly finished,” said an official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The newly released documents suggest the government will have to make its decision in short order because of concerns over the viability of the current fleet of CF-18s, which is set to be phased out between 2017 and 2023.

Any decision on the life extension of the CF-18s will depend on Ottawa’s main choice in coming months: whether to launch a full-blown competition for new aircraft, which could take years, or proceed with its initial decision to directly buy a fleet of 65 Lockheed-Martin F-35s, a high-tech aircraft that is still in development.

The process is designed to help the government weigh the risks associated with both scenarios and choose the best option for the Canadian Forces and taxpayers.

The Auditor-General slammed Ottawa’s previous acquisition plan in a report that fuelled a political firestorm in the spring of 2012. There was speculation at the time the government’s seven-point response could bring a final decision after the 2015 general election.

However, the process is moving along swiftly, according to the public summary of meetings of an “independent review panel” that is monitoring the government’s process, which means that the F-35 is set to be a hot political file once again.

The Royal Canadian Air Force presented a series of draft reports to the review panel in late November and early December, including the initial version of the Public Report on the Evaluation of Options that will eventually be released at large.

In addition, the RCAF is finishing up its “Integrated Mission Risk Assessment,” that is nearly ready to be presented to a committee of deputy ministers, the documents said. According to the government’s process, the committee of deputy ministers will then present a series of options to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet, which will make the final decision on the process.

In its 2012 report, the Auditor-General criticized the government’s sole-sourced acquisition process, and raised questions about the long-term cost of the program.

The government responded by creating a National Fighter Procurement Secretariat to oversee its new acquisition process, stating that it was “hitting the reset button.”

One of the first steps was to launch an “options analysis” to compare the cost and capabilities of the four fighter jets in contention for the $40-billion contract: the F-35, the Dassault Rafales, the Boeing Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

However, the Canadian Forces informed the panel of independent experts that it has not managed to obtain detailed financial information from the four aircraft manufacturers. Instead, the government is currently operating with a “rough order of magnitude,” which suggests that Ottawa will need to launch a full competition if it wants guarantees that it is getting the best possible price for its new fighter jets.

The federal government announced to great fanfare in 2010 it would forgo an open competition and buy the Lockheed F-35 because it was the only plane that would serve Canada’s needs. The Conservatives defended the decision in the 2011 election and often excoriated critics who suggested they had made a mistake.

In late 2012, however, the government backed away from its decision as it launched its new process, including the evaluation of the F-35’s major rivals.

“What’s important here is that we act on these recommendations, that we deliver to Canadians the certainty, the surety they require that they’re getting the right aircraft for our country for the long term and that we’re being responsible with taxpayers’ dollars,” then-defence minister Peter MacKay said

 

[SpudmanWP]

Another David Axe hit piece linked at Ares as Gomer Pile said, 'Surprise, surprise, surprise!!'

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/8bdf5ceac17a

In one breath he pegs the "cost" of a 2013 F-16/18 at $50 mil and in the other breath puts the 2014 cost of a F-35A at $182 and then complains that it's not the $60-85 mil that LM/JPO quotes.

For example, his "$50" mil F-16/18 reference is close to the REC Flyaway of the F-18 which is $54 mil. However, the $182 for the F-35A that he refers to is the "Total Obligation Authority" funds which is every penny spent in procurement for a given year. If you look at the same TOA for the F-18, it is $79.5 mil. Then there is the issue LRIP vs FRP, inflation, etc.

With his complete ineptitude when it comes to understanding the differences between REC Flyaway, Total Flyaway, Gross Weapon System, LRIP, and FRP costs, how can anyone be surprised at the ridicule directed in his direction?

 

[Racer]

...However, the $182 for the F-35A that he refers to is the "Total Obligation Authority" funds which is every penny spent in procurement for a given year. If you look at the same TOA for the F-18, it is $79.5 mil. Then there is the issue LRIP vs FRP, inflation, etc.

So, you admit that the F-35 is double the cost of an F-18 instead "the same ballpark" as advertised by LM some years ago?

 

[Dragon029]

...However, the $182 for the F-35A that he refers to is the "Total Obligation Authority" funds which is every penny spent in procurement for a given year. If you look at the same TOA for the F-18, it is $79.5 mil. Then there is the issue LRIP vs FRP, inflation, etc.

So, you admit that the F-35 is double the cost of an F-18 instead "the same ballpark" as advertised by LM some years ago?

He's saying that an LRIP F-35A (which is significantly more expensive than a FRP F-35A) is roughly double that of a mature and simpler system.

 

[Arjen]

So they were working off 1996 estimates?

No. The Dutch F-16 replacement budget was determined in 2002 on that-year estimates of how much an FRP F-35 was expected to cost. That proved to be off by a considerable margin in 2013. Don't know what it will be like in 2015, when a procurement order is to be signed.

 

[Racer]

...However, the $182 for the F-35A that he refers to is the "Total Obligation Authority" funds which is every penny spent in procurement for a given year. If you look at the same TOA for the F-18, it is $79.5 mil. Then there is the issue LRIP vs FRP, inflation, etc.

So, you admit that the F-35 is double the cost of an F-18 instead "the same ballpark" as advertised by LM some years ago?

He's saying that an LRIP F-35A (which is significantly more expensive than a FRP F-35A) is roughly double that of a mature and simpler system.

To get there they have to have the money to buy many more F-35 per year. I can't see that.
Keep in mind F-35 LRIP is as high as actual F-18 FRP.

 

[GTX]

To get there they have to have the money to buy many more F-35 per year. I can't see that.
Keep in mind F-35 LRIP is as high as actual F-18 FRP.

43 in LRIP8 (and already in long lead item production), 71 in LRIP9, 115 in LRIP10, 131 in LRIP11 + + +

 

[Thorvic]

To get there they have to have the money to buy many more F-35 per year. I can't see that.
Keep in mind F-35 LRIP is as high as actual F-18 FRP.

43 in LRIP8 (and already in long lead item production), 71 in LRIP9, 115 in LRIP10, 131 in LRIP11 + + +

BTW how many LRIP were there supposed to be ?

 

[Rlewis]

...However, the $182 for the F-35A that he refers to is the "Total Obligation Authority" funds which is every penny spent in procurement for a given year. If you look at the same TOA for the F-18, it is $79.5 mil. Then there is the issue LRIP vs FRP, inflation, etc.

So, you admit that the F-35 is double the cost of an F-18 instead "the same ballpark" as advertised by LM some years ago?

He's saying that an LRIP F-35A (which is significantly more expensive than a FRP F-35A) is roughly double that of a mature and simpler system.

To get there they have to have the money to buy many more F-35 per year. I can't see that.
Keep in mind F-35 LRIP is as high as actual F-18 FRP.

the F-35 has always been an albatross but if there is anything i have learned its that no price is too high for it. it passed the acceptable amount a long time ago without looking back. agree with you on the F-18 point way cheaper and more better developed. I hoped Australia would see the light on it and pursue more of them with other countries to follow them

 

[Arjen]

BTW how many LRIP were there supposed to be ?

That has changed through the years.

 

[sferrin]

the F-35 has always been an albatross but if there is anything i have learned its that no price is too high for it. it passed the acceptable amount a long time ago without looking back. agree with you on the F-18 point way cheaper and more better developed. I hoped Australia would see the light on it and pursue more of them with other countries to follow them

You should work for the military. Apparently you're much, much more intelligent than they are. Quick question - how much more expensive is a Super Hornet than an F-4?

 

[bobbymike]

the F-35 has always been an albatross but if there is anything i have learned its that no price is too high for it. it passed the acceptable amount a long time ago without looking back. agree with you on the F-18 point way cheaper and more better developed. I hoped Australia would see the light on it and pursue more of them with other countries to follow them

You should work for the military. Apparently you're much, much more intelligent than they are. Quick question - how much more expensive is a Super Hornet than an F-4?

...The albatross is known as the Prince of Waves, and has great ocean wisdom, but understands especially the currents of the ocean caused by air and wind, leading to an even greater wind wisdom, including forecasting of weather. His only water language is the language of currents and how weather over water is affected by air. Because he travels so far, the albatross has and teaches both the freedom to break through limitations.........

Sounds like a good plane to me especially the F-35C

But in the 'Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner' the person who killed the albatross (kill the F-35 like some want) is the one responsible for the terrible luck that follows the ship LIKE the dead pilots flying Gen 4 aircraft into increasingly sophisticated integrated air defenses.

That's the real "albatross' analogy

 

[GTX]

I hoped Australia would see the light on it and pursue more of them

They did see the light and thus have kept with the F-25 since it will satisfy their requirements far better than more SHs

 

[SpudmanWP]

So, you admit that the F-35 is double the cost of an F-18 instead "the same ballpark" as advertised by LM some years ago?

Neither LM nor the JPO promised that LRIP F-35s would have a cost similar to 4th gen fighters. They only spoke of average cost over the lifetime of the program.

 

[Triton]

"Exclusive: U.S. waived laws to keep F-35 on track with China-made parts"
by John Shiffman and Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON Fri Jan 3, 2014 3:45pm EST

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/03/us-lockheed-f-idUSBREA020VA20140103

(Reuters) - The Pentagon repeatedly waived laws banning Chinese-built components on U.S. weapons in order to keep the $392 billion Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter program on track in 2012 and 2013, even as U.S. officials were voicing concern about China's espionage and military buildup.

According to Pentagon documents reviewed by Reuters, chief U.S. arms buyer Frank Kendall allowed two F-35 suppliers, Northrop Grumman Corp and Honeywell International Inc, to use Chinese magnets for the new warplane's radar system, landing gears and other hardware. Without the waivers, both companies could have faced sanctions for violating federal law and the F-35 program could have faced further delays.

"It was a pretty big deal and an unusual situation because there's a prohibition on doing defense work in China, even if it's inadvertent," said Frank Kenlon, who recently retired as a senior Pentagon procurement official and now teaches at American University. "I'd never seen this happen before."

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, is examining three such cases involving the F-35, the U.S. military's next generation fighter, the documents show.

The GAO report, due March 1, was ordered by U.S. lawmakers, who say they are concerned that Americans firms are being shut out of the specialty metals market, and that a U.S. weapon system may become dependent on parts made by a potential future adversary.

The waivers apply to inexpensive parts, including $2 magnets, installed on 115 F-35 test, training and production aircraft, the last of which are due to be delivered in May 2014. Lawmakers noted that several U.S. companies make similar magnets.

Kendall said the waivers were needed to keep production, testing and training of the Pentagon's newest warplane on track; avert millions of dollars in retrofit costs; and prevent delays in the Marine Corps' plan to start using the jets in combat from mid-2015, according to the documents. In one case, it would cost $10.8 million and take about 25,000 man-hours to remove the Chinese-made magnets and replace them with American ones, the documents indicate.

Lockheed is developing the F-35, the Pentagon's costliest arms program, for the United States and eight countries that helped fund its development: Britain, Canada, Australia, Italy, Norway, Turkey, Denmark and the Netherlands. Israel and Japan have also placed orders for the jet.

The program is already years behind schedule and 70 percent over initial cost estimates. At the time Kendall was granting the waivers, officials were acutely worried that further delays and cost increases would erode the foreign orders needed to drive down the future cost of each warplane.

In the documents, Kendall underscored the importance of the F-35 program to ensure continued U.S. military superiority and counter potential emerging threats from nations developing their own stealth fighter jets, including Russia and China.

He said additional delays would force the United States and its allies to keep its legacy fighters flying longer, which would result in higher maintenance costs. It would also leave them with older jets, which Kendall said "cannot match the offensive and defensive capabilities provided by F-35."

The Pentagon first disclosed problems with non-U.S. magnets in a little-noticed written statement to Congress in the spring of 2013. But the statement did not name companies involved and did not disclose that some of the parts came from China.

Officials at Northrop, Honeywell and Lockheed declined to comment on the issue, referring queries to the Pentagon.

Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) at the Pentagon, said the office was committed to ensuring that federal defense acquisition laws were strictly followed.

"There was never any risk of technology transfer or other security breach associated with these manufacturing compliance issues," he said. "The JPO is working with industry to put in place long-term solutions to avoid the need for future waivers."

In his statement to Congress, Kendall said he took the matter "extremely seriously" and said Lockheed was told to take aggressive steps to identify any further cases, and correct its compliance process.

Bill Greenwalt, a former senior defense official and now an analyst with the American Enterprise Institute think tank, said the risk to national security appeared low since the magnets in question had no programmable hardware.

However, he added: "This is an area that will need considerable due diligence in the future to ensure that components for more high-risk applications are safe from potential tampering and foreign mischief."

SPECIALTY METALS

Since 1973, U.S. laws have banned the procurement of specialty metals produced outside the United States for use on U.S. weapons. A separate 2006 law also bans the purchase of end-use items and components that include such specialty metals.

The documents reviewed by Reuters show that Northrop first discovered the use of non-compliant Japanese magnets on the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar it builds for the F-35 in August 2012, alerting the prime contractor, Lockheed, which then told the Pentagon.

A subsequent investigation of all parts on the F-35 turned up two more cases in which non-U.S. specialty metals were used on the F-35's radar, and on target assemblies built by Honeywell that are used for positioning doors and landing gear.

Northrop's radar was also found to contain $2 magnets made by Chengdu Magnetic Material Science & Technology Co, in China's Sichuan region, according to the documents.

The magnets used on the Honeywell target assemblies were acquired through Illinois-based Dexter Magnetic Technologies Inc.

Dexter and Chengdu Magnetic did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

KNOWING AND WILLFUL?

In June, the House Armed Services Committee asked the GAO to determine whether the companies involved "knowingly and willfully" supplied non-compliant magnets, and how the Pentagon investigated that question. The committee also asked GAO for recommendations on potential changes, such as fines or penalties for non-compliance to deter future problems, as well as suggestions for beefing up Pentagon supply chain management procedures.

In a document approving use of Chinese magnets on the batch of 32 F-35 fighter planes now being built, Kendall said neither Lockheed nor Northrop knowingly allowed the parts to be used.

In his waiver, Kendall wrote that Northrop's initial mistake, involving magnets built in Japan, was an "administrative oversight" and noted the firm quickly reported the matter when it was discovered in August 2012. It led to the comprehensive review that found two additional issues involving Chinese-built magnets.

It is not clear from the waiver documents whether Kendall determined that Honeywell's use of Chinese-built magnets involved a similar mistake.

(Editing by Michael Williams, Tiffany Wu and Grant McCool)

 

[Triton]

Continuing the thread from the Future USAF Transport Projects (MACK, ATT, NGT, AMC-X, AJACS, HAWSTOL, Speed Agile), I am just trying to figure out why it is essential that every single airplane in a nation's air force absolutely positively has to have stealth. It seemed as though yasotay was saying that improvements in radar technology and Moore's Law may obviate the ability of an all-aspect, low-observable aircraft like a stealth airlifter when it enters service to survive in contested or denied airspace. So why does every single F-16, A-10, F/A-18 (excluding newer E/F "Super Hornet" variants) and AV-8B in the United States inventory have to be replaced by the stealthy F-35? Why does it not make sense to operate a mixed fleet of fifth-generation and fourth-generation or 4.5 generation aircraft? Such as an United States Air Force fleet constituted by F-35s and new F-16s and A-10s?

 

[bobbymike]

Continuing the thread from the Future USAF Transport Projects (MACK, ATT, NGT, AMC-X, AJACS, HAWSTOL, Speed Agile), I am just trying to figure out why it is essential that every single airplane in a nation's air force absolutely positively has to have stealth. It seemed as though yasotay was saying that improvements in radar technology and Moore's Law may obviate the ability of an all-aspect, low-observable aircraft like a stealth airlifter when it enters service to survive in contested or denied airspace. So why does every single F-16, A-10, F/A-18 (excluding newer E/F "Super Hornet" variants) and AV-8B in the United States inventory have to be replaced by the stealthy F-35? Why does it not make sense to operate a mixed fleet of fifth-generation and fourth-generation or 4.5 generation aircraft? Such as an United States Air Force fleet constituted by F-35s and new F-16s and A-10s?

I don't disagree with your statement but it will be interesting to see what the 'threat' environement will be 10 years, 20 or 30 years from now and whether anywhwere is safe without stealth.

But I would add that as F-35's come on line we will, in fact, have a two tiered fleet for maybe up to a couple of decades and may see how well that works over Taiwan, Iran or North Korea!

 

[LowObservable]

There are two ways to look at this.


1 - Stealth is the way of the future and will continue to get better and cheaper and require less compromise of other attributes.


2 - You don't equip your entire navy with submarines.

 

[SpudmanWP]

2 - You don't equip your entire navy with submarines.

That analogy does not work since replacing your current fleet with all subs means that you could not do all the missions.

The F-35 can do any mission for any plane that it replaces.

 

[bobbymike]

There are two ways to look at this.


1 - Stealth is the way of the future and will continue to get better and cheaper and require less compromise of other attributes.


2 - You don't equip your entire navy with submarines.

1. Yes it will

2. I understand what the point being made is - all stealth - but the medium of water and air (and detection technologies available to detect through those mediums) are vastly different rendering your point moot.

 

[Triton]

2 - You don't equip your entire navy with submarines.

That analogy does not work since replacing your current fleet with all subs means that you could not do all the missions.

The F-35 can do any mission for any plane that it replaces.

Meanwhile, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has specific language preventing the United States Air Force from retiring additional A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft during fiscal year 2014. Further, the Army remains dissatisfied that the F-35 will replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II in the close air support (CAS) role and has expressed interest in acquiring them if the United States Air Force chooses to retire the type. It seems that there are fundamental disagreements on how the CAS mission should be performed between the United States Air Force and the United States Army.

We are also required to take it on faith that the air-to-air capability in visual range of the F-35 is just as good as the F-16 because the flight test data remains classified. The project also makes assumptions about the beyond visual range (BVR) kill performance of the F-35.

The United States Air Force is making aircraft retirement decisions before the F-35A has even reached initial operating capability (IOC).

I presume that the reference to "You don't equip your entire navy with submarines" is a historical reference, LowObservable. Perhaps claims that submarines made surface warships obsolete?

Unfortunately, we don't have a contingency plan to fall back on if the assumptions on which the F-35 was built are incorrect.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Remember that they know what a vast majority of the systems on the F-35 can do through real world testing. They have been flying most of the components for almost a decade. They also have the software running in simulators and test aircraft so they know what it can do there also.

It’s not like the radar, EOTS, EODAS, etc will all of a sudden perform worse in a F-35 than it did in the CATBird, BAC111, etc. Don’t get me wrong, there will be issues that crop up but they will be corrected and will not hinder the performance in any significant way.

On the A-10 issue, they should give them to the Army and let them deal with the upkeep, upgrades, etc.

 

[Triton]

If a Future A-10 Happens, Expect Minor Changes
Dec. 5, 2013 - 11:13AM |
By AARON MEHTA

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131205/DEFREG02/312050013/If-Future-10-Happens-Expect-Minor-Changes

WASHINGTON — The A-10 Thunderbolt II, aka the Warthog, is a venerable close air support platform, beloved by its pilots and troops on the ground. But it has also been targeted for potential cuts as the Air Force looks to save funds amid sequestration.

Supporters of the plane gathered in downtown Washington on Nov. 13 both to decry the idea of abandoning the A-10 and to discuss the future of close air support.

The event, hosted jointly by the Straus Military Reform Project and the Project on Government Oversight, was heated at times, with current and former pilots speaking passionately about the Warthog. It also provided an opportunity to discuss what a next-generation A-10 replacement could look like.

To be clear: An A-10 replacement is unlikely to show up anytime soon. The Air Force is looking to cut the A-10 as a cost-saving measure, and top service officials have been open that few new-start programs are expected in the coming years if sequestration stays in place. The service insists other aircraft, including the F-35, can perform the close air support mission, a claim attendees at the event dismissed.

When asked what he would do to upgrade or change the A-10 design, Pierre Sprey, who helped design both the F-16 and A-10, said, “In a lot of ways, the A-10 was actually a disappointment to me when it came out, in three areas.”

Those three areas? Thrust, maneuverability and size. Sprey would like to see an aircraft with increased thrust and a tighter turn, allowing the plane to get out of dangerous situations while reducing the time needed between attack runs.

Sprey would also like to see a new design with a smaller body.

“It’s too damn big,” Sprey said. “To me, that was a crushing disappointment because I see that in terms of vulnerability.”

Other improvements could be made with existing technologies, such as lighter armor, newer engines and different kinds of ammunition for the A-10’s famous 30mm cannon. The latter could also be tweaked to accelerate the rate of fire.

“Those seven barrels take a little time to get up to rate,” Sprey explained. “In general, the earliest rounds are the most effective, so if you can get to rate instantly or very close to it, it would increase the effectiveness of the gun at no extra cost or rate of ammunition.

“Very simple things like that can add up to major improvements and a much better airplane,” Sprey concluded.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Once again, and for those of you in the Cheap Seats... Pierre Sprey did NOT help to design either the F-16, A-10, or ANY other plane.

 

[Triton]

On the A-10 issue, they should give them to the Army and let them deal with the upkeep, upgrades, etc.

The Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve have suggested that the A-10s be moved from Air Force control to their control. This move would achieve the required cost savings while still keeping the aircraft in the Air Force inventory. Half of the A-10 fleet is already under National Guard control.

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004

 

[SpudmanWP]

Doesn't that still leave the control of their budget under the SecAF?

 

[Triton]

Once again, and for those of you in the Cheap Seats... Pierre Sprey did NOT help to design either the F-16, A-10, or ANY other plane.

I understand that Pierre Sprey was one of the "Whiz Kids" from the RAND Corporation with which Robert McNamara surrounded himself in the 1960s. While he may not have helped to design the F-16 or A-10 specifically, I understand that he had a hand in developing the RFP for the LWF and A-X programs.

 

[bobbymike]

Once again, and for those of you in the Cheap Seats... Pierre Sprey did NOT help to design either the F-16, A-10, or ANY other plane.

I understand that Pierre Sprey was one of the "Whiz Kids" from the RAND Corporation with which Robert McNamara surrounded himself in the 1960s.

Wow that is about the worst thing you could say about someone he now officially has zero credibility with me. McNamara will go down as the worst SecDef ever he cancelled so many promising strategic weapon systems he set the arms race back 30 years til our 80's build up finally began to match Soviet expansionism.

 

[LowObservable]

Sprey was not an original Whiz Kid. I believe he came to the Pentagon in 1965, more than half-way through MacNamara's term.


While he did not do any engineering on the F-16 (and does not IIRC claim to have done so), I have never heard anyone who was there at the time dispute the fact that he was a member of the group that developed the requirement, along with Boyd, Riccioni and the engineers, such as Hillaker and Begin. He was the group's "inside man" at OSD.


Once again, and for those of you in the Cheap Seats... Pierre Sprey did NOT help to design either the F-16, A-10, or ANY other plane.
[/size]
So that is technically correct but misleading.


[/size]The F-35 can do any mission for any plane that it replaces.
[/size]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]That's a circular argument, since to "replace" an aircraft you have to perform its mission. [/font]

 

[Sundog]

Wow that is about the worst thing you could say about someone he now officially has zero credibility with me. McNamara will go down as the worst SecDef ever he cancelled so many promising strategic weapon systems he set the arms race back 30 years til our 80's build up finally began to match Soviet expansionism.

The Soviet Union was not expanding in the 80's. It was, in fact, collapsing. The only people who believed otherwise were the dupes in the U.S. who enjoyed the fiction put out by Team B. Also, the Soviet Union wasn't bothered by any of it, according to them anyway, except for one weapons system; The Pershing II's stationed in West Germany because they greatly limited the response time in Moscow.

Having said that, the F-35 will be a good replacement for the F-117. It will however, be a poor dogfighter and will be at a great disadvantage in terms of A2A missile range due to it's horrid transonic acceleration. Granted, there are those who think it will remain undetectable throughout it's life and therefore not need the ability to be a capable dogfighter, but I think they will be in for a rude awakening in the future with the proliferation of advanced air defence systems.

 

[sferrin]

Having said that, the F-35 will be a good replacement for the F-117. It will however, be a poor dogfighter

Do you have any evidence of this?

 

[bobbymike]

Wow that is about the worst thing you could say about someone he now officially has zero credibility with me. McNamara will go down as the worst SecDef ever he cancelled so many promising strategic weapon systems he set the arms race back 30 years til our 80's build up finally began to match Soviet expansionism.

The Soviet Union was not expanding in the 80's. It was, in fact, collapsing. The only people who believed otherwise were the dupes in the U.S. who enjoyed the fiction put out by Team B. Also, the Soviet Union wasn't bothered by any of it, according to them anyway, except for one weapons system; The Pershing II's stationed in West Germany because they greatly limited the response time in Moscow.

Firstly, please read my post and point to where I said anything about the Soviets in the 80's. The US build-up in the 80's was a response to the massive Soviet build up in the 70's when SS-17's, 18's and 19's were rolling off the assembly line like sausages. And the 80's had seen constant nuclear modernization NO ONE was saying the USSR was collapsing AT THE TIME.

Also, who knew that in the 80's? The left wanted nuclear freeze and disarmament and appeasement because we would have to live with the USSR seemingly forever. I would like one single citation that said what you claim.

There is also plenty of evidence that the USSR was very concerned about Trident II, MX and SDI not only Pershing.

 

[Arjen]

The Soviet Union was not expanding in the 80's. It was, in fact, collapsing. The only people who believed otherwise were the dupes in the U.S. who enjoyed the fiction put out by Team B. Also, the Soviet Union wasn't bothered by any of it, according to them anyway, except for one weapons system; The Pershing II's stationed in West Germany because they greatly limited the response time in Moscow.

[...]
...NO ONE was saying the USSR was collapsing AT THE TIME.

Also, who knew that in the 80's? The left wanted nuclear freeze and disarmament and appeasement because we would have to live with the USSR seemingly forever. I would like one single citation that said what you claim.
[...]

I agree most people outside the Soviet Union expected to live with it indefinitely. Then again, Andrei Amalrik predicted the Soviet Union's demise:

There is another powerful factor which works against the chance of any kind of peaceful reconstruction and which is equally negative for all levels of society: this is the extreme isolation in which the regime has placed both society and itself. This isolation has not only separated the regime from society, and all sectors of society from each other, but also put the country in extreme isolation from the rest of the world. This isolation has created for all—from the bureaucratic elite to the lowest social levels—an almost surrealistic picture of the world and of their place in it. Yet the longer this state of affairs helps to perpetuate the status quo, the more rapid and decisive will be its collapse when confrontation with reality becomes inevitable.

- Quote from "Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?"

 

[Arjen]

On a lighter note:
http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/google-reveals-f-35-is-dangerously-over-exposed/

October 11, 2013
Google reveals F-35 is dangerously over-exposed

As can be seen in this photograph, the F-35 has no reflection. This is because it is a vampire.

Internet giant Google revealed yesterday that the F-35 was dangerously over-exposed in terms of media coverage. A USAF spokesman commented “With over 200 articles a week published on the F-35 program, there is a very real danger that some of this rhetoric will bounce off the airframe rendering it dangerously visible to enemy radars”
The F-35’s airframe, which is shaped to reduce visibility to auditors, is 60 per cent caviar, 15 per cent mink and 25 per cent cocaine. The aircraft is even more vulnerable from detection by obsolete search engines such as Ask.com, ChaCha and Boogami which operate on a different wavelength. A US Navy think tank has been studying the so-called ‘Swarm ’effect, whereby one reputable website produces a story on the JSF and thousand reverse-engineered drone stories follow it. The think tank noted that many of these drones were poorly produced with little regard for production quality.

Key to the F-35′s survival in combat is its defensive aids suite. This system is operated onboard the aircraft by a lady.

The Gray Slag

The aircraft is powered by the sunk cost fallacy and with a loaded weight of 50,000 lb it is considered too big to fail. While critics suggest a unit price upwards of $170 million, Lockheed Martin have pointed out that once you deduct the cost of the engine, materials and electronics in the jet this figure goes down. This figure can further be reduced by removing other numbers. Proponents of the F-35 are keen to point out that everything is fine and it is brilliant. Meanwhile, critics of the $500 trillion project are keen to point out that everything is fucked and it’s awful. Arthur Koala, head of Public Affairs for the American taxpayer is quoted in this article as saying “The first priority for any nation is defense, and we remain committed to the defense of Lockheed Martin.”

A graph yesterday.

Wonga.com, who are in charge of finalising contracts with export nations are confident in future sales. Their head of sales noted “The partner nations and export customers are of course free to walk away from the program, though they may find Hillary Clinton refusing to talk to them again. But if they are comfortable with a bad relationship with the world’s greatest super power they are free to leave…terms and conditions apply.”

The Australian Minister of Defence, Senator the Honourable David Johnston said he shared Canada’s blind faith in the dumpy fighter and would buy it however expensive, late or ineffective it was. British Secretary of State for Defence Richard ‘The Hamster’ Hammond has fought hard to ensure that Britain has the minimum amount of F-35s at the maximum price. He noted that “By making sure our biggest defence contractor is making tail-planes for a US design we have ensured that Britain will never again be able to make a front-line military aircraft by itself. Following the rather mental Nimrod MRA.4, this is considered a good idea” .

Richard Hammond, providing the fantasy of having fun friends to bored men.

Britain’s force of four F-35Bs will enter service in 2022 and will replace the Typhoon, A400M, Grob Tutor and take over the role of Joey in The Only Way is Essex.

Via www.defensieforum.nl

 

[LowObservable]

+1 Arjen. I thought everyone had forgotten about Amalrik.