The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[bobbymike]

Hull shaping to reduce flow noise, propeller shaping or masking to reduce cavitation, equipment mounting on dampers to reduce sound transmission to the exterior environment (i.e. the place where hostile sensors are located)...these all have no bearing on making a submarine stealthy in its environment? There's more to it than staying away from hostiles.

That's about as sensible as saying a B-2 is stealthy by placing millions of cubic meters of air between it and its enemies; neither statement is accurate.

And

Thanks, SOC, I was about to make the same point with more expletives. Billions of tonnes of water is wonderful stuff in many ways but it also transmits sound rather well.

Are such ridiculous attempts at refuting a refutation I really have to restrain myself from saying uncharitable things about the writers in question.

That a modern submarine attempts to reduce its noise signature to avoid detection in water has nothing to do with the difference between submarines and surface ships in the stealth stakes of naval force structures. It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with the original fallacious argument made by Low Obs that stealth aircraft in an air combat force structure is the same or similar as submarines in a naval one.

Because noise signature is a secondary principle of a submarine’s stealth. The submarine since time immemorial sails under water to avoid propagating its signature through air. Because despite the transduction of sound through water it’s a far less accessible medium for detection than light (and radar) through air.

In order to achieve stealth a submarine must move through a different medium than naval ships that’s fighting sides move through air. And of course this requires a significantly different design, fit out and concept of operations for the submarine than the surface ship. Stealth aircraft and stealth ships, like the Sea Shadow and Zumwalt, on the other hand operate in the exact same medium mix as their un stealthy counterparts and in very much the same way just with the benefit of a significant counter detection advantage. This should be blindly obvious to anyone unless they have their head in a bucket of water.

AG why even bother, that some are even trying to compare water and air as a medium of detection of either a submarine or aircraft is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

[quellish]

The submarine since time immemorial sails under water to avoid propagating its signature through air. Because despite the transduction of sound through water it’s a far less accessible medium for detection than light (and radar) through air.

Exactly, which is why the B-3 achieves ultimate stealth using this defensive management system.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Exactly, which is why the B-3 achieves ultimate stealth using this defensive management system.

Of course, the 8th dimension! It all makes sense now.

 

[LowObservable]

The inability of some people around here to discuss an analogy without reverting to such sophisticated arguments as "tosh", "petulant" and "ridiculous" is quite telling.

Neither did I invent the stealth-to-submarine analogy. I first heard it from the first ATF program manager and later from one of the lead engineers on the B-2 program, clearly both fools who knew nothing.

Of course it is not perfect. But the atmosphere is not transparent at all frequencies, as the ocean is not opaque.

Submarine design is dominated by acoustics as stealth is dominated by RCS.

Submarine design, equipment and tactics stress passive sensors and emissions control. Ditto stealth aircraft.

A surface warship is less costly than a submarine and more readily adaptable to different missions (either by carrying things externally or with a mission bay/hangar). So far, the same has been true of conventional combat aircraft vs. stealth combat aircraft.

There are some missions (show of force, sea lane patrol/control) for which a submarine is inappropriate or at least has no advantages; the same goes for CAS or homeland air defense for the stealth aircraft.

There are some missions that subs don't do well at all. Submarines have been (and will be) built to launch and recover air vehicles and to deliver small numbers of troops, but their application will be limited.

Consequently, navies use a mixture of submarines and surface ships. Air services will continue to use both stealthy and non-stealthy aircraft - the question is how the missions will be split.

 

[sferrin]

There are some missions (show of force, sea lane patrol/control) for which a submarine is inappropriate or at least has no advantages; the same goes for CAS or homeland air defense for the stealth aircraft.

Except there isn't enough money for single-mission aircraft anymore. So dedicated interceptors and CAS aircraft, like the F-106 and A-10, are no longer affordable. The F-106s weren't replaced with a dedicated interceptor type and the A-10 won't be replaced by a dedicated CAS type. Nobody is suggesting that a multimission aircraft (be it an F-35, F-16, or Gripen) would be a better CAS aircraft than a dedicated CAS aircraft. Only that there isn't money for one.

 

[LowObservable]

Most navies seem to have been able to afford both submarines and surface ships.

Except there isn't enough money for single-mission aircraft anymore.
But as the Dutch are finding out, there isn't enough money for (some) multi-mission aircraft either, even when the double-digit-billion R&D overruns have been put on our tab. And who has lately been describing the JSF's CPFH as "unaffordable"? (Hint - it's not CK or WW.)

Is it not possible that a mix of "frigates" (adaptable and versatile conventional fighters for air defense, CAS, armed maritime recon &c) and a few "submarines" (wideband, all-aspect stealth platforms for deep strike and ISR) would actually have a lower LCC than providing the same capability in a do-everything platform?

Because that's what the Navy rebels might like, with ASH and UCLASS, and the way the French appear to be heading.

 

[GTX]

The inability of some people around here to discuss an analogy without reverting to such sophisticated arguments as "tosh", "petulant" and "ridiculous" is quite telling.

Talk about 'Pot calling kettle black" :

 

[GTX]

GTX, if you have evidence and arguments, bring it. Starting with the 50 per cent of the cost of a fighter being avionics....

Hmmm..the double standards here are strong. I just love how whenever someone who supports the F-35 provides something they get howls of demands for evidence however on a daily basis the anti-F-35 crowd throw out line after line and claim after claim all without a shred of evidence. :


I do have the info Bill but I am not going to give it to you just yet…you can just stew a little longer. ;D I will give you a hint though in case you want to do your own homework…it is from another Rand report.

 

[AeroFranz]

This is really productive...even for a "no holds barred" topic.


Can we stick to our personal opinions on the F-35 as opposed to personal attacks? because I don't think anyone cares about the latter.

 

[GTX]

Your response, , is an attack on the example rather than addressing the primary point that the RAND report was making.

No, reread what I actually said. I was simply pointing out that such what-iffing (as that report did with that example - which ti used as a key part of its justification) is risky to say the least. All sorts of equally feasible scenarios and outcomes can be derived and all are equally likely/unlikely…which I then illustrated with the whiff scenario I provided.

 

[GTX]

So it sounds like your position, GTX, is that the F-35 has no design flaws or maintenance and safety issues that could potentially cause fleet-wide stand-downs. Plus, everyone associated with designing and building the F-35 has looked into the crystal ball and has accurately forecasted enemy capabilities for the next 30 to 40 years. You are essentially saying, GTX, that the F-35 decision has no "operational and strategic risk to warfighters", no opportunity cost, and there is no need to hedge the decision because all assumptions on which the F-35 was created are correct and accurate.

Where exactly did I say any of that?

 

[LowObservable]

AF - Can we stick to our personal opinions on the F-35 as opposed to personal attacks? because I don't think anyone cares about the latter.

Apparently not...

GTX - It doesn't match with my crazy conspiracy theory

 

[LowObservable]

May I gently suggest that (possibly, perhaps) Triton may have not meant that comment quite seriously?

 

[Triton]

So it sounds like your position, GTX, is that the F-35 has no design flaws or maintenance and safety issues that could potentially cause fleet-wide stand-downs. Plus, everyone associated with designing and building the F-35 has looked into the crystal ball and has accurately forecasted enemy capabilities for the next 30 to 40 years. You are essentially saying, GTX, that the F-35 decision has no "operational and strategic risk to warfighters", no opportunity cost, and there is no need to hedge the decision because all assumptions on which the F-35 was created are correct and accurate.

Where exactly did I say any of that?

How else is one to interpret your response when the main points are ignored and you choose instead to attack the report's emotive language and their example? So if I have interpreted your position incorrectly, please address the issue of "operational and strategic risk to warfighters" and a single joint fighter aircraft program.

 

[Triton]

May I gently suggest that (possibly, perhaps) Triton may have not meant that comment quite seriously?

I was being facetious since GTX is attempting to categorize every criticism or concern related to the JSF program or the conduct of Lockheed Martin as hate speech and those who bring up these criticisms or concerns as haters. Since the United States Army seems dissatisfied that the F-35 will replace the A-10 and the Congress is blocking further A-10 retirements in FY 2014, then it seems in an extreme world-view that these actions are an attack on the United States Air Force, the F-35, and Lockheed Martin. It seems as though we who bring up criticism and concerns concerning the F-35 or the conduct of Lockheed Martin are placed at the extreme end of the continuum and are labeled "anti-F-35".

 

[GTX]

There, I have removed the post since it seems that I may have upset one or two...

 

[GTX]

How else is one to interpret your response when the main points are ignored and you choose instead to attack the report's emotive language and their example? So if I have interpreted your position incorrectly, please address the issue of "operational and strategic risk to warfighters" and a single joint fighter aircraft program.

I recommend you re-read what I have posted at Reply #3603. Yet again, I will simply point out that such what-iffing is risky to say the least. All sorts of equally feasible scenarios and outcomes can be derived and all are equally likely/unlikely...as I then exemplified.

Moreover, as I then went on to say, regardless of what people may wish for, the simple reality is that the days of multiple platforms (as the Korea scenario alluded to) are in the past. Sorry, but sometimes reality sucks! B)

 

[GTX]

since GTX is attempting to categorize every criticism or concern related to the JSF program or the conduct of Lockheed Martin as hate speech and those who bring up these criticisms or concerns as haters.

Well, if I have mis-categorised you then I humbly apologise.

That said though, I will also point out that many, including many here (yourself obviously excluded), are "haters" (to use that broad term) of the F-35. Moreover, they have proven themselves many times over of being incapable of being objective about the program and the platform (and often those involved with it) and that they look at every aspect as a chance to post negative comments about it. What really 'gets under my skin' is when such people post unsubstanitated or more often false claims. This is what I take challenge to.

Although I am unashamedly supportive of the F-35, I will also point out that I do have my criticisms of aspects of it. Those are internal to the program though and are not for open comment on a forum. I am sure you will find there are many people in a similar situation. And please don't try to pry me for those criticisms - you will get nowhere!

 

[JFC Fuller]

GTX,

Triton has a point, you merrily heap opprobrium on those who criticise every aspect of the F-35 programme whilst yourself taking the opposite extreme in refusing to accept any criticism of the programme- a position which looks absurd when criticism of it is made by senior DoD personnel and well resourced Air force linked think tanks.

 

[quellish]

Moreover, as I then went on to say, regardless of what people may wish for, the simple reality is that the days of multiple platforms (as the Korea scenario alluded to) are in the past. Sorry, but sometimes reality sucks! B)

Uh, someone should tell the ISR people that then.

 

[bobbymike]

GTX,

Triton has a point, you merrily heap opprobrium on those who criticise every aspect of the F-35 programme whilst yourself taking the opposite extreme in refusing to accept any criticism of the programme- a position which looks absurd when criticism of it is made by senior DoD personnel and well resourced Air force linked think tanks.

IMHO I feel in no way does GTX answer any differently than the 'anti-F-35' crowd and in fact in the majority of cases find him level headed and very fact based.

I do sometimes understand his frustration at the constant bringing up what in many cases is 'old news' no longer relevant to where the F-35 program is today.

 

[Triton]

Moreover, as I then went on to say, regardless of what people may wish for, the simple reality is that the days of multiple platforms (as the Korea scenario alluded to) are in the past. Sorry, but sometimes reality sucks! B)

Uh, someone should tell the ISR people that then.

Are you referring to the Lockheed Martin "SR-72" specifically?

 

[quellish]

Are you referring to the Lockheed Martin "SR-72" specifically?

No.

 

[LowObservable]

Can we get by without using the term "haters"?

I and many others have been skeptical of the claims made for the F-35 for many years; not in most cases from the outset, but certainly since the program's performance started to diverge from promises and projections.

So far, on cost and schedule, the skeptics have been right. That may be "old news" to Bobbymike, but in the absence of anyone on the contractor side stepping up and saying "We made statements in the past that were highly optimistic and inaccurate, and we have made this and that change in our culture to ensure that doesn't happen again", it's relevant.

That experience tends to make the skeptics suspicious of grandiose claims on the operational side, particularly when those are "unsubstantiated" (to use GTX's words) by testing. This is an assessment driven by experience - it may not be "objective" if you think that word means "believing everything the contractors say unless and until it has been disproved".

And pardon me if I don't reach for the cookie jar every time the program hits a milestone. At $4 million-plus per working hour I expect you to stick to the schedule that was set two years ago.

 

[Triton]

Well, if I have mis-categorised you then I humbly apologise.

That said though, I will also point out that many, including many here (yourself obviously excluded), are "haters" (to use that broad term) of the F-35.

Thank you, apology accepted.

Moreover, they have proven themselves many times over of being incapable of being objective about the program and the platform (and often those involved with it) and that they look at every aspect as a chance to post negative comments about it. What really 'gets under my skin' is when such people post unsubstanitated or moore often false claims. This is what I take challenge to.

Unfortunately, those of us on the outside are forced to accept the promises of the JSF Program Office and Lockheed Martin on faith. There is no way to substantiate the claims of the JSF Program Office and Lockheed Martin while the flight test data remains classified and none of the F-35 variants has reached initial operational capability (IOC). Meanwhile there is fear, uncertainty, and doubt concerning the capabilities of the F-35. Especially for those countries who have chosen the F-35 to constitute the entirety of their air forces.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The only FUD being slung is by people who cannot read and/or do not trust the people they elected or appointed to make the decisions for them that they were elected/hired to do.

Flight test data is ALWAYS classified, nothing new here. The amount of data out there is actually higher than ANY previous modern fighter program, from any nation.

The flight test data for the F-22 is not available and it has never seen combat, yet many hold it up as the pinnacle of A2A combat power.

I do not trust anyone 100%, which is why I read a lot and look at much more than LM PowerPoint slides and Fast Facts. I combine what I read with historical precedent, my military experience, and common sense to come to my own conclusions about capabilities.

 

[LowObservable]

To some extent I agree with this, aside from the usual insults that appear the F-35's online supporters constantly exhibit, as if they were living with Tourette's:

The only FUD being slung is by people who ... do not trust the people they elected or appointed to make the decisions for them that they were elected/hired to do.

That seems to be something that is normal and healthy in a functioning democracy. Moreover, a lack of trust may be well justified. Today, the elected and appointed - civilian and military Pentagon leaders - along with industry officials, are complaining loudly about their ageing fleets and the threat that declining budgets pose to recapitalization and modernization.

However, the fact is that defense budgets have been at historically high inflation-adjusted levels, even accounting for war funding, for a decade or more. The reason that fleets are aging is that many if not most major all-new defense acquisitions in the last 15-20 years have failed, either because they were canceled outright, for technical and economic reasons, or because they produced systems so costly that they could not be acquired in numbers necessary to renew the force.

Why should anyone trust the people and institutions that brought us the B-2, the F-22, the DDG-1000, the Comanche, Future Combat System, and FIA, and now - years late, tens of billions over the original budget, and with a projected operating cost that its own managers deem unaffordable - assure us that JSF will be all right on the night? Why should they be trusted when the Pentagon and its contractors have a history as long as your arm of broken promises and missed targets?

And please do not come back with how the Pentagon should have gone ahead with 132 B-2s or 440 F-22s or whatever, because the people you say we should trust made those termination and cut-off decisions as well.

 

[GTX]

Unfortunately, those of us on the outside are forced to accept the promises of the JSF Program Office and Lockheed Martin on faith. There is no way to substantiate the claims of the JSF Program Office and Lockheed Martin while the flight test data remains classified and none of the F-35 variants has reached initial operational capability (IOC). Meanwhile there is fear, uncertainty, and doubt concerning the capabilities of the F-35. Especially for those countries who have chosen the F-35 to constitute the entirety of their air forces.

The fact that these air forces (and my country is one of them) continue to opt for the F-35 should be a pretty good indicator that though classified, the JSF performance (despite delay and cost issues) is still highly sought, and of course is still adding even more orders from even more nations (and watch for more this year).

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt seem to remain with a lot of people on the internet who never served a day in their life and who don't bother to read beyond certain headlines. if you are ignorant, fear uncertainty, and doubt, are to be expected. Governments around the world are continually renewing their faith in the F-35 to the tune of billions of dollars, whilst the internet looks for any cherry picked statement that the end is nigh. IOCs are getting closer by the day and production is ramping up continually. Its too bad that a lot of the things that make the F-35 such a world beater are classified, but if you take a look around and remember that "people vote with their pocketbooks" the F-35 clearly has some special abilities, and although governments may play games like Canada's "reset", they remain JSF partners. Governments and their Defence Forces have been committed to the f-35, save for little political token maneuvers like this.

Its too bad you don't have access to classified performance data, but thats probably not going to go away. Many aspects of the F-22 are classified, along with the F-18E/F, and EF-18G, but I don't hear a lot of fear uncertainty and doubt when it comes to those aircraft for some reason. in fact many people promote those as JSF alternatives without hesitation. Many military programs and systems are classified, the parts that aren't are often low balled to hide true capability as well.

 

[GTX]

To some extent I agree with this, aside from the usual insults that appear the F-35's online supporters constantly exhibit, as if they were living with Tourette's

Oh, come now Bill - enough of the playing innocent. :

 

[GTX]

when criticism of it is made by senior DoD personnel and well resourced Air force linked think tanks.

So when one criticises comments by such people that are critical of the F-35 it is absurd…what is the case when they make comments that are positive? :


Oh, and by the way, I have already stated on this forum a number of times that I do have criticisms of the F-35 (both the customer side and with a number of the companies involved with developing/delivering it) - I don't think you will find a F-35 supporter here who does not. However, for most of us, those are internal to the program and thus for professional reasons are not for open comment on a forum.

It really irks me when I see regular uninformed or plain ridiculous comments being made by those who are negative to the F-35 (and don't give me the "concerned citizen" style of justification - we know that is garbage, so please try to be honest). A classic being to criticise the f-35 on one aspect but to then not to apply the same equal criticism to an alternate.

 

[LowObservable]

Thank you for publicly bragging about your access to classified information!

Bests

Unit 63198

 

[GTX]

Thank you for publicly bragging about your access to classified information!

Err, where exactly? ??? There is a difference between "classified for security reasons" and having the professional integrity not to talk openly of information/issues that are subject to business dealings. This latter one is relevant even when discussing unclassified items…or don't you understand the difference?

Poor attempt to distract people Bill.

 

[LowObservable]

Again - at $4m/working hour, the program should be making progress.

Agreed, many of the players remain committed to F-35. Not news, and not altogether surprising given (1) the normal reluctance of large institutions to change or abandon major plans, absent some powerful external force; (2) the known degree of support and pressure provided by USG; and (3) the continued promise that all will be well and that the US taxpayer will pick up the tab. And the reluctance of AFs that have been working with the USAF for generations to consider teaming with relative unknowns is a physical force of black-hole levels.

As for the secret miraculous advantages of F-35: Yes, there are a few odd rumors floating around about missile death-rays and such, but I would hope that they are briefed only on a need-to-know basis, and whether that extends to Mr GTX, I rather doubt.

 

[sferrin]

Thank you for publicly bragging about your access to classified information!

Bests

Unit 63198

How do you propose to get something better than the F-35 sooner and cheaper? Let's hear your grand plan to replace the F-16, F/A-18, and Harrier with something that meets the requirements, is cheaper, and available sooner. You can't. The first response to being put on the spot like that is to drastically change the requirement.

 

[sublight_]

So if I go register f35-battle-to-the-death.com and put up a simple machines or Vbulletin BBS, would you guys consider posting there?

 

[sferrin]

So if I go register f35-battle-to-the-death.com and put up a simple machines or Vbulletin BBS, would you guys consider posting there?

Why bother? The F-35 is a done deal. Many are still stuck at phase 1 though (denial).

 

[sublight_]

So if I go register f35-battle-to-the-death.com and put up a simple machines or Vbulletin BBS, would you guys consider posting there?

Why bother? The F-35 is a done deal. Many are still stuck at phase 1 though (denial).

I'm just saying the battle in this thread changes nothing, therefore it would be nice if those that want to continue the battle found a battleground suitable for the energies they have for expending on this....

 

[GTX]

Again - at $4m/working hour, the program should be making progress.

It is making progress.

Yes, there are a few odd rumors floating around about missile death-rays and such, but I would hope that they are briefed only on a need-to-know basis, and whether that extends to Mr GTX, I rather doubt.

Trying to distract people again with pointless posts Bill?

 

[GTX]

Agreed, many of the players remain committed to F-35. Not news, and not altogether surprising given (1) the normal reluctance of large institutions to change or abandon major plans, absent some powerful external force; (2) the known degree of support and pressure provided by USG; and (3) the continued promise that all will be well and that the US taxpayer will pick up the tab. And the reluctance of AFs that have been working with the USAF for generations to consider teaming with relative unknowns is a physical force of black-hole levels.

No mention of course that the end users may actually like what they are getting?

With respect to the comment "...reluctance of AFs that have been working with the USAF for generations to consider teaming with relative unknowns..." would you care to provide some examples of these "relative unknowns"?

 

[Rlewis]

Again - at $4m/working hour, the program should be making progress.

Agreed, many of the players remain committed to F-35. Not news, and not altogether surprising given (1) the normal reluctance of large institutions to change or abandon major plans, absent some powerful external force; (2) the known degree of support and pressure provided by USG; and (3) the continued promise that all will be well and that the US taxpayer will pick up the tab. And the reluctance of AFs that have been working with the USAF for generations to consider teaming with relative unknowns is a physical force of black-hole levels.

As for the secret miraculous advantages of F-35: Yes, there are a few odd rumors floating around about missile death-rays and such, but I would hope that they are briefed only on a need-to-know basis, and whether that extends to Mr GTX, I rather doubt.

The rumors are on a need to know basis?