Latest on the F-35

[Guest SrPilot]

Like the Energizer Bunny, it just keeps on going - in this case, stories of F-35 woes.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/26/most-expensive-weapon-ever-built-limps-toward-finish-line.html

 

 

[Marty_d]

Actually it's the opposite of the Energizer bunny...

 

 

[fly_tornado]

relevant to your interests

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run-f35-problems.136239/

 

 

[kgwilson]

Like the Energizer Bunny, it just keeps on going - in this case, stories of F-35 woes.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/26/most-expensive-weapon-ever-built-limps-toward-finish-line.html

Seems to me that the finish line is moving faster away than the F 35 is limping towards it. The only thing keeping it going now seems to be political face saving. The hole they have dug is now too deep to climb out of.

[fly_tornado]

The basic strategy is too throw so much money at the F35 that it can't be canned. That's how defense contracting works, buy off both sides of politics.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Lockheed Martin must be like the banks... "too big to fail".

 

If it wasn't for the fact that weapons manufacturers are morally repugnant, it'd be a great company to invest in.

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

Actually it's the opposite of the Energizer bunny...

Well, define "it" Marty_d. I said " it just keeps on going - in this case, stories of F-35 woes." In other words, I was comparing the bunny to "stories of F-35 woes." You seem to say the F-35 doesn't compare to the bunny. Two different comparisons. We may never know whether this "Swiss army knife" will ever compare favorably with anything. Most successful military planes are successful because they were designed to do a particular job and they do it well. (e.g, A-10, F-15, F-16). But none of them try to do everything. The F-35 was designed from a different mindset.

 

"Joint Strike Fighter" - 3 variants - conventional (CTOL), short-takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL), and carrier (CV). [enter the "Swiss army knife" approach - something for everyone - Air Force, Marines, Navy] - complexity, weight; "do everything, but maybe not do anything as well as the competition" - just saying.

 

For a history there's always https://www.F35.com

 

Of course, last time I accessed the F35 website, it crashed (the website, not the aircraft)

 

 

 

[Marty_d]

I know the comparisons were different... my "keep on track" response was overridden by my "antipathy to this useless pile of overpriced junk" response.

 

I agree with your Swiss Army knife analogy and the concept that aircraft have previously been (and probably should continue to be) designed for specific roles.

 

Obviously somewhere in the process Lockheed Martin have managed to convince your country's polity (and unfortunately, ours) that they can design one aircraft that does everything, and like most compromises, the likelihood is that it'll do none of them WELL.

 

 

[Cloud Basher]

Maybe I have drunk too much JSF cool aid. The F35 will be a great platform. Its biggest hurdle is getting enough information out the to appease the populace that this weapons and sensor system really is worth the cost, noting that nearly all its capabilities are classified so we will never know its true capabilities.

 

I look at this this way. It has bipartisan support in our parliament, and all the people who know more than me and will use this in their daily job, to a person, say "this thing will rock".

 

So I am comfortable with that and treat most other comments as space fillers on a slow news day...

 

Cheers

 

CB

 

 

[Marty_d]

... all the people who know more than me and will use this in their daily job, to a person, say "this thing will rock"

Really? I've heard that pilots who've tested it have nicknamed it "the Little Turd".

Interesting.

 

 

[Cloud Basher]

"I've heard..."

 

I will just leave that there.

 

Cheers

 

CB

 

 

[Yenn]

"I look at this this way. It has bipartisan support in our parliament, and all the people who know more than me and will use this in their daily job, to a person, say "this thing will rock"."

 

That is what I call a cop out.

 

Do you really think that politicians of either persuasion are better able to make decisions than you are. If your answer is Yes it is maybe correct. But my answer is No and that I believe is also correct.

 

 

[rgmwa]

.... noting that nearly all its capabilities are classified so we will never know its true capabilities.

... or lack of. Time will tell. Somebody once described a camel as `a horse designed by a committee'. Hope it doesn't apply to the F35.

rgmwa

 

 

[Marty_d]

"I've heard..."I will just leave that there.

Cheers

 

CB

Yep, heard it on a REPUTABLE radio station - the ABC. Where did you get your information again, direct from the test pilots I assume?

 

 

[kgwilson]

Funny how the politicians & defence people seem to still support the F35 but the worlds Aviation experts don't. The history of its development should provide a clue. Too complicated, too heavy, too expensive and too late but too big to fail. We will just lick Uncle Sams posterior & front up with the 200 million each rather that be sensible & buy a lot more & more capable Sukois or Grippens.

 

 

[djpacro]

Self-appointed experts. Yep, I remember well what they said about the F-111 when it was ordered, and also what they said about it when it was decided to withdraw it from service.

 

As for more capable other types, the first discussion point is the measure of capability and the relevant key parameters.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

F111 is a vastly simpler piece of equipment which was relegated to doing "dump and burns" to justify its existence.

 

I can't imagine a scenario where Australian F35s would be capable of making an impact in the defense of Australia.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Self-appointed experts.

You're right... we should all respectfully believe our government when they tell us it's worth spending our money on.

Even though they're no doubt getting pressure from the US government.

 

Who are getting pressure from Lockheed Martin.

 

I remember one interview with the local Defense procurement "expert" who was being audibly prompted by a US representative in order to answer the interviewer's questions.

 

 

[Yenn]

Same for the new subs. Australia doesn't have a civil maritime fleet and I wonder what the subs are supposed to be for, except to bolster up the USA somewhere.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Not matter how many billions you spend on computer chips and programmers- a flying turd is still a very expensive and smelly turd.

 

On the reviews where they say it is the best- I am sure in the wide angle you can see a cattle prod been held to the pilots balls.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The older the person the harder it is for them to get their heads around how much more technical war is becoming. Cryptography and comm's are the real battlefront now.

 

 

[mnewbery]

All F-35 pilots interviewed either converted from Hornet or Raptor or they went straight out of training to the F-35. Unanimously and happily for them it was a one way street and they are looking at going to retirement having flown the F-35 last. USAF have admitted recently they will struggle to get anyone to fly the Raptor if the F-35 is a choice.

 

Are the pilots lying or do they know something the rest of us don't (like Prince Charles will never be King and this baby ain't going into combat).

 

Also for those fanbois of the Eastern Bloc product (I'm lookin' at you F_W) have a listen to the Aviation Xtended podcast on Eastern bloc aircraft and reply here as to why the SU-35 is still "best".

 

 

[fly_tornado]

An F35 pilot coming out and saying its garbage and then risk losing their perks after leaving the military? LM would like that

 

 

[Cloud Basher]

People need to get it out of their heads that this is "just" a Hornet replacement. It is far far more than that. It is a sensor, communications, intelligence, surveillance, weapons delivery platform as well as being a fighter aircraft. There is literally nothing like this thing either flying or on the drawing board in the Weast OR East (that we know about anyway). If the F22 is Gen 5, this thing is Gen 5.6 and has the ability for major upgrades as electonical thingies continue to evolve.

 

So much so that Air Forces at this stage are only now developing the doctrine and how to use this platform. It has capabilities that no one has yet worked out how to fully use.

 

What I find amusing is people say an F-16 or am SU-30 will kick its butt in a dog fight. Maybe it will, but you are missing the point if you think that is a serious concern. This thing is soooo much more than a fighter aircraft.

 

Cheers

 

CB

 

 

[Marty_d]

All that may be true but the airframe IS a compromise. You can't design one airframe to be either conventional or VTOL and expect it to have the same performance as one that is designed for one of those.

 

"Sensor, communications, intelligence, surveillance, weapons delivery platform" are all things that can be retrofitted to existing airframes, or at least designed into a new aircraft that has similar or better performance to existing aircraft. I wouldn't be brushing off the fact that this thing can have it's butt kicked in a dog fight. As per discussion on the other thread, once you've fired off all your million-dollar smart missiles and the remaining fighter is still coming at you, what point is all the technology if you can't win the dog fight?