More F-35 critiquing

[tor lives]

and stop stealing my jokes!

"Stealing" is such a harsh word Ace ......consider it more a process of refining, improving, contemporising, and contextualising
Ray

[Adam the Akrodude]

I just think we need to relax and have a little faith on the F-35. I've read up a decent amount available as a "amateur" civvy interested in this program. @ Brad - you're not the only person to have received a tertiary education of course. In the dim, dark past I received some schooling on industrial instrumentation and control - pneumatics, electrics, electronics, servo-hydraulic positioning gear, pneumatic/analogue/digital instrumentation and right down to empirically calculating stuff like Reynolds Numbers for tuning flow loops and employing principles such as 1/4 wave decay (Zeiger-Nicols) principle on PID control loops, etc (most of which I've long since forgotten since RMIT days!). Why I'm crapping on with this "jargon" is explaining why I'm into the technical side of the F-35 and blown away from the snippets I've picked up in the public forum. I'm into the whole sensor/data processing technology aspect in particular. Interesting you writing and discussing the 111 at Uni. You do of course see the parallel between the 111 and what the F-35 is going through in terms of negative publicity in the press? The F-105 also went through this in the late 50's/early 60's. You could almost remove the "F-105" or "F-111" from these articles and insert F-35! Good ol' history repeating itself huh.

Of course we civvy's will never know the full story on what the absolute capabilities of the F-35 are and nor should we. What I find interesting is when senior government and military officials get the F-35 "brief", they're sold on it. This isn't just LM sales jargon - it goes way beyond that. This is senior government to government and military to military leadership briefings - not just looking at fancy LM CGI video presentations. The F-35 ain't a paper aeroplane, it's a living breathing roaring beast of a machine (a one time F-105 and F-111 pilot I once corresponded with referred to this as 'The sound of freedom!"). Countries that can hardly afford the F-35 are still buying them, as they realise that they can't afford not to have them.

Davecana summed it up very well mentioning the "Wolfpack" tactics that the F-35 will employ. This word has been bandied about in aviation press when mentioned by F-35 crews. Air warfare doctrine is being re-written around what this machine is and will be capable of. There currently is no other 5th gen aerial weapon system capable of doing what the F-35 can do - not even the F-22. The F-22 is more "Air Dominance" whereas of course the F-35 is more multi-role. As Dave says, it's part of the puzzle which includes the AEW&C plus the host of new stealthy weapons available. This aeroplane is a major jump up from the F-18F, which in itself is invaluable getting the RAAF crews up to speed with the capabilities of these new AESA radars and all the data that is available as a result. The big challenge I see this dealing with all this data available to the pilot. The true brilliance of the F-35 will be how it deals with this data and presents it to the pilot. It is going to take some pretty clever people to drive these machines!

@Brad - no idea where you get that $30 Million for a F-15 figure. Perhaps buying some old clapped out 15's from AMARG at Davis-Monthan and giving them a buff and polish could be possible at that price? You could also try Crazy Bob's Fighter Sales! It's a very long time since the USAF bought Eagles and they were Mud Hens. The supposed cost of the F-15SE is around $100 Million. The F-35 is around this cost and requires only one aircrew and is stealthy, can pretty well super cruise and way way way more capable. The only advantage the F-15SE would have is longer range and higher payload. Yet, no governments are beating down Boeing's door to buy 'em - why?? If you've been paying attention to the evolution of air power over the last few years, you will have noted that the requirement for heavy payloads has shrunk substantially due to the revolution that is precision guided munitions. With pin-point accuracy, you don't need a truck loads of big bombs these days to do a lot of damage. For example, place one bomb on the turbine section of a coal/nuke/gas fired power station and it's lights out baby for many months. Know the lead time on a steam turbine? That is only one example.

As far as the Typhoon goes, yes pretty good performer but almost obsolete when compared to the F-35. They're just getting AESA radars fitted now bringing them in line with F-18F, Su-33/35 in terms of their electronic capability. It's data processing and "connectability" into this whole "battlespace" environment (don't you just love this new lingo!) is just not on par with the F-35. It's not stealthy at all - a very long drawn out development period across a number of European countries ensured it's dare I say obsolete - there I said it! Of course it's not completely obsolete now, but it will be when compared to the big Suk Pak-Fa/T-50. What will the Europeans come out with to counter that - drones? Stealthier longer range A/A and A/G munitions will be the answer with aeroplanes like the Rafale and Typhoon just being launch platforms for these longer range stealth munitions in the interim.

My belief is that the F-35 could very well be the last manned fighter. It will be around 40 odd years and over this period UCAV's will have matured in technology. As we are seeing with Predator and Reaper crews, the most dangerous thing that can happen to them is perhaps getting a paper cut or spilling Coke on the keyboard! As a aside, there is even a special bravery award for UCAV crews - can't get my head around that one! I think the next big USN program will be UCAV's. The USAF looks to be interested in technology such as the SR-72, both for recon and strike using precision guided hypersonic munitions - this is the next big thing. Being able to both recon and strike anywhere on the planet say within 1-2 hours will be major. From what I've read, the SR-72 will be unmanned and may even be completely autonomous - interesting.

Each to their own of course. My opinion is that the F-35 was and is the only choice. Be interesting to see what the RAAF exchanges the "Supers" with - most likely more F-35's or possibly UCAV's??? My personal concern with the F-35 is how well it will handle CAS. It's way too valuable to get down and dirty in the weeds - won't get lower than FL200 I'm guessing. The key will be how well the NG DAS system performs. The little I've seen of this on Youtube is simply awesome! The resolution is mind boggling. I can only think that there a rooms full of computer nerds writing a whole bunch of code for this most brilliant of all fighters. The only thing that matters to we tax payers is that the users (commanders, drivers, maintainers) of the F-35 are happy with it - everything else is bullshit. Some more hard core LM sales propaganda! Love it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kshe7-BYfWc

[_BlackHawk_]

TL:DR.

I'm surprised that the cost of this aircraft doesn't concern some of you. It's nearly 70% over the cost estimates made in 2001, with the program expected to now cost 400 billion dollars and the ongoing operational costs expected to top 1 trillion dollars for the US. GAO auditors have questioned if the F-35 is still affordable and the Pentagon have described the operational costs as "unaffordable". It's stealthiness has been downgraded, there was meant to be about 80% commonality between versions, that is now down to around the 30% mark and the software is so bug ridden they predict at least another 13 months to fix and 8 million new lines of code. This doesn't concern you that we are spending what, 12-15 billion dollars on this aircraft? You're right about one thing, all our eggs are in one basket, so I really hope it can do all those fancy things the sales pitch says it can, 'cos if it can't........

[Adam the Akrodude]

TL:DR.

I'm surprised that the cost of this aircraft doesn't concern some of you. It's nearly 70% over the cost estimates made in 2001, with the program expected to now cost 400 billion dollars and the ongoing operational costs expected to top 1 trillion dollars for the US. GAO auditors have questioned if the F-35 is still affordable and the Pentagon have described the operational costs as "unaffordable". It's stealthiness has been downgraded, there was meant to be about 80% commonality between versions, that is now down to around the 30% mark and the software is so bug ridden they predict at least another 13 months to fix and 8 million new lines of code. This doesn't concern you that we are spending what, 12-15 billion dollars on this aircraft? You're right about one thing, all our eggs are in one basket, so I really hope it can do all those fancy things the sales pitch says it can, 'cos if it can't........

I'm a little more concerned what our last government did to the country, which makes the F-35 program here look like the cost of a 10 kg bag of chicken feed in comparison! Do you not accept that pretty well every aeroplane designed and built has had some kind of issue, right from the get go with the Wright Flyer? This is the most complex fighter every built from a systems perspective, so of course there will be issues along the way. It is at the very leading edge in this regard. These issues are being sorted as the aeroplane is being developed. A lot of what you are quoting is old news btw. The program is a little further along than just LM sales pitch I believe! Relax Brad, sit back, crack a B&C! - there are many much smarter people than we (well I should say much smarter than I, you of course being a Uni graduate n all!) working on this program! Have you contacted Boeing yet? They seriously need help flogging their Silent Eagles! Of course if the whole program goes belly up, there will be many red faces and many unhappy tax payers. Will this happen? I very much doubt it.

[_BlackHawk_]

This is coming from GAO report 14-322, so it's less than 3 months old. Of course every aircraft has teething issues, but not every aircraft costs 400 billion dollars for R&D and procurement.

400,000,000,000 - Four Hundred Billion Dollars. For that price the US could build 60 nuclear aircraft carriers at about 6 billion and change each.

[Adam the Akrodude]

This is coming from GAO report 14-322, so it's less than 3 months old. Of course every aircraft has teething issues, but not every aircraft costs 400 billion dollars for R&D and procurement.

400,000,000,000 - Four Hundred Billion Dollars. For that price the US could build 60 nuclear aircraft carriers at about 6 billion and change each.

Ah money, shmoney - who listens to accountants - not me! Not a good comparison - US doesn't need 60 nuke carriers, it needs new fighters. You need to put stuff in carriers as well - aeroplanes, people, fuel, weapons burgers, fries, coke.
Come to think of it $400 Billion also equates to 112,044,817,927 Big Mac's and USA sure needs those - I see your point now!
Ah LM, we're cancelling your order in exchange for a shit load of Big Mac's!

[_BlackHawk_]

Being cavalier about the issues won't make them go away. The fact is, all that good stuff you like in the F-35 will mean bugger all if not even the US can afford to operate it, assuming it will actually work.

[Nillus]

If being cavalier is not going to make the perceived "issues" go away, then perhaps your local member would be a better place for you to air your concerns rather than on a plastic model site.
Perhaps then you will convince someone in authority that the exorbitant price of an F-35 should be replaced by a fleet of something-or-other.

OR

The Department of Defence?
They'd love to hear your opinions...its about time those overpaid & uninformed monkeys get their heads straightened out about all this F-35 hullabaloo.
http://www.defence.gov.au/ ....navigate to "contact us"

OR
AMI?



[Alright I was only kidding about AMI...wouldn't want to appear to be cavalier 'n all].

[Adam the Akrodude]

Ace!

Now I get what you mean about being "Cavalier"! Nuk Nuk Nuk!



Let's get Rockwell to re-start production of these! At say $2 million a pop (guesstimate for mass-produced Cavaliers), that's 200,000 Cavalier Mustangs USA could buy for $400 Billion! This is far better than a couple of thousand useless F-35's!

[_BlackHawk_]

I'm not going to bite Salty. This is a forum to discuss topics of interest and quoting the tag line "General topic discussion forum for all A/CAMers. Get it off your chest!!". You seem not to like this thread, if that is so, you don't have to read it.