some F35 info (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

So far, there's eleven nations total, that will be receiving the F-35:
Britain, Australia, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Canada, South Korea, Japan and Israel.

Spain and Belgium have expressed interest, but with Spain's current fiscal concerns, I don't think they'll be doing any buying in the near future.

What's interesting, is Germany's absence in all of this. I find it interesting that the most prosperous country in Europe barely spends any of it's budget on defense.
 
I didn't forget ahything Joe, and I bet if Israel were offered the chance to fly it in a war game, they'd do that and make decisions based on outcomes. That alone makes me think we won't give them the chance.

And your link is 2015 budget request, not an overall program cost rollup. I have no doubt the 2015 F-35 is cheaper than the 2011 F-35. But get a complete rollup and divide by the number of planes to be acquired ... and you get a real story, not a 2015 snapshot. I want a rollup per unit cost. It won't be much cheaper than the F-22s that we are seemingly so loathe to expose to hostile fire. So we bought a single engine sled that costs whtin a hair of the same and we'll expose THAT to hostile fire instead. Makes no sense to me.

But I'd still like to see a realisitic war game that employs F-35s with people trying to stop them and ROE that allow normal assets for all combatants. If nothing else, it would help us develop tactics for the F-35 force that we either have or are stuck with, depending on your point of view.

Everyone seems to belive I am against the F-35. I haven't exactly said that. I said I want it to be evaluated realistically and then make a decision on it rather than procure all 2,400+ of them and find out we don't want them after all. I'm neither for it or agianst it at this time, but I think it is stupid beyond description to continue proceeding without an evaluation of it in a realistic test.

Make it the F-35 proponent's cost of proceeding ... if the F-35 proponents are against a real test, then cancel it immediately and try again. If they agree, run the test, make a determination, and DO it. What I really hate is spending all the money before finding out if it is a good idea. So far the tests aren't very convincing to me. That doesn't mean they were run correctly or were reported correctly.

Let that all be water under the bridge and go FIND OUT before another round of spending is passed. By now, it should be ready or not. FIND OUT and act on it.

Hi Michael Maltby,

According to F-177 pilots I spoke with, nobody flew CAP for it. It ingressed and egressed all by itself. It had CAP before going into attack profile ... and was never attacked while forming up. Once in attack profile, it went out all on its own and came back that way, too.
 
Last edited:
GrauGeist said:
What's interesting, is Germany's absence in all of this. I find it interesting that the most prosperous country in Europe barely spends any of it's budget on defense.
Click to expand...

They tried for European domination twice by military means, and things didn't work out. now they get what they want with economic muscle.......

There are more than one way to win a war these days.
 
parsifal said:
They tried for European domination twice by military means, and things didn't work out. now they get what they want with economic muscle.......

There are more than one way to win a war these days.
Click to expand...
They succeeded by way of the Hanovers, for a while.

As far as Merkel goes, she thinks she is in control of Europe. I'm sure with the current refugee tensions escelating in Europe at the moment, she may be put to the test.
 
I didn't wish for a war, Michael, I said a realisitic war game where the ROE are not restrictive and all participants have normally-available assets.

Nobody with a brain wishes for war, and I certainly don'twant one. Been there. It ain't fun. There's no glamor or glory for those who don't make it. They just die.

And for what? I never knew anyone who wanted to be there or agreed with why they were there except for WWII vets. They didn't want to be there but agreed someone needed to be.
 
Last edited:
GregP said:
I didn't forget ahything Joe, and I bet if Israel were offered the chance to fly it in a war game, they'd do that and make decisions based on outcomes. That alone makes me think we won't give them the chance.
Click to expand...
Decision? They're already buying it Greg, and I think we know that Israel is not going to accept a piece of military hardware it doesn't want
F-22 was 142~ million, I showed that earlier. no matter how you slice it the F-35 is cheaper. I think your numbers include spares and sustainment.
And again, that will come...
The F-35 as it stands right now is the most tested combat aircraft in history, one of the reasons why it cost so much!!!

Greg, you're saying things that either have already been done or just about to be done. Please get caught up with the state of the program, it's deployment and who's operating it because by some of the statements you're making you're about 3 years behind on the current status of the program. I'm sure the participating nations are willing to piss away a large portion of the their defense budget on an aircraft that doesn't work!!!

An the F-117 was an unsolicited offering that had no budget oversight and was never under the scrutiny of the press, except for it's role in Panama, where the press tried to make it look like a lemon. Amazing!
 
If there is anyone up on the F-117, it's me. I was in on Have Blue and Pave Blue. I followed the F-117 with great interest. Bad assumption there ... Joe. It had some design stupidity and had some design genius. Mostly, the genius part won out. But it certainly didn't exactly fly well. It flew, but you need to "put up with it" ... you didn't have a great time doing it, and it was never going to win any visual engagement ... that's for damned sure. It couldn't run and couldn't fight. All it could do was get used at night and evade. Turned out to be enough.

It's obvious you're sold on the F-35. You might be on the right side there. I'm not sold on it yet and am not firmnly agianst it either. So far it hasn't impressed me much. But I also know how things get distorted in reporting by people with an agenda. I'm open to being a supporter, but this forum ain't gonna' be the deciding factor as I have identified nobody in here on the F-35 program in an operational capacity.

No pilots, no mechanics, no mission planners. It's all a guess in here based on pro-F-35 propaganda sites.

When the fur flies, we'll see what happens. I was hoping for a decent war game, but the way the world works, it might come sooner than we think. I hope not, but you never know.

Believe me, if Israel participated in a war game that showed the F-35 to be a turkey, the order would be cancelled in a heartbeat. Unlike us, they aren't committed to it. They want it if it lives up to the hype. If it doesn't, they'll run like a pair of panty hose being scratched by a cat.

Might as well stop trying to convince me. My conviction will come with F-35 use, not words in here. So I'll go away from this thread until such time as the F-35 actually does something to talk about. Maybe then I'll be on your side. Maybe not.
 
Last edited:
And it flew good enough for the Air Force to put up with it for 20 years until the F-35 came along. BTW Greg, I was on the program, I saw the first two built and worked in Building 309/ 310 at Burbank, so if you want to compare F-117 resumes, fire away.

beaupower32, who has posted numerous photos and comments on the F-35 works on the aircraft at EDW. I consulted on the X-35, my former roommate designed the electrical system, so I think I know a little more about this thing than most.
GregP said:
No pilots, no mechanics, no mission planners. It's all a guess in here based on pro-F-35 propaganda sites.
Click to expand...
see above and it has nothing to do about a guess from pro-F-35 sites, it has to do with being in this business long enough to separate the fact from the bullsh!t.
GregP said:
When the fur flies, we'll see what happens. I was hoping for a decent war game, but the way the world works, it might come sooner than we think. I hope not, but you never know.
Click to expand...
Ok.....
Will they fly the one they are buying?!?!
GregP said:
Might as well stop trying to convince me. My conviction will come with F-35 use, not words in here. So I'll go away from this thread until such time as the F-35 actually does something to talk about. Maybe then I'll be on your side. Maybe not.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to convince you and never will, what I will do is call you (and anyone else) on the assumptions, half-truths, guesses and sometimes lies being said about this aircraft. It's being deployed, is working as advertised and is being fielded by almost a dozen nations, do you really think that this many participating air forces will buy into a weapons system that wouldn't work? Italy has it's own production line! If this plane was that much of a pig, it would have died in 2007, the same time period some are basing their comments on!!!
 
Last edited:

It looks like what you're using as your cost figure is the program acquisition cost. This is the overall cost of the program, including research and development, divided by the number of aircraft produced. Because the F-35 is just starting production, that number will go down as more planes are produced. By this metric, the B-2 costs around $2.1 billion apiece, and the F-22 costs around $412 million apiece in 2012 dollars (link for F-22: http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/317081.pdf ). By contrast, the cost that I was referring to, and the $142+ million for the F-22 that FlyboyJ was referring to, is the flyaway cost, i.e. how much to build another plane. That cost is actually decreasing by LRIP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Procurement_costs
 
I didn't say it was a pig or that I was against it. I said I want to see it tested realisticaly, So far, I haven't seen it.

I worked on the F-35, too, and did some detailed design analysis of the actuators. If they are typical of the aircraft, I'll pass on it. I never worked on the electrical system and it might be fine. I have seen no electrical system writeups that raise any particular attention, and so was assuming it to be OK. I haven't seen system writeups because they are classified. If you haven't seen them either, then we both don't know and are guessing.

I am NOT objecting to it out of ignorance in the slightest. I haven't followed the flight test program in detail, but haven't been impressed with what I have read .. and I already addressed that. There was no point in following it since there was a political rush for approval.

I'll get interested when they have some actual service data to analyze that doesn't come from the manufacturer, but rather from the users. So far, in good-wweather, peactime carrier landings and takeoffs, it seems OK. If it can't do that, then we're being duped by professionals. That doesn't make a warfighter. It makes for good press.

Like I said, words ain't gonna' do it; only performance in role. And that hasn't happened yet. I have the right to be unconvinced until such time as I get convinced one way or the other by service performance. Looks like we're buying it whether we should or not, so I'll get convinced one way or the other soon enough. I hope it is later for reasons stated a long time ago in a post far, far away.

Maybe it will be OK. Maybe not. Professionally I never developed an affinity for the many weapopn systems I worked on because I thought it unprofessional. I never developed one for the F-35, the M735, M749, Mk. 45 Mod IV, V or VI, or any of the others. I have faith in what I worked on and none in the rest until it gets proven.

So far it looks like the F-35 systems work OK when flying in peacetime. I hope the trend continues when it isn't peacetime. We'll see together. Let's hope it's a toast and not a wake.

I'm not trying to fight about it at all, but I have the right to my opinion as you have to yours and won't get railroaded into saying it is OK when that has yet to be shown. I have valid questions and they'll be answered soon enough for everyone. I was hoping to get them answered before spending ALL the money. Might not happen that way and we may well buy them all before we send them into realistic situations.

I can't affect it either way, whether I support it or loathe it.
 
Last edited:

If anything, it's the other way around. Most of the people who write about the F-35 are anti-F-35, and use propaganda techniques against it. For example, just look at the test report that I posted about earlier. If you Google "F-35 vs F-16", you'll mostly just see articles from the end of June to early July timeframe, rather than the April timeframe. It means that most of what is reported in the press is the revisionist "F-16 smacked down F-35 in a dogfight" misinterpretation of the report, rather than what the report actually said, which was reported back in April. Even Donald Trump has said he doesn't want the F-35 based on that misinterpretation of the report:

Trump wants to 'fire' F-35

Note that Trump thinks it's the test pilot that said the F-35 sucks, when it was actually the article's author that pulled quotes from the report out of context, and the test pilot was simply stating the limitations of the F-35's control software and how the software can be improved. But as far as Trump and likely the general public knows, the meme is "even test pilots say the F-35 sucks".

Or you can look at how these authors are trying to pin everything as the fault of the F-35. For example, that the F-35 "only" has a combat radius of 600 miles instead of 2500 miles is the reason why the Air Force needs to have the $100 billion LRS-B program:

https://archive.is/zZoMU

In short, pinning the cost of the LRS-B program on the F-35, as if we have any jet fighters that can go 2500 miles from base and return on one tank of gas.

Or, a fun one in my opinion, with the recent Trudeau victory in Canada, articles like this:

The Right Fighter For Canada Is The Super Hornet, Not The F-35

It talks about how the F-35's range is small compared to the vast arctic, then excitingly talks up how the Super Hornet will give a range increase compared to Canada's current Hornet, a significant improvement. This is part of its reasoning for why the Super Hornet would be a better aircraft than the F-35. What it doesn't bring up, however, is that the F-35's range is actually bigger than the Super Hornet's.

These are the types of articles about the F-35 that are pushed on the public on a regular basis. These authors literally make their living by writing articles critical of the F-35. And you're worried about pro-F-35 propaganda?
 
GregP said:
I didn't say it was a pig or that I was against it. I said I want to see it tested realisticaly, So far, I haven't seen it.
Click to expand...

Well you'll have to take that up with members of the tri-services who have made this aircraft the most extensively tested aircraft in aviation history.
GregP said:
I worked on the F-35, too, and did some detailed design analysis of the actuators. If they are typical of the aircraft, I'll pass on it.
Click to expand...

Well with several hundred F-35s built and flying they must work!

Not really - there is a large portion of the program that has to remain transparent and are under scrutiny by congress. Posted earlier was the issue with the ejection seat where it won't support a "135 pound pilot" but yet the same seat is used on several other aircraft.
Well perhaps you should and also review the actual flight test results that show the aircraft has either met or is meeting its design objectives
GregP said:
I'll get interested when they have some actual service data to analyze that doesn't come from the manufacturer, but rather from the users.
Click to expand...
This is the USAF site for the F-35 F-35 Lightning II Program Navy F-35C Lightning Boards Ike for Developmental Testing Marines U.S. Marines Corps declares the F-35B operational > The Official United States Marine Corps Public Website > News Display

And just to keep things even, here's a Marine report citing a Pentagon report disclaiming the USMC operational trials.

DoD report claims Marine F-35B is not ready for combat

GregP said:
So far, in good-wweather, peactime carrier landings and takeoffs, it seems OK. If it can't do that, then we're being duped by professionals. That doesn't make a warfighter. It makes for good press.
Click to expand...

If you read the last test reports on the F-35C, it completed additional carrier trials in marginal VFR weather. Its time to prove itself in combat be it war games or actual combat will come.
you do Greg, at the same time you'll also be challenged (or confirmed) by facts but I'll state again, right now you seem to be behind about two years in where the aircraft actually is on the flight test and deployment profile...
 
Last edited:
fastmongrel said:
Why should they when the US, Britain and France do the heavy lifting for Germany.
Click to expand...
I found it interesting how Merkel railed on Hungary and Croatia for denying access to the "refugees", talking down to them and then ended up choking on her own words when the swarms of "invited refugees" started inundating Germany and they ended up closing their own borders.
 
Could be 2 years behind, Joe. I'll look at your links this week as I get the time. Probably Friday at the earliest. I still think it is too much money for a strike fighter, but what modern plane isn't too much? Ask any user and that's what they'll say. It's sort of like a divorce ... when neither side is happy, it was probably a fair settlement.

I do NOT see how it will avoid WVR fights and remain BVR ... since the rules are mde by people who don't look at capabilities ... but, again, we'll see. The dog'll hunt or won't.

The F-15 has decades of successful no-loss intercepts. We'll see what the F-35 does in due time. Since we'll have 2,400+ of them and 177 or less F-22s, I'm betting the F-35 will get a lot of intercepts, or at least that makes sense to me.

Data should be forthcoming soon. If not, then something is VERY wrong. The USA historically hasn't purschased large numbers of loser aircraft ... but this one was so political I can't say one way or the other exactly how biased or nonbiased the decision was.

Only results will tell us. As I stated some months ago, I hope it works out OK since we'll be flying it regardless of its merits or lack thereof. Might as well try for the best outcome and think the worst only when it is proven to be true.

My real opinion isn't necessarily bad ... it is undecided at this time. I take a lot of pride in waiting for the worst to come to pass before saying it is so, both as a supervisor and as an interested military observer. I just have to state that there are only two cases ... the F-35 is a good one or it is not. Mediocre falls into the "not" category, so there are really only 2 choices ... good or bad. The jury is out for a lot observers including me, but that situation can't last.

The platform will perform or it won't. We'll probably know for sure before the end of 2016 ... assuming service deployment doesn't get "interrupted." Hell, we've waited for over a decade. One more year won't set the world on fire and destroy our sanity.

I am of the opinion thath positive spins on the F-35 are just as misleading as negative spins are. It would be nice to just report the facts and let it go at that, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, an unbiased reporter seems to be yet to be hired. Reading an article on the F-35 will rapidly show you which side the aurthor is on, but the articles sometimes seem so reasonable until you disect them ...
 
Last edited:

Since Vietnam the politicians learned - AFAIK we (the US) have not put US combat aircraft in a situation where visual ID had to be made with the enemy and an aggression had to be undertaken by the same enemy before our forces could take action. During the Gulf War I believe there was only a couple incidents where air battles were fought VR from the onset.
GregP said:
The F-15 has decades of successful no-loss intercepts. We'll see what the F-35 does in due time. Since we'll have 2,400+ of them and 177 or less F-22s, I'm betting the F-35 will get a lot of intercepts, or at least that makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
And once again Greg, you're not getting it - The F-35's primary role is that of a STRIKE AIRCRAFT. If we go by past history you'll find that when the F-16 was used to perform intercepts and enforce no-fly zones they were doing in an environment where there was little or no opposition.
You've answered the quagmire...

Well the facts are that several hundred of these aircraft have been built, they are in the process of being deployed, foreign buyers are taking delivery of them and there's a production line in Italy. If this aircraft wasn't meeting it's design goals, do you really think all this would be happening as we speak? In the end, look at the fly-specs the media is still emphasizing - the 135 pound ejection seat, the hot fuel issue, the AoA test against the F-16 and the now-moldy Rand Report. My opinion is this aircraft will deploy, perform as advertised and the long Range Strike Bomber will be the new scorn of the media and press.

As of right now this aircraft had been performing brilliantly and with the exception of the engine fire had few issues when compared to some of the aircraft it is planned to replace. the link I provided is a good piece about the F-16, it's ups and downs during development and early deployment. What do you think would happen to the F-35 today if this was allowed to happen today?

On January 20, 1974, during a high-speed taxi test, General Dynamics test pilot Phil Oestricher applied what he thought were small control-stick inputs in the standard method used to check the airplane's roll response. However, in response to the pilot's input, the control stick in the YF-16, mounted on the right instead of the customary center, didn't actually move. Instead, it measured the pressures exerted by the pilot's hand and relayed that data, via electronic sensors, to hydraulic actuators in a newfangled fly-by-wire control system. The simulator Oestricher had flown didn't adequately portray the stick forces, so he hadn't learned to judge how much aileron he was commanding.

Too much, apparently. The YF-16 oscillated wildly, banging the right elevator on the runway. After struggling with the aircraft, Oestricher decided it would be safer to take off. The test director, retired Colonel Jim Rider, remembers being "up in the control tower, watching my career go down the tubes."

The short flight and landing were uneventful, no one got fired, and General Dynamics scheduled the first official flight for February 2. Retired Colonel Bob Ettinger, a YF-16 test pilot, was assigned to investigate the cause of the incident. He concluded that it "resulted from flying an antiquated flight test technique that didn't work for a fly-by-wire system." It would be one of many lessons taught by the new arrival.



The Outrageous Adolescence of the F-16 | Military Aviation | Air Space Magazine
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Similar threads

Gulf of Sidra 1981 Info wanted
Replies
7
Views
1K
Barrett
B
F
Allison J33 -A-24 Info
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
SR-72 Darkstar info
Replies
8
Views
1K
SaparotRob
M
Some Interesting Vietnam Shots
Replies
5
Views
1K
Gnomey
Experimental Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base. Some rare, unclassified footage
Replies
2
Views
703
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register