F-35 Grounded

[GypsyPilot]

How do you know it's a piece of garbage? Are you on the production team?

When I graduated college in 2001 I was working for Rolls Royce, one of the vendors in competition for the lift fan at the time. They/we lost the bid to Lockheed, but here we are 13 years later dealing with this crap? Yeah, I'd say that's a problem. Kelly Johnson is rolling over in his grave over this BS, I have no doubt whatsoever.

 

[rockman2343@aol.com]

It's written in our national defense policy that we have that capability. It is costly, but if the next big war happens, that piece of the puzzle is huge. Marines on the ground want/need that support. It isn't just FOBs that it operates from. It mainly operates from ships.

I know that DOD seems highly bloated and wasteful, and in some respects it is. Getting a next generation fighter to our operators is not. Look at countries like China and see the capabilities they are spending money on. We can either keep up or accept that we are going to be a second rate world power in a few decades.

Interesting, I wasn't aware that having VTOL was policy. That being said, I think we could do without it. Between conventional carriers and our air refueling capability, I don't see us having a problem getting CAS to the marines on the ground.

 

[Hacker15e]

There are two completely separate issues at hand here, so don't mix 'em up:

- The teething problems of a new weapon system, which pretty much every new and complex weapon system goes through, and
- The conceptual need for, and design/construction/testing/execution of, the JAST/JSF/F-35 program.

The first is the purpose of this thread.

The second is proof that we don't know, or learn from, our own recent military aircraft design/acquisition history (see TFX program and what aircraft it ended up birthing). We are unfortunately learning that we just can't do all-service, all-mission aircraft given the current state of technology.

As an aside, I'd love for folks to go back and look at the discussions from 2008-2009 when SECDEF Gates refused to buy more F-22s, and at the multitude of folks who raved about how much better and cheaper it was going to be to buy Lightnings instead.

 

[scoobs]

http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/topic/20341-f-16-co-designers-take-on-the-f-35/

 

[ryan1234]

Nope. But it lacks the range, payload and maneuverability of nearly every thing we currently have in service. When one of the nations top fighter designers comes out and says "it's a turkey," I tend to listen to the experts, and do a little digging.

To be fair, Sprey is completely out of the OODA loop (see what I did there?). He wasn't really a "co-designer" of the F-16, rather he made contributions to E-M theory that influenced the design, along with Boyd. Harry Hillaker was the actual designer of the F-16.

There are real and current threats that the F-35 can address very well. It absolutely does have the growing pains, but the problem is what else is there? The F-35 platform actually allows for an easier spiral development in capabilities as the aircraft matures over time.

 

[RDoug]

We are unfortunately learning that we just can't do all-service, all-mission aircraft given the current state of technology.

Ain't that the truth. The F-111 fiasco only turned out to be a true asset once the Navy dropped out, and once the mission changed to straight tactical delivery of both conventional and nuclear weaponry. Until both those things happened, the Aardvark was a complete loser. As it is, the F-111 never performed all of its original intended missions.

Proof that joint-service, all-mission aircraft requirements are folly on a colossal scale. You would have thought we learned that lesson in the '60s. But, then, the lessons of Vietnam were certainly lost in the rush to invade Iraq as well.

 

[bunk22]

When I graduated college in 2001 I was working for Rolls Royce, one of the vendors in competition for the lift fan at the time. They/we lost the bid to Lockheed, but here we are 13 years later dealing with this crap? Yeah, I'd say that's a problem. Kelly Johnson is rolling over in his grave over this BS, I have no doubt whatsoever.

I'm not talking about the R&D, testing, procurement process, etc...I'm asking, how do you know it's not a good aircraft?

 

[bunk22]

Nope. But it lacks the range, payload and maneuverability of nearly every thing we currently have in service. When one of the nations top fighter designers comes out and says "it's a turkey," I tend to listen to the experts, and do a little digging.

Really? So what exactly is the performance envelope, capabilities of the jet? Specifically, what experts? Lets read what they say and not biased opinion from a magazine, I mean from those flying the aircraft. I know people who have flown it. So lets hear what these "experts" have to say.

 

[mshunter]

Really? So what exactly is the performance envelope, capabilities of the jet? Specifically, what experts? Lets read what they say and not biased opinion from a magazine, I mean from those flying the aircraft. I know people who have flown it. So lets hear what these "experts" have to say.

What, so I'm not allowed to form my opinions from what I read and watch? From reading your post, sounds to me like you have something to prove. Let's hear it. Your the one with all the mil experience. Rather than come off condescending, educate. I've already stated why I think it's a turd with specifications that are easily found.

 

[Lawman]

What, so I'm not allowed to form my opinions from what I read and watch? From reading your post, sounds to me like you have something to prove. Let's hear it. Your the one with all the mil experience. Rather than come off condescending, educate. I've already stated why I think it's a turd with specifications that are easily found.

I'd assume his social circles consisting of military pilots with both the access to SIPR material on the subject and he knowledge to interpret them would form a much better opinion than what you saw or read on aussieairpower.net or the discovery channel.

Could the F-35 have been better... Sure if Congress hadn't forced the DOD to merge a 4th generation Harrier replacement program in with JAST and he Vipers replacement program. Didn't happen that way. But anyone insisting that either drones or modernized 4th gen aircraft (which have already maxed out most of their available weight and power/cooling capabilities to accept modification) can achieve anything resembling air supremacy against a peer threat (China or Russia) is selling something else.

 

[Soku39]

What, so I'm not allowed to form my opinions from what I read and watch? From reading your post, sounds to me like you have something to prove. Let's hear it. Your the one with all the mil experience. Rather than come off condescending, educate. I've already stated why I think it's a turd with specifications that are easily found.

I can't believe this is turning into a pissing match. There are like maybe 3 people on this board qualified to talk about how good the F-35 is, or is not, and I'm pretty sure no one on jetcareers has flown it. That said, if anyone should speak is should probably be the -18 and -15 bubbas, or anyone else that has pointy noise experience outside of the T-38 and T-45 education business.

The acquisitions process is what it is, maybe when guys that are in become flag and general officers it'll change. I doubt it, but this is just how it works I guess.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

Ain't that the truth. The F-111 fiasco only turned out to be a true asset once the Navy dropped out, and once the mission changed to straight tactical delivery of both conventional and nuclear weaponry. Until both those things happened, the Aardvark was a complete loser. As it is, the F-111 never performed all of its original intended missions.

Proof that joint-service, all-mission aircraft requirements are folly on a colossal scale. You would have thought we learned that lesson in the '60s. But, then, the lessons of Vietnam were certainly lost in the rush to invade Iraq as well.

TFX was a McNamara idea, nobody else liked it or thought it would work.

That said, hindsight suggests that timing plays a big role. The Lightweight Fighter program could have yielded a common airframe based on the timing of common needs. Other than that, I can't think of too many other cases in the last 40 years in which timing (concurrent needs of Navy and AF) would have worked out. Maybe there was room for a common tactical EW aircraft as the Navy looked to replace the Prowler and the Air Force looked to dump the EF-111.

 

[mshunter]

I can't believe this is turning into a pissing match. There are like maybe 3 people on this board qualified to talk about how good the F-35 is, or is not, and I'm pretty sure no one on jetcareers has flown it. That said, if anyone should speak is should probably be the -18 and -15 bubbas, or anyone else that has pointy noise experience outsid

The acquisitions process is what it is, maybe when guys that are in become flag and general officers it'll change. I doubt it, but this is just how it works I guess.

It's no different than the fat kid who never played ball having a favorite sports team. Some people are just getting their feelings hurt because they don't like opinions others have formed, and rather than just come out and say it, they use a ridiculous lead in to try and berate and belittle the persons opinion they disagree with.

 

[rockman2343@aol.com]

I still say kill the VTOL, and go with Strike Raptors, if this were the beginning of the program. Doesn't really matter now, so much money has already been wasted.

My question is how much of these delays are due to the normal process of developing an airplane, and how much of it is Lockheed milking Uncle Sam.

 

[Roger Roger]

I'm not talking about the R&D, testing, procurement process, etc...I'm asking, how do you know it's not a good aircraft?

Well, I mean, it might be a great aircraft but if it's broken all the time because it's overly complex due to trying to be all things to all people, it doesn't do us a whole lot of good.

 

[Roger Roger]

I still say kill the VTOL, and go with Strike Raptors, if this were the beginning of the program. Doesn't really matter now, so much money has already been wasted.

My question is how much of these delays are due to the normal process of developing an airplane, and how much of it is Lockheed milking Uncle Sam.

From talking to a guy who worked on the production line building the 35, it sounds like a lot of it is Lockheed milking Uncle Sam. The way he made it sound there was absolutely no incentive for anyone involved in the process to do anything in a fashion that remotely resembled efficiency. Granted that's very third hand but it doesn't seem really surprising coming from the military industrial complex so I lend a little credence to it.

 

[Boris Badenov]

It's no different than the fat kid who never played ball having a favorite sports team. Some people are just getting their feelings hurt because they don't like opinions others have formed.

It's more like if the fat kid were being taxed to build a sports stadium, and all the sports players got pissy that he was asking too many questions. Shut up and give us your money.

 

[mshunter]

It's more like if the fat kid were being taxed to build a sports stadium, and all the sports players got pissy that he was asking too many questions. Shut up and give us your money.

Nah. I could care less, to a point, what the stadium costs. But I want a fully capable stadium for my money. So far, this stadium seems only to seat half of what we were told it will. And the stadium theybtorn down seemed to be doing a fine job. It's like when the LA Kings did the game at Dodger stadium. Sure, a few people with front row seats liked it. But the majority of fans felt ripped off because it was the wrong venue for it

 

[rockman2343@aol.com]

From talking to a guy who worked on the production line building the 35, it sounds like a lot of it is Lockheed milking Uncle Sam. The way he made it sound there was absolutely no incentive for anyone involved in the process to do anything in a fashion that remotely resembled efficiency. Granted that's very third hand but it doesn't seem really surprising coming from the military industrial complex so I lend a little credence to it.

I haven't done too much research into it. That being said, it just seems a little ridiculous that using 1950s technology, we can get the U-2 off in three years, and now it's taking 20 years to get something new in the air. I get the plane is more sophisticated and there are more safety restrictions with flight testing now, but it just seems awfully long.

Their should definitely be safeguards for the government to prevent a company from promising to deliver more than they can at the beginning of a program. These companies know that once the government signs, the government is more likely to pour more money into the program when "unforeseen problems" arise, rather than cancel and start over.

 

[swisspilot]

It's written in our national defense policy that we have that capability. It is costly, but if the next big war happens, that piece of the puzzle is huge. Marines on the ground want/need that support. It isn't just FOBs that it operates from. It mainly operates from ships.

I know that DOD seems highly bloated and wasteful, and in some respects it is. Getting a next generation fighter to our operators is not. Look at countries like China and see the capabilities they are spending money on. We can either keep up or accept that we are going to be a second rate world power in a few decades.

Why is it so important to be a "first rate power"?