F-35 Grounded

Seems to me we wouldn't need all these rediculously expensive toys if we would learn to keep our noses out of everybody else's business.

Just my opinion.
 
Lawman said:
Bunk, E6B, and Huggy know exactly who the I am. You know the guys you tried to have a stand up argument with after they called you on what you were basing your garbage F-35 opinion on.

Again nobody cares if you have an opinion, but when you go spouting it off as gospel on an aviation forum and a guy with a much better prospective turns around and calls you on it, might be better to just go to the corner and color. Remember you started making statements about he F-35 before Bunk or me or anybody else called you on it. Don't try to play some victim sympathy card because we came down on you.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not trying to play anything here, AT ALL! And again, I posted a video and explained where I based my opinion from. I didn't go off on some half cocked diatribe, calling anyone to the carpet. As a matter of fact, I even asked to be educated. So show me, where I said "You don't know dick." If you're upset because I based my opinion off of the available information I have access to, I think you're the one who needs to unbunch their panties. If you don't lime my opinion, then either don't listen to it, or educate. Because this crap you're doing now helps no one. After all, isn't that the point of this place? To help each other out? Yeah, I've stepped in it a fee times here. But I think my shoes are fairly clean on this one.
 
RDoug said:
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.
Click to expand...
Joint-service, all-mission aircraft violate the airplane rule.

There is so much more to take away...
 
bksslc said:
Seems to me we wouldn't need all these rediculously expensive toys if we would learn to keep our noses out of everybody else's business.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Those expensive toys were awfully nice to have in 1991, too.

I'm not a fan of catch-all aircraft design...more a fan of catch-all *systems*. I don't care about the individual mission each aircraft is accomplishing, but for the love of god, we have to communicate with each other in real time, along with boots on the ground.

Which is, so I hear, one of the primary roles of 5th gen designs- intel.
 
ne7y4upe.jpg
 
mshunter said:
Again, I'm not trying to play anything here, AT ALL! And again, I posted a video and explained where I based my opinion from. I didn't go off on some half cocked diatribe, calling anyone to the carpet. As a matter of fact, I even asked to be educated. So show me, where I said "You don't know dick." If you're upset because I based my opinion off of the available information I have access to, I think you're the one who needs to unbunch their panties. If you don't lime my opinion, then either don't listen to it, or educate. Because this crap you're doing now helps no one. After all, isn't that the point of this place? To help each other out? Yeah, I've stepped in it a fee times here. But I think my shoes are fairly clean on this one.
Click to expand...

This happens to me a lot or at least happened to me a lot with mountain bike advocacy. Just bear with me for a moment. People would say you don't understand the process, you don't understand how an EIR works or you don't understand the process of CEQA. We can't build a trail there because of the pink bellied retarded goose snake protection act of 1995. Etc. Basically people didn't want to hear my opinion and they shouted me down exactly the way you have been shouted down. I wasn't knowledgeable therefore I shouldn't have an opinion that mattered. As time wore on however, I was able to educate myself on the true facts and the proper vernacular to accomplish what I needed.

Now in this case you can't be educated on the true facts for another 10-20 years because it is mostly classified information that we are talking about. So you will never be on an even footing with those in the "room" shouting you down. However the video that you posted and the book "Boyd" all confirm what you are saying. That it is difficult to build an all purpose, all service high performance aircraft. Historical attempts at doing so have also failed again pointing to the same problematic issues. Keep in mind there are no classified laws of physics, or thermodynamics etc. So when it is said an aircraft with smaller wings for high speed can't turn very well at low altitude or that external stores will give away an aircrafts stealth advantage generally or that a big honking engine that uses a ton of gas can not loiter long enough to preform at the ground attack role as well as say the A-10, again generally you are correct to question a program that is intending to do just that.

Throwing lots of money at a problem that has basic flaws based in the laws of thermodynamics: lots of gas use. Or physics: can not turn low and slow like an A-10 does not seem like a logical way to proceed to me either. I would prefer if many domestic problems were solved prior to this. I feel that as someone who is partially paying for all this I have a right to question it as well. I could care less if someone were to bash me for my opinion. I'm quite used to being bashed for having an opinion that I am quite familiar with, so why would being bashed for having an opinion about something that attempts to defy logic, physics and thermodynamics.
 
Proud Pilot said:
I agree. What's his credentials to be so outspoken?
Click to expand...
At least he's not this guy:

http://www.expressjetpilots.com/the-pipe/showthread.php?52048-Scored-an-American-Airlines-interview

About
Location:
Cincinnati
Ratings:
Student Pilot
Flight Time:
25
Industry Sector:
N/A
Aircraft Type:
Cessnas


Proud Pilot said: ↑
Hello. This is my first post on Jetcareers. I'm so excited to be part of this wonderful online community. I'm a student pilot with aspirations to fly RJs at a regional and then to fly widebodies overseas at a major. I just wanted to say hello and hope to make new friends with you all.


Proud Pilot said: ↑
 
Last edited:
@A Life Aloft

I know it isn't a new idea but the only reason this guy hasn't been banned is that it has to be @Derg playing a joke. Even back in 2008 when he first came onto the site he was trolling. Nearly everything he says has to be done against the grain or to insight some sort of fight. How is that not a troll?
 
mshunter said:
Again, I'm not trying to play anything here, AT ALL! And again, I posted a video and explained where I based my opinion from. I didn't go off on some half cocked diatribe, calling anyone to the carpet. As a matter of fact, I even asked to be educated. So show me, where I said "You don't know dick." If you're upset because I based my opinion off of the available information I have access to, I think you're the one who needs to unbunch their panties. If you don't lime my opinion, then either don't listen to it, or educate. Because this crap you're doing now helps no one. After all, isn't that the point of this place? To help each other out? Yeah, I've stepped in it a fee times here. But I think my shoes are fairly clean on this one.
Click to expand...

Bull you didn't.

Your statement of F-35 is garbage was the first one up to bat in this conversation. Along with parroting a lot of stuff spewed out by Pierre Sprey and his alter worshiping fighter mafia aligned supporters. Again Pierre Sprey had some, read that some good ideas with regards to how not to build another F-105 when the Air Force was coming out of Vietnam. But he has refused to acknowledge revolutions in electronics and technology. Nobody would even dream of making a fighter jet without a radar but that's exactly what he was advocating. Nobody would say we don't need to focus on the BVR fight when that's where the vast majority of the fight would be because standoff means survivability he claims hat it's an impossible field to succeed in. Pierre Spreys mentality is stuck in the late 70s when the only way to win with poor solid state electronic missiles was to get behind an enemy with him looking away from you to see his exhaust. In a world of thrust vectoring high off boresight missiles and helmet mounted displays that's retarded thinking.

What irked me was as soon as Bunk (a military aviator with 20+ years of networking in that community) called you on why you think it's garbage you tried to lay your knowledge out on the table like you got the briefing non of us got. And you continued with it after him and others told you your off glide slope on this. And now your being called to task for it and going into this "well I'm all for education if you'll just let me learn." If you were for education you would have realized the second him and others like him started telling you on is forum your opinion is flawed you would have spooled down and listened, not tried to have a shoving match over it by waiving around your credentials and an interview with somebody with something to sell. Now your after me because who the hell am I with single digit posts to come in here and tell you the same thing. I'm a decade in Military Aviator (Army). I'm an aviation survivability officer as well. I'm not gonna sit here and argue the merits of investment banking strategy or fly fishing, but my field that's something I'll step into the octagon so to speak on.
 
Maurus said:
@A Life Aloft

I know it isn't a new idea but the only reason this guy hasn't been banned is that it has to be @Derg playing a joke. Even back in 2008 when he first came onto the site he was trolling. Nearly everything he says has to be done against the grain or to insight some sort of fight. How is that not a troll?
Click to expand...
He's a troll for sure. I have no idea if it's Doug, but I would think he has better things to do, especially given the posts with the same username and b.s. on another forum that I linked above. I am going with some kid, Mommy's basement, Microsoft Sim, wannabe, who thinks pilots are as stupid as we look. lol
 
BEEF SUPREME said:
Shortened down to not eat a page.
Click to expand...

Beef Supreme (love that movie by the way),

There are a lot of issues over the airplane, but they aren't with the airplane so much as we screwed up asking it to do X, Y, and Z because we were forced too. Prior to the mid 90s this was actually 3-4 separate programs running. Hat would have been fine but somehow engineers don't have people skills and somebody convinced Congress (after a few high profile development flops like A-12) that it would be perfectly reasonable to merge all three together. To people outside the loop grey airplanes is grey airplanes and they all do the same thing right? *fail*

Now I'd argue with the exception of the Harrier replacement (which was never intended to be a 5th gen aircraft) you could have merged all the other stuff together and made a very capable program that achieved its goals without going insane on cost over runs and needs to go back and rework problems. That's been the big issue on this program. Nobody would care about some quantitative number of improved capability over F-16 or F-18 if the thing was a 70 million dollar jet running on time and budget. But because of that VSTOL requirement there has been a hell of a lot more engineering and money thrown at this aircraft to make it work than what should have been required. Again... Not so much the planes fault, we could make a damn 80 foot walking Japanese war robot if we wanted to throw enough money at the problem.

The finished product it's self however does have a hell of a lot going for I that it's critics either ignore intentionally or through ignorance of it. The people in Boyd's camp say it's a turkey because it can't hang with a Raptor or an F-16 flying clean with 2 AIM-9s in some airshow flight configuration. That's not a surprise because nothing else can either. The people arguing that stealth is useless in the low down fight of CAS argue that's the only way to do CAS, thats a TTP developed specifically to use the Hawgs strengths (taking punches to the face) and ignore it's weaknesses (relatively poor sensor/standoff capability). With sensor fusion and weapons available there are ways to skin that cat that maintain survivability a different way than flying an armored bathtub yelling "come at me bro" while doing high angle 30mm strafe. Drones too... You hear they argument let's just use drones, because drones worked great for the last decade. Against a threat like dudes in manjams on motorcycles yes they did. But against a peer capable enemy (what the 35 is intended to keep us ahead of) they have a lot of ways to disable that capability and leave us with no other cards to play. People arguing lets just upgrade Eagle and Viper... Those airframes are reaching the ends of their lives in hours and becoming MX pigs because of it. Plus you run into the programing problem of getting box X from 1987 to work with new box Y from 2008 and other such issues so the bang for your buck short of redesigning and making new planes just isn't there.

That's just tip of the iceberg stuff. The guys flying it, they've told their buddies back in ready rooms and squadron lounges where they came from "dude... Trust me this will change how we fight for the better." Do I wish he damn thing had been done differently, absolutely. Do I worry that it's cost will make us do something stupid like we did with raptor and buy a very limited number, oh god yes. That's probably my biggest worry. But am I worried that when we stop flying the Vipers and Legacy hornets over my guys we are suddenly gonna loose air superiority or not provide CAS and Air Interdiction to pursue the Joint Forces Commanders Intent? No not at all.
 
Last edited:
In a small attempt to get back on track.....@Lawman I watched a video of the F-35B which was filmed recently at the MCAS Air Show in Yuma. I have never served and my knowledge of military aircraft is very limited (except for WWII and Vietnam era and I am always trying to learn more about current helos) and the paces they took her through seemed a bit tame, or at least that was my observation. Watched another recent outing at Cherry Point and she was pushed more, plus it was a longer flight and enjoyed seeing her. Everything I read (which is not extensive at all) is that pilots who have flown her really like many things about the controls, intuitiveness, responsiveness and how easy/natural the transition was/is from SIM to aircraft.

I have just started looking at diagrams of the various configurations of the plane and the types of weapons she can carry, (which is a pretty amazing list).

It would be great if they discover what happened with the recent engine issue sooner rather than later and be able to fly at Farnborough.

I don't know if you (or anyone else here) would have info on something I am very interested in or would even be able to say and I understand that probably much of what I am going to ask is classified so I won't get that much info from any source, but I am interested in the displays and info that is available to the pilot in the helmet. It apparently eliminates the need for a HUD. Besides supplying the basic info on the aircraft operations while it is flying, it supposedly does much more having to do with an above and below the horizon tactical displays? There are a number of cameras (6 I think) mounted to the aircraft in various locations that can be then presented on the helmet screen. Supposedly the pilot can see clear to the ground and beneath his aircraft as well. I also don't know where (location) or how the controls for the helmet or the cameras work either. If you have any knowledge or info I could look at in a link, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Lawman said:
Bull you didn't.

Your statement of F-35 is garbage was the first one up to bat in this conversation. Along with parroting a lot of stuff spewed out by Pierre Sprey and his alter worshiping fighter mafia aligned supporters. Again Pierre Sprey had some, read that some good ideas with regards to how not to build another F-105 when the Air Force was coming out of Vietnam. But he has refused to acknowledge revolutions in electronics and technology. Nobody would even dream of making a fighter jet without a radar but that's exactly what he was advocating. Nobody would say we don't need to focus on the BVR fight when that's where the vast majority of the fight would be because standoff means survivability he claims hat it's an impossible field to succeed in. Pierre Spreys mentality is stuck in the late 70s when the only way to win with poor solid state electronic missiles was to get behind an enemy with him looking away from you to see his exhaust. In a world of thrust vectoring high off boresight missiles and helmet mounted displays that's retarded thinking.

What irked me was as soon as Bunk (a military aviator with 20+ years of networking in that community) called you on why you think it's garbage you tried to lay your knowledge out on the table like you got the briefing non of us got. And you continued with it after him and others told you your off glide slope on this. And now your being called to task for it and going into this "well I'm all for education if you'll just let me learn." If you were for education you would have realized the second him and others like him started telling you on is forum your opinion is flawed you would have spooled down and listened, not tried to have a shoving match over it by waiving around your credentials and an interview with somebody with something to sell. Now your after me because who the hell am I with single digit posts to come in here and tell you the same thing. I'm a decade in Military Aviator (Army). I'm an aviation survivability officer as well. I'm not gonna sit here and argue the merits of investment banking strategy or fly fishing, but my field that's something I'll step into the octagon so to speak on.
Click to expand...

Wow man. Just..... wow. I'm honestly speechless. The only thing I got is I was brought into the octagon. Because I posted a video, and said what I had read. Didn't know that was a crime.

Welcome to Jet Careers.
 
Lawman said:
I'm a decade in Military Aviator (Army).
Click to expand...

There's the problem right there. Darn "Humvee driver at 50 AGL"; my place of employment is crawling with them..... :)

Lawman said:
To people outside the loop grey airplanes is grey airplanes and they all do the same thing right? *fail*

The people arguing that stealth is useless in the low down fight of CAS argue that's the only way to do CAS, thats a TTP developed specifically to use the Hawgs strengths (taking punches to the face) and ignore it's weaknesses (relatively poor sensor/standoff capability). With sensor fusion and weapons available there are ways to skin that cat that maintain survivability a different way than flying an armored bathtub yelling "come at me bro" while doing high angle 30mm strafe.
Click to expand...

Very true on the A-10 TTPs. While the bathtub is great and all, the canopy is still plexiglass (forward windscreen isn't). Maneuver all you like down low, but take a round in the cockpit while in a steep bank, and the cool armored bathtub now becomes an armored catchers' mitt, with the pilots pink body in the middle.

When it comes to the A-10, you're right, it isn't the only one that does CAS nowdays, and too, it only does one style of CAS. Planes have been dropping bombs and such in support of ground forces for a long time now. An A-10 down low is providing CAS visually often, a B-52 can be providing CAS in it's own way up high (even did so in the Tet Offensive, prior to all the smart munitions). One is more flexible than the other, and one has far more load carrying and endurance than the other; but both are doing CAS. That's what guys miss in many of the arguments when they only focus on things like what you mentioned: one method of CAS. And even with that, the A-10C has become not much more than a slow-F-16, with the upgrades it has received. Even tactics, where manual bomb deliveries used to be a qual event.......either you qual or you aren't combat ready; today, those are only fam events. No requirement for qualification.

On that note, while I love the older aircraft just as anyone does, we do need to move forward with technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top