Page 104 of 111 FirstFirst ... 9596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111 LastLast
Results 1,546 to 1,560 of 1659

Thread: What is up with the F-35? Part II

  1. #1546
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,744
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    The F-35 is designed for 8000 hours rather than the typical 6000 to avoid the need for extensive (and expensive) Service Life Extension Programs. It's designed with excess power generation in anticipation of DEWs, better radars, and newer computers that will exist 30 years from now. It is built to be easy to upgrade as it matures.
    Considering the costs of buying new fighters, specially in the future, I doubt there won't be any Service Life Extension Programs, specially for non-US F-35s...

  2. #1547
    Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    For defense it goes both ways. Sometimes the customer is the problem, some times the contractor, some times both.

    In this case it was a healthy dollop of both.

    The Canadian government's folly isn't questioning the costs. It's charging headlong into the program when problems were rife then charging headlong out of it just as problems are pretty much fixed.
    That's well put!

  3. #1548
    Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by YellowFever View Post
    A sizable chunk of the delay/cost over run problems can also be placed at the feet of the government that kept changing the requirements.
    Which government would that be then?

    I don't know if the problems that plagued this airplane goes anymore beyond what other programs had to go through but surely the advent of Internet and everybody and their sister constantly critizing every little setback and blasting it all over the net had also contributed a great deal to the general negative feelings towards the program.
    Nah, I'd say its definitely the cost of it.

    But seriously, Every ground breaking project gets cost over runs. The extent of those cost over runs should always be scrutinized though...

  4. #1549
    Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    The F-35 series is not an incremental change...it is a revolutionary change. It is massive. As YF and others have said the amount of issues the aircraft had to overcome were huge...but that is because of how complex the aircraft is. But it is that complex because of how capable the aircraft is. It far outstrips the aircraft it is replacing in just about all categories. And the biggest issue that has been overcome is the integration of the software. This is not just a platform...it is a system of systems.

    I will also say this about the aircraft...it is very easy to maintain.It has been designed from the start to be easy to maintain. That is key because it keeps them in the fight. Sustainability has been pounded into the heads of those of us in the acquisition community. If it is not sustainable it doesn't go to the force. And what also helps is they, smartly, got acquisition logisticians on the project early to point out possible sustainability issues in the design so it could be modified early enough to help keep costs in line.

    The old adage you get what you pay for has never been truer than in this case.
    If its so good, How was it out performed in a dog fight with an F16??

  5. #1550
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    15,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    If its so good, How was it out performed in a dog fight with an F16??
    That has been thoroughly debunked a long time ago.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  6. #1551
    Idiot Mode [ON] OFF Senior Contributor YellowFever's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Jul 06
    Posts
    6,034
    The aircraft in question, AF-2 is a early built model (it was never built to go operational I don't think) with a limited kinetic envelope (in other words, it wasn't allowed to use it's full manuverability), and it was without the software that would allow it to use it's sensors.

    It was also without it's stealth coating.

    If "dogfighting" was everything, we would have kept the f-8s.

    This is one of the things I mentioned about the internet thing. Information is poured out there without the proper perspective that it makes the F-35 look like a piece of junk.
    Last edited by YellowFever; 19 Dec 16, at 22:06.

  7. #1552
    Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    580
    So if it was a dubious source, which wouldn't surprise me at all. Could you please point me in the right direction, To debunk this even further?

  8. #1553
    Idiot Mode [ON] OFF Senior Contributor YellowFever's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Jul 06
    Posts
    6,034
    Nothing to debunk.

    It happened.

    But it wasn't a fully operational F-35 going up against the F-16D.

    But in a pure knife fight, I really wouldn't be surprised if the Falcon does enjoy an advantage.

    But we had a F-15 fighter pilot here a couple years ago who used to say pure dogfighting is like two guys fighting in no man's land with knives in WW1.

    What good is winning one if there are many others ready to slot you with rifles all around?
    Last edited by YellowFever; 19 Dec 16, at 22:22.

  9. #1554
    Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by YellowFever View Post
    The aircraft in question, AF-2 is a early built model (it was never built to go operational I don't think) with a limited kinetic envelope (in other words, it wasn't allowed to use it's full manuverability), and it was without the software that would allow it to use it's sensors.

    It was also without it's stealth coating.

    If "dogfighting" was everything, we would have kept the f-8s.

    This is one of the things I mentioned about the internet thing. Information is poured out there without the proper perspective that it makes the F-35 look like a piece of junk.
    That's why its a good thing this site exists on the Internet. I like many, are realizing how much horse crap we're being fed by the media. So its refreshing to come on here and read different more informed perspectives. We're all guilty of being sucked in by the media in one way or another depending on where we live. I've been interested in this stuff, equipment , politics, strategy etc for many years, but I've been out of the loop for 10 years plus because of work commitments. So I'm a bit slow on new developments. I pick up the angles pretty quick though. So don't lose faith. You are penetrating (pardon the expression) my thick skull, cheers!

  10. #1555
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    15,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    So if it was a dubious source, which wouldn't surprise me at all. Could you please point me in the right direction, To debunk this even further?
    As YF said, it's not the event itself. It's what the event was and what it was not.

    It's rather like the infamous Cope India '04 exercise: A splendid performance by the Indian Air Force to be sure...but not at all what it appeared to be on the surface.

    The biggest thing about two "friendly" aircraft mixing it up against each other is that you're not trying to see who is "better". It's about training, evaluation and problem-solving.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  11. #1556
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    15,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I pick up the angles pretty quick though. So don't lose faith. You are penetrating (pardon the expression) my thick skull, cheers!
    Glad to have you here! :-)
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  12. #1557
    Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    you're not trying to see who is "better". It's about training, evaluation and problem-solving.
    Sounds familiar...

  13. #1558
    Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by YellowFever View Post
    Nothing to debunk.

    It happened.

    But it wasn't a fully operational F-35 going up against the F-16D.
    That nails it, thanks :-)

  14. #1559
    Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Glad to have you here! :-)
    Cheers, Well its definitely 1 up on FB ;-)

  15. #1560

    Join Date
    11 Apr 08
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I thoroughly disagree. One of the biggest things they've done with the F-35 program is take the long view of the entire life of the platform rather than just trying to build it for what we need today.

    The F-35 is designed for 8000 hours rather than the typical 6000 to avoid the need for extensive (and expensive) Service Life Extension Programs. It's designed with excess power generation in anticipation of DEWs, better radars, and newer computers that will exist 30 years from now. It is built to be easy to upgrade as it matures.

    Of course none of those features are particularly useful today, and they all add to the procurement costs up front. Yet they will save a TON of money later down the line, and allow for better upgrades than other fighters because it has ample headroom to grow.
    Well I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. Last month Lockheed said they need another half billion dollars to finish the development phase, and this time they really mean it unlike the other times I guess.

    I am reminded of an old book (1940) titled "Tragedy in France" by the (at the time) well known French author André Maurois. It was an attempt to explain to the rest of the Free World how France got trounced in 6 weeks despite having a numerically superior and arguably technically superior military. One of his explanations was that many of the higher technology weapons such as aircraft had a budget stretched out over several years and that a fleet of combat ready fighters (for example) would not get brought up to strength by the addition of a percentage of the amount each year,but all of them were brought up together so not many were truly combat ready, at least from a practical point of view. Anyway, that was how I remember it but take it with a grain of salt as it has been many years since I read it, and in 1940 most everything involving the war was going to be propaganda for one side or the other.

    Anyway, I hate to sound like a commie pinko but I see the main advantage of an extended airframe life for the most expensive weapons system in history is that you can use it as a carrot for military brass involved in the program as they will know there will be plenty of consulting jobs available long after they retire from a military career.

    I sincerely hope I am proved wrong at some point, but I will be more surprised if I am than if I am not, sadly enough.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sig P250, Part 2
    By GraniteForge in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 26 Nov 08,, 00:04
  2. What part do you disagree with?
    By Roosveltrepub in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22 Apr 08,, 16:52
  3. Who wants to be a part?
    By joey2 in forum International Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22 Nov 06,, 00:31
  4. I did my part
    By bren in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08 Nov 06,, 10:49

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •