The Lockheed Martin F35 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 08:49:04 am
content: Wow, what an engineering pooch screw the F35 is:https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-stealth-fighter-may-never-be-ready-for-combat-852317be3368#.5zkkv71lrAustralia ordered 72 of these turkeys

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 09:14:39 am
content: My wild guess would be that they went for way too high a specification and functionality. The excessive ambitions for it, means that they have ended up with something which is not finished, and probably never will be.Yet it has been bought by varioussuckerscountries.When you are a tiny cog as part of such a project (engineering the electronics/software/mechanics etc). It can be blindingly obvious that things are never going to work out, and drastic changes are needed. But in practice it is very difficult indeed, to do anything about it.You can leave, but that won't really fix it.You can contact high management, without authorization about it.But that strategy will probably both not work and get you fired.It isNOTobvious what the solution is. Because at the end of the day, the politicians (i.e. the buyers) are probably the faulty bit, I guess.Analogy:At work, you really, really need a 1 GHz oscilloscope. Some managers will listen, and agree to budget for you to buy a brand new 1 Ghz oscilloscope. Result = Success!But bad managers can ignore the workers and buy a 20 Mhz analogue, second hand scope with only one channel that still works. Result is possible failure!Or (completely over do it) try and order a 99,999,999,999 GHz oscilloscope, which is currently impossible. They then waste $99,999,999 paying for an oscilloscope to be delivered, which doesn't even work as a simple 20 MHz one. Result = waste of $99,999,999 and a non-working scope.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 09:29:41 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on December 26, 2016, 09:14:39 amYep, seems they opted for (or ended up with) a Jack of all trades, master of none.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 09:31:31 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 26, 2016, 08:49:04 amWe built two aircraft carriers for them. The US won't let them be repaired in the UK. The first contingent flying from the UK aircraft carriers will - reputedly - be US pilots!But realistically many weapons systems are never fully ready for combat, and are continually being modified.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 09:32:42 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 26, 2016, 09:29:41 amWell, there are three radically different variants, he A, B, and C!But think F-111 or Tornado

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 09:34:47 am
content: Someone has recommended this (haven't watched it yet, but the firs few minutes look funny)

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 09:40:49 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 26, 2016, 09:29:41 amEven just specifying simple IT equipment, by government, ends up in disaster.E.g.A government owned/controlled library needs an IT book lending system.A business would let an IT expert write the specs. Those straightforward and practical specs would be used to deliver the working system, on time, within budget, fully working, 12 months later.Whereas the government, takes two years to create a specification (which should have only taken 2 weeks). They have put in a huge number of requirements into the "simple" library IT system.While the contracted company writes the library IT system, over a number of years. The government, keeps on continually changing the specifications.End result is it takes 5 years, is over budget by a factor of ten, and never works properly. So the library continues using the paper system.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 09:42:16 am
content: Might work against countries without any actual air defence capabilities, but otherwise likely to be farting against thunder.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 09:43:35 am
content: QuoteYes indeed.http://everist.org/archives/links/__F-35_fighter_plane_turkey.txtAlso was discussed here before:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/f-35-at-farnborough-airshow/msg999496/#msg999496Two things went wrong with the design process:a. The military insisted it should be able to do too many things. Result: it does nothing well. Too heavy, wings are too small for the weight, the space for the vertical lift fan roots the design for all versions, not enough room for armaments (pathetic small number of canon rounds, as if the canon will ever work anyway), and so on.b. The US military industrial complex is in the terminal phase of collapse by corruption, incompetence, and disappearing up its own fantasy arse. Hence the mind boggling cost, combined with massive impracticality of the F35. It's simply not fit for purpose.If Australia just canceled the stupid things, we could have completely free higher education for about forever.But our morons in government will never have the sense to do that. Instead it will probably be up to Trump to kill the F35 and save us the pain.Edit:Over athttps://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/in an F-35 related thread, someone linked this:Quote

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 10:02:14 am
content: Reminds me of the NASA "90 day report" on going to Mars in 1989:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Initiativehttp://history.nasa.gov/90_day_study.pdfBush(1) asked what it would cost to go to Mars and every tinpot NASA department wanted their pet project included in the scheme, so they ended up proposing some convoluted system that utilised everyones pet idea and it ended up costing an insane amount of money. It would have been the F35 of the space program.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 10:11:21 am
content: From:https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-stealth-fighter-may-never-be-ready-for-combat-852317be3368#.5zkkv71lrQuoteIs this normal procedure to get such numbers of planes into the field that are not operationally ready?I can understand a handful out in the field as testing platform, but 175?

author: VK5RC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 10:34:30 am
content: It is doing better than the first F-14 which didn't even survive the first test flight! The pilot did though.Unfortunately the first casualty in War (or defence procurement) is the truth.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 10:40:47 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on December 26, 2016, 09:40:49 amWhat makes you think the government is the relevant feature? There are many manymanygross business cockups without government involvement. Mostly, but not always, businesses hide and deny their cockups (think nPower, and move on from there). Governments don't have that luxury.People are people. Organisations are dysfunctional.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 10:46:51 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on December 26, 2016, 10:40:47 amI agree. It is not in any way, shape or form, limited to Governments.But governments have managed to build up a bad reputation, for being especially bad at specifying/controlling/buying IT or military projects.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 11:10:29 am
content: it's a typical corporate project nowadaysit's like that in EVERY big corporation which is old enough... every corporation (let it be aviation, IT or whatever else industry) comes to a point when they can't develop anything useful and if they do it takes ages and cost 10 times more than anyone would like to pay. it's a result of a "rotten structure" , every publicly traded company is sooner or later "taken over" by finance guys, who know fuck-all about the particular industry, once it happens everything is being outsourced to "cheaper locations", workforce being streamlined... so they end-up with a company with tons of sub-vendors and cheap workforce which is not up to the task. such a company is obviously not able to develop anything, because there is no-one left in the management who actually understands the needs (collecting reports from subordinates and presenting a overly optimistic slide-decks based on half-true facts is not going to solve anything). such a company tries to "salvage" itself by various overly optimistic promises to shareholders or customers or eventually trying impress the public in order to rise the stock value (anyone remember the "the Machine" commercial)long story short... every big corporation is doomed because of the pressure from the finance guys... and that's why Dell decided to go private.i'm curious how much money will they suck from taxpayers till someone will realize something must be changed to make things work.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 11:10:47 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 26, 2016, 10:02:14 amYou need look no further than the space shuttle. A large part of it's design and complexity was to for full the requirements of the military version, such as the large wings etc. In the end the military version was never built. But NASA had the live with the legacy of the design.

author: babysitter
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 11:37:36 am
content: Maybe it will be a success like the Starfighter, german name "Witwenmacher" (widow maker.)After deployment it was easy to get one: Buy some acres of land, wait.

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 12:00:47 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on December 26, 2016, 09:42:16 amThis is what I don't get. Looking at the missions of our F-16s, they are used as ground attack against some angry beardmen with $50 AK-47 guns. What is our answer? Guided bombs that are $50k+ a piece on an airframe that costs roughly $20k per hour to operate. This is a war about who goes bankrupt first, and it won't be the beards.Many of these missions can easily be performed by something cheap like a Super Tucano. Might even be safer, as they are less vulnerable to heat seaking missiles. You only really need the highly advanced jets for interception/air superiority, any plane configured for ground attack will lose against something configured for air attack.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 12:48:54 pm
content: Quote from: rollatorwieltje on December 26, 2016, 12:00:47 pmThat's why they still use A10, although not for long, it seems.http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/a-10-warthogAnd Russians use SU-25 subsonic flying tanks a lot.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 12:50:17 pm
content: Hilarious! Through to 34:30https://youtu.be/iDYpRhoZqBY?t=30m35s

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 12:56:54 pm
content: It's scary to know we'll be out of air force in 2019.Completely funded into extinction.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 01:05:36 pm
content: Quote from: rollatorwieltje on December 26, 2016, 12:00:47 pmExactly. The other day a friend asked why Brazil was still investing in a turboprop multi-role aircraft and my explanation was exactly this: a supersonic aircraft is a much more expensive solution when your main targets are clandestine drug labs or air strips in the middle of the Amazon rainforest (and there is a possibility they will even be less effective). Translate that to other conflict zones and you end up with a good close ground support aircraft, such as the other two mentioned (the A-10 and the Su-25).

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 01:17:59 pm
content: what could possibly be the explanation for this when we can download a high definition movie in 10 min.For example, when it is working, it takes 24 hours to upload data from each plane into a new ALIS ground computer. So when an F-35 deploys to a new base, an entire day is lost as the data is passed to the new ALIS. And only one plane at a time can upload. So if the 12 F-35’s of Hill Air Force Base’s first “operational” squadron deploy to combat, it will take nearly two weeks to start maintaining the full squadron with ALIS.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 01:27:02 pm
content: The regional centralisation of maintenance facilities for the F35 should tell you that this is a toy and not a means of national defence. These things are supposed to have an operational life of 30 years or more. 30 years ago the alliances in Europe looked very different from today. If you aren't in a position to fully support your own equipment, you aren't serious about having it available in the event of conflict. You just can't predict who that conflict will be with.Modern Germany operates MiG29s, inherited from the old East Germany. As I understand it, East Germany could fully support its own MiGs, so now the modern Germany can, too. If the East Germans had totally relied on support from the USSR, would the unified Germany have been able to continue using them?

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 01:32:38 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 26, 2016, 01:27:02 pmDoes that include the ability to manufacture replacement parts? Iran was never able to really support their F-14s for that main reason after their revolution.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 01:43:55 pm
content: Quote from: retrolefty on December 26, 2016, 01:32:38 pmMany parts are just not going to be reproducible in a modern system - mostly electronic parts. This is just as true for the original manufacturer as for service centres around the world. Most military system maintenance is based on lifetime buys of highly customised parts (e.g. ICs) during the early life of the system. Iran didn't have control of a suitable parts store. I am not clear if they had the necessarily skilled personnel.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 02:21:09 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 26, 2016, 09:34:47 amI just watched this and can confirm it's amazing. I know the story behind it and it's basically 100% accurate.The part where the Colonel wants to put live sheep in a Bradley and then fire on it is the best part. The General in charge of the program really did create a department in the Pentagon dedicated to sheep procurement in order to dissuade the test. You literally can't make this shit up!Anyway, well worth a watch!

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 03:29:12 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 26, 2016, 08:49:04 amI've always suspected that the F35 is just a way for the US to soak up funds from it's smaller budgeted "allies". Stuff like Sweden's AASR and stealth drones represent far cheaper ways to defend your airspace, not the kind of technology the US is interested in seeing rapidly spread.Once you are pot committed to a political prestige stealth plane you're less likely to develop anti-stealth systems (at least not publicly, but doing it in secret is easier for the US ... those blimps they occasionally crash are likely part of that).

author: NottheDan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 04:06:55 pm
content: Quote from: retrolefty on December 26, 2016, 01:32:38 pmSheer necessity. The USSR was always bad about providing replacement parts, to the point that they told buyers "if you need spares, buy two planes".

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 04:21:55 pm
content: SA did have a good support system to keep the flying museum in the air, and this did include a lot of development of home built electronics and a lot of specialised optics, some of which is still being actively developed and sold world wide. We still make the only real mine proof vehicles, which are sold in large numbers to the USA, as for some reason they never had the need for one till they started being involved in non traditional engagements.Same for the targeting systems they developed and the advances they made off the basic airframes originally bought, though it is sad to see the aircraft I worked on flying in other countries, toothless and neutered, missing massive parts of the systems that made them effective against the opponents they faced, who were on paper much more capable.We did have a good locally developed spares line, who made modules and parts that were either unobtainable or no longer supplied for various reasons. Still have some left, doing aircraft parts for Rolls Royce aero engine support, and other specialised avionics roles. We did have a facility that could service the 747 electronics as well, but not sure if it still has the same staff skills any more.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2016, 05:23:38 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 26, 2016, 09:29:41 amWhen McNamara was SecDef ('61-'68), he wanted the F-111 which was a similar joint force fighter. Commonality, that's the key! That never did work out very well.The F-35 is to serve both Navy, Marines and Air Force. Well, the Navy wants two seats and the Air Force wants just one. There's not a lot of wiggle room. The Air Force planes are loaded with electronics, the Navy, not so much. The Navy wants the wings to fold up, the Air Force doesn't.I don't know that they have the arresting hook problems solved yet. It was a pretty big deal a couple of years ago.The F-35 was never designed at the top level. It was just built and rebuilt and rebuilt. Instead of design-build, this plane is build-design.There will never be a joint forces fighter. The missions and requirements are too dissimilar.Trump is right to kill this program. It won't happen because the program has employees working in 45 states. No congressman would dare kill a program benefiting his own state.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 06:22:51 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 26, 2016, 05:23:38 pmThe program if not killed can be changed. The "joint strike fighter" is a workable concept only for those who perhaps doesn't understand the different needs of the Navy v Air Force v Marines. The price keep changing but last number I recall seeing, the F35C for the Navy is a hell of a lot more (>1.5x) than the F35A or F35B, and they are estimated to be over $100m per copy.Perhaps we can even revive Boeing's competing version and see if we can have a few top-end one and a few more less costly ones for tasks with different demands.EDIT: adding this below from Lockheed Martin's own site:https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/costThe most recently contracted unit costs for Low Rate Initial Production lot 7 (not including the engine) are:F-35A: $98 millionF-35B: $104 millionF-35C: $116 million

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 06:29:43 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on December 27, 2016, 06:22:51 amYes. Perhaps the "out" is to dump a requirement that is going to piss off the least people. e.g. Navy requirement for example.After all, how many other countries want/need the Navy version?Tighten the operational focus and deliver a more focused design. Offer the losing client (e.g. Navy) something else as compensation.I suspect Trump's tweet about Boing is just business tactics 101 of threatening to take business elsewhere. It's what he does.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 06:34:22 am
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on December 26, 2016, 12:56:54 pmNew Zealand gave up their air force offensive capability in the early 2000's. Wasn't any need for it.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 06:41:26 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 27, 2016, 06:29:43 amIf China's 1000 nautical mile missiles do come into service, the US Navy may not even want the F35C with a range of only 500-615 nautical mile range...

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 06:55:15 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 27, 2016, 06:34:22 amNot that I wish New Zealand will learn a hard lesson, but this is like an army in Roman times carrying only shields but no sword.England did not need an air force in 1939, and perhaps even till August 1939. For some reason, September 1, 1939 changed their mind.This joint fighter is a particular bad idea for more reason than just different branch of service have different needs. The geo-political situation changes all the time. Imagine if Poland, England, France, and Germany all share a "joint" fighter then...For those who say it cannot happen, imagine if there was a lot of EU military assets in Ukraine Crimea in 2013, who would control those assets today?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 08:37:37 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 27, 2016, 06:29:43 amThe UK's carriers require the F35B

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 12:29:15 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 27, 2016, 06:29:43 amIts what he should do. Not every defence project is an economic and engineering disaster. Some are subject to genuine competition. That keeps them on their toes.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 03:57:49 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 27, 2016, 12:29:15 pmAs I recall, there was a "fly before you buy" program back in the '70s and I see we're trying it again:http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/175074/why-%E2%80%9Cfly-before-you-buy%E2%80%9D-is-vital-for-defense-acquisition.htmlNo aerospace contractor is going to design and build a prototype on their dime. They would be into the project for a few billion dollars before they ever got an order and if there was competition, by definition, somebody is going to lose a lot of money. Stockholders won't like that!I'm fairly certain that the contractors can design and build any aircraft the Pentagon can specify. But that's the rub! Getting the specs all down in writing. Real performance specs, real requirements. It seems to me that the F-35 isn't specified yet!I see that the F35C (Navy version) is a single-seat aircraft like the other variants. The Navy can't be happy about that!There was a time when the Defense Department had their own aircraft plants. Indeed, during and after WWII, the DoD owned the machine tools in many factories. Air Force Plant 19 is right across the bridge from the San Diego International Airport. It is now being used by the Navy but AFAIK, it still exists. I'm pretty sure the Convair plant on air field side of the bridge (paralleling the runway) is gone. I worked at both and at the Astronautics Division up on Kearny Mesa. General Dynamics was probably the best company I ever worked for or a close run at second.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/afp-19.htmI wonder if the DoD should open a plant to build prototypes not unlike the skunk-works plants adjacent to Edward Air Force Base (don't know what's out there anymore, I haven't been there since the late '70s). After the design is proven, bid it out for construction. The jigs and fixtures would already exist. Get the design right and then work on pricing.https://www.f35.com/about/variants

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 08:02:33 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 27, 2016, 03:57:49 pmIt wouldn't help to have government run designs, unless they are competing with another government or private industry designs. Only two things will motivate military designers to do a great job - massive casualties and competition. If you don't want your designs produced during a blood bath you'd better use competition to keep people on their toes.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 09:54:17 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 27, 2016, 03:57:49 pmNot just single-seat, the F35 is also single-engine. For the Navy, I think single-engine probably is as big a problem as single seat, but I am guessing.With China's improving anti-ship missiles and the (just past few days) live-fire tested carrier Liaoning, plus the home-growth-but-soviet-influenced second carrier being built... It would be really interesting to see what the US Navy will do. It would be twice as interesting to also see how the home grown Chinese military technology looks as they begin to replace current Soviet-style military tech with home grown ones.How the world will look for the rest this century is being formed. History is in the making.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 09:57:52 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on December 27, 2016, 06:55:15 amSame could be said for not having nukes, except the shield is made of paper ... just saying.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 10:28:14 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on December 27, 2016, 09:57:52 pmNot sure about that one. New Zealand signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). So in theory, if they are attacked, theUS and other NWS(nuclear power nation at the start of NPT)should respond. However, it is unclear to me whether it is just talk or a interpreted as a real treaty obligation.Granted, the recent Obama agreement with Iran weakened the NPT greatly, NPT should survived for a while yet. So, even if it is not a treaty obligation, NWS (at least for now) still have a moral obligation to respond when an NPT country attacked by nuke. Whereas, in so far as conventional air force is concern, New Zealand is on its own unless they have other treaties to rely on for help.

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 10:42:16 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on December 27, 2016, 10:28:14 pmI'm not sure how effective a few Skyhawks (only a handful were airworthy at any time) would have been against a prepared attacker. It was a token - 10 guys with copper swords against the Roman army, using your comparison. Looking ahead I think the right decision was made. Replacements would have been even more costly, and even more outdated as time progressed. They haven't been brought back at least, despite a change of govt.The bungle may have been the process involved. A sale of the decommissioned aircraft (into the US) was blocked by the US, so I guess they weren't happy with the decision at the time.I found a couple of articles which state that they were eventually sold to a US company in 2013 for 8 million. Storing them for 12 years cost 37 million.http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5970804/Skyhawk-fighters-finally-sell-to-US-buyerhttp://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8526152/New-life-for-RNZAF-jets

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 10:56:52 pm
content: Oh dear, seems we might need some jets now - apparently we have declared war on Israel:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/87981623/israel-warned-new-zealand-that-un-resolution-was-declaration-of-war--report

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 11:27:51 pm
content: What's Israel going to do ... not use it's massive current account surplus with New Zealand to buy New Zealand goods? Oh the horror, maybe New Zealand will have to stop giving all its land and goods away for free. I'm sure there will be different takers for a deal that sweet.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 27, 2016, 11:39:56 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on December 27, 2016, 10:28:14 pmThe NPT does not provide a nuclear umbrella.NZ was covered under the ANZUS treaty, but since they declared they are a non-nuclear zone and hence will not allow US ships and subs into their region, it seems they have been dropped from the US nuclear umbrella.NZ is still a commonwealth country though, so is protected by the UK nukes. There is also NATO.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 12:09:52 am
content: I'm quite sure the F35 program is just a codename for something much more nefarious the USA is building and they need to allocate the money somewhere... Like they are building a class 2 star destroyer or somethingQuite frankly, I'm not sure why all the countries are spending their last bit of money on a generation 5 jet fighter. It has only advantage if you are fighting against a foe with gen. 4.5 or 5 fighters. If you are equipped with 4.5 you can just tell them, "good luck with your 30 year old junk".And what are they thinking, like this will be sufficient for the future? What will happen, when they meet with a dozen figther drone? Shoot down two, run out of missiles, get outmaneuvered and shot by the remaining 10? Look at this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47BThey developed a combat ready drone using 0.1% of the budget. A predator drone is 25 times cheaper than this jet fighter. Guess which one would you rather like above your head, one F35 or 25 drones, each armed with 8 AGMs ready to be sacrificed if necessary.Reminds me of the wunderwaffe.

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 12:20:43 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 27, 2016, 11:39:56 pmYeah ANZUS is an interesting one. I don't know whether NZ is back on board or not.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 12:29:56 am
content: When you bring up drones people tend to throw out silly arguments like jamming and hacking. You can simply fly a bunch more drones as relays (or satellites if you have them) and tight beam UHF/EHF communication, good luck with jamming. As for hacking, I'd rate the chance of your giant black box F35 being hacked much higher than a drone with crypto and code you control if you are competent.As I said, the F35 seems most useful in getting "allies" pot committed to a plane which they sold to their constituents as a 30 year investment so they don't invest in anti-stealth and drones. It being a giant waste of money is far more a problem for them than the US, which can hide its budget and projects for the actual future. The F35 boondoggle buys them easier dominance.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 05:03:03 am
content: It's called "we are too stupid to learn from history" You can't make one plane be great at everything. Either it's an awesome air superiority fighter, or it's an awesome ground attack plane, or it's an awesome light/medium bomber. Trying to cram everything into one is just about the stupidest idea ever.The best ground attack bird STILL is the A10 Warthog (Thunderbolt if you are being proper). 30 years in service and they still get the job done, while protecting the pilot and able to return from missions with half the plane shot off.The movie is about yet another US military boondoggle, the Bradley fighting vehicle. So many compromises that the final product was all but useless.Interesting how Trump approaches Boeing about submitting an alternative design and suddenly Lockheed is all gung-ho about cutting costs and getting past the delays as quickly as possible.

author: boffin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 05:07:21 am
content: 15 years ago when the decision was made, it seemed to me that the Boeing version was a much simpler solution, and in the battlefield, simple is good.There was a very interesting documentary shot about the differences/builds of the two potential winners of the contract

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 07:08:35 am
content: The F-35 is totally, utterly pointless. The F-22 has been flying for years and is nearly invincible in air to air combat. It can shoot down virtually any opposing aircraft before the other aircraft even sees the Raptor. This includes all other aircraft in the US inventory. What did the idiots in our government do? They cancelled it.We have a working, nearly invincible fighter for which the development the costs are paid for and the incremental unit cost is surely less than the F-35. What the hell are we thinking?!The lesser duties ought to be handled by F-16s. For ground attack roles, we ought dust off the blueprints for the A-10 and build those again: simple, cheap, great flying, and nearly indestructible.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 08:23:14 am
content: Quote from: rrinker on December 28, 2016, 05:03:03 amThe beautiful Hawker Hunter is an interesting case:-It was designed as a high performance Interceptor,& had it been available in theearly1950s would have been in the top echelon in terms of performance.Unfortunately, by the time delays & "bugs" had been overcome,it had been surpassed by just about everybody.Australia was thinking of buying them,but instead, took a proven airframe,(the NA F86,)modified it to take the RR Avon engine,& produced an aircraft substantially improved over the original F86 offering similar performance to the Hunter.(it always looked a bit bland,though.)Hawker battled on with the Hunter,getting reduced RAF orders,& also some overseas ones.Strangely,it became quite a good ground attack aircraft in its later career.The F111 is another --that time Oz hung in there & eventually got their planes,which gave good service for many years.The "F" was always a misnomer,though ----it was a really a bomber/attack aircraft.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 08:29:21 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on December 28, 2016, 07:08:35 amIt's really important to feed the defense industry with new projects to keep the money flowing, otherwise defense contractors will have to downsize, and how then will they be able to make the profits they are accustomed to? Entitlements. It's all about entitlements.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 08:48:47 am
content: Quote from: IanB on December 28, 2016, 08:29:21 am... the personnel will be dispersed, the expertise lost overseas, and they will be unable to ramp up design/production fast enough when war is on the horizon.QuoteWhile there's an element of truth in that, it is dangerously simplistic. Only those that believe in a post-truth world would act on those emotions.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 09:08:01 am
content: Quote from: IanB on December 28, 2016, 08:29:21 am

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 10:43:18 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on December 28, 2016, 07:08:35 amIs it cancelled? Afaik there are almost 200 F-22's in service.The F-35 was supposed to be the cheap workhorse for when you don't need the overkill F-22, and the F-35 is available for export.I think the F-22 is doing it's job just fine, it's a technology demonstrator and a deterrent against other large powers.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 10:45:10 am
content: They stopped the production lines ... and apparently tooling has been "accidentally" lost already.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 10:54:22 am
content: Quote from: Marco on December 28, 2016, 10:45:10 amTooling can be replaced relatively easily, provided peopleknowhow to build them.Unfortunately such knowledge takes decades to acquire and has probably been lost - deliberately through explicit management actions.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 01:00:02 pm
content: Tooling is in storage.The main obstacle is cost. Congress would have to approve a larger defense budget or divert funds from the F-35 program.http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-trump-administration-should-restart-f-22-raptor-18587?page=2

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 01:01:51 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on December 28, 2016, 01:00:02 pmIn storage in empty boxes. Useful, that.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 01:25:11 pm
content: 'A total of more than 30,000 jigs, fixtures and other "tooling" used to build the plane are being logged into a database and tucked into containers, some custom built, for long-term storage at Sierra Army Depot, Herlong, California.'Are you insinuating that all those containers for 30,000 jigs are empty?

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 01:27:48 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on December 28, 2016, 01:25:11 pmNo, but a good number have been found to be when the tooling was required..

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 01:41:57 pm
content: Quote from: rollatorwieltje on December 28, 2016, 10:43:18 amFuture production is cancelled. The total in service is less than 200, a number which is designed to obsolete the a/c once attrition lowers the count to where it's impossible to maintain full squadrons. The incremental cost of an F-22 versus an F-35 is now negligible. Yes the F-22 is overkill, but if one is going to spend an insane amount of money anyway, why not have the best?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 01:45:54 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on December 28, 2016, 07:08:35 amThat NOVA doco said the sole problem with the F22 that the F35 was designed to overcome was cost! That turned into aIf the sole major difference really is cost, and the F35 is now approaching the F22 in cost, the solution seems obvious, scrap all the airforce requirements and focus on the other things.How many of these super duper wizz bang generation fighters do you need? Surely not 2500? Just a few hundred I would image to dominate the airspace, then bring in the cheaper aircraft in volume to finish the job. They already have 180 F-22's.Latest gen fighters are like submarines, they are more a strategic political asset. Send a handful of them into a hot spot and you are sending a message. You don't need 1000 of them to fight your war.QuoteThere is a good argument for that, they only cost 14-18M a pop.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 02:01:14 pm
content: Well, they were worth more as scrap metal to somebody, who ferreted them out of there.Kind of like the Delorean press tooling, which was used at fishing weight anchors.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 02:01:58 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on December 28, 2016, 01:27:48 pmI guess your source is The National Interest magazine.It is difficult to verify the story and the competence of the individual involved when the 'retired Air Force official' name and rank details are not released:'One recently retired Air Force official with direct knowledge about the service’s efforts to repair two damaged Raptors said that they faced severe difficulties with retrieving the correct tooling. In one example, Air Force maintainers needed to build a particular component from scratch to replace a severely damaged part for an F-22. The crews went into the Conex boxes where the tooling and instructions to build the part were allegedly stored, but to their considerable surprise and aggravation, the container was empty. The same pattern repeated itself several times—and as of the last time the source checked–the issue remains unresolved.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 04:26:22 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 28, 2016, 01:45:54 pmWe need more than 200 airframes simply because the airframes become the spares inventory once production inevitably ceases. If you google earth Davis-Monthan airbase in Tucson, AZ, you'll find the US spares inventory in the form of mothballed airframes (including the B-52s that are scrapped as part of the START treaties.)We also need more because while the Raptor does well in the skies, it is very vulnerable when sitting on the ground. Sadly, such a valuable (now, irreplaceable) asset is not hangared in separated, hardened bunkers as they ought to be. We have repeated the exact mistake we made in storing planes at Pearl Harbor in WWII.And you're right, at the present time, the F-22 is largely a political asset, I don't expect that situation to continue. We focus on the airframe, but the secret sauce is the electronics packages. Old airplanes can learn new tricks in a hurry.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 05:00:25 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on December 28, 2016, 08:48:47 amNope, infact it can be made even simpler, which is just plain .... collusion & corruption, thats it, no need to make it over complicated in describing it.US president Eisenhower did warn it decades ago, he called it ....... MIC (Military Industrial Complex) -> An informal alliance between a nation's military and the defense industry which supplies it, seen together as a vested interest whichinfluences public policy.Reposting -> The "real" Military cost when it was dated back in 1986 ->$37 screws, a $7,622 coffee maker, $640 toilet seatsFew interesting quotes from above : ..."Other items offered in the catalogue include a $285 screwdriver, a $7,622 coffee maker, a $387 flat washer, a $469 wrench, a $214 flashlight, a $437 tape measure, a $2,228 monkey wrench, a $748 pair of duckbill pliers, a $74,165 aluminum ladder, a $659 ashtray and a $240- million airplane.""The success of Pentagon Products is based on simple principles, the authors say: no dog-eat-dog competitive bidding, no endless nit-picking over contracts, no pushy meddling in the bidding process, no penny-pinching bulk purchases, no unfair limits on corporate claims of proprietary rights, no settling for off-the-shelf products just to save a buck.""Cheating the taxpayers is the American way." .... this one is my favorite.Just find the inflation calculator yourself to get a feel into today's price from that 1986's figures.Understand some of the reasons that made up into those prices, like the R&D cost, like how to make a monkey wrench into lethal weapon, or to survive nuclear detonation and etc ... yeah ... I get it.Edit : mtdoc beat me.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 05:00:46 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on December 28, 2016, 04:55:35 pmI like Ike.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 07:40:24 pm
content: Quote from: rrinker on December 28, 2016, 05:03:03 amThe A-10 is a great aircraft but it suffers from a lack of range. 800 miles isn't very much. The F-35 has a range of over 1300 miles. But, AFAIK, the F-35 doesn't fly low and slow. The A-10 is slow at just over 400 MPH. Nevertheless, the A-10 program has risen from the grave. We're going to build some more.For the most part, the A-10 doesn't work off of carriers (yes, they have flown off the Nimitz) and with limited range, we need an airbase in the region of the conflict. This isn't always possible, politically.FWIW, the F-106 had a range of about 2700 miles and still holds the single engine speed record 1536 MPH. The 'gee whiz' F35 can only go about 1200 MPH. My dad worked on the electrical checkout before the F-106s left Convair in San Diego. If you absolutely needed to make an intercept right now, the F-106 was the plane to get it done.http://www.mcchordairmuseum.org/REV%20B%20MAM%20MUSEUM%20NEWS%202009%2012%2015%20-%20F-106A%2056-0459%20F-106%20SPEED%20RECORD.htmI have seen an F-106 go ballistic leaving Lindbergh Field (San Diego) right over the Marine Core Recruit Depot. Awesome!The Montana Air National Guard used to win a lot of shootouts in the desert flying F-106s against more modern aircraft.http://www.f-106deltadart.com/186fis.htmThe F-106 was the only aircraft ever built for a strictly interceptor role. It never was a fighter but a little Genie AIR-2 nuclear air-to-air rocket could certainly mess up an incoming bomber squadron.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 08:19:08 pm
content: The A-10 is slow, but is air to air refueling capable.If A-10 production indeed resumes, it will be the only intelligent act the Pentagon has intentionally committed for a long time.The my should incinerate the F-35 with surplus Genie warheads. It would be a fitting end for both of those ridiculous weapon systems. My father lived a dangerous life, but never so dangerous as having to fly Cold War intercepts with those miserable fucking things.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 08:22:57 pm
content: If the F-16 is the "Fighting Falcon", I wonder what the F-35 will be christened? The "Sitting Duck" maybe?

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 08:24:37 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on December 28, 2016, 08:22:57 pmRoad kill.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 08:30:12 pm
content: Ferry range of the A-10 is 2,600 miles.None are being built from scratch again. Some of the aircraft have been getting new wings, under the TUSK program (Boeing).Flown off the Nimitz? I don't think so. Flight Sim maybe. Source?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 11:22:41 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on December 28, 2016, 08:19:08 pmIf you need a close air support aircraft, the AC130 is more than anyone can ask for. The A10 is an anti-tank plane. Sure a 30mm can put a big hole into anything, but when was the last time, when NATO (or anyone from NATO) was fighting someone, who had tanks? It was the Yugoslavian war in 1993, they had 300 tanks, and the main reason was to be there, so they dont kill each other. We dont need F35s. F35 is not good against the Toyota Hilux.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2016, 11:43:35 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on December 28, 2016, 08:22:57 pmF-16 Fighting Falcon also called by pilots the Viper, and earlier the "Electric Jet" for it's then new fly by wire controls.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 01:49:17 am
content: NOTHING is good against an Toyota Hilux except MAYBE an AC130. I have one - it's over 30 years old and still is like new.

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 02:01:07 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 28, 2016, 11:22:41 pmI totally agree with NANDBlog.An A-10 is basically a flying infantry fighting vehicle/tank destroyer.An AC130 is a cargo plane with guns/rockets/bombs.The A-10 is my favorite aircraft, as a personal note. They're really designed for different tasks.A-10 = send your flight against a tank companyAC130 = area denial/overwatchBut, an AC130 is far more practical in the current climate. With a howitzer, a cannon and a long loiter time, it's well suited to waiting around before shooting something up.Economically, using AC130s is probably better too, since you can just reconfigure them to cargo if you need to.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 05:42:20 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 28, 2016, 11:22:41 pm30mm is also devastating against fortified emplacements. And when maneuverability matters, there is nothing that can touch the Warthog besides a crop duster. Both a/c have their place. Back on topic, the F-35 has NO place in anyone's inventory. All of NATO will be better off without it.

author: MrOmnos
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 09:34:28 am
content: This is B-2 stealth bomber all over again. I cannot imagine how a nation can justify a 2 billion dollar bomber. Today it's nothing but a showpiece. A 2 billion dollar showpiece which will be worth nothing in few year. Lockheed were the pioneers in Stealth tech and had experience and necessary workforce to manufacture stealth aircraft because they had already done a great job with their F117. Despite all that the contract for the B2 program was awarded to Grumman because they were in trouble and were laying off people had no future contracts. The decision was made to save Grumman from bankruptcy which ended up costing taxpayers 2.2 billion dollars per plane while the initial quote was 400 million dollars.Someone here recommended me a book by Ben Rich in which he talks about the development of first Stealth aircraft the F117. That book really gives a glimpse into the life of an engineer in such mega defense corporations. F117 was developed by the LockHeed's Skunk Works. Even though Skunk Works was a small setup with small group of engineers, reading the book it sounded like a hellish place to work at. At one point they had more inspectors from Air Force than their own workers, doing nothing but making the engineers uncomfortable and filling unnecessary paperwork which nobody was going to look at. No defense department cares about the Tax payers or the defense of the Nation. It's about them. They want to be the one to get the funding for that new Stealth technology. Navy wants their own ship, Air force want their own airplane and they are ready to shit on each other to get their job done first. It doesn't end there. Departments with in the Air force have their own grudge. Strategic Command doesn't want the Tactical Commands stealth aircraft because it is going to take away money from their missile program and they start lobbying against each other. He mentions how 3 star Air force generals would come to his office uninvited and accuse him of giving priority to the Navy's program. He had to tell his secretary not to take calls from certain Generals. So, I don't blame the Engineers at all. There's a lot of politics involved in such a program and incompetent people underestimate the gravity of the situation and make stupid decisions. Engineers made SR-71 in 1960s which had ridiculous specifications and you are telling me engineers can't make freaking Fighter jet.I don't see such government contracts as engineering challenge and neither does the government. For the government it is a magic bean of job creation. It's no longer Kelly Johnson working with his small team of engineers designing the fastest aircraft in the world. It's a giant cluster fuck of Agencies and Departments with no intentions of promoting technological advancement.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 10:10:41 am
content: Welcome to the dysfunctional aspectsalllarge organisations - whether in private corporations, public corporations, or government.When you rail against dysfunctional behaviour, it is a good idea to work out the actual cause. In this case it ispeople, not the entity pays their salary.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 01:15:47 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on December 28, 2016, 08:24:37 pmHanger Queen........

author: XFDDesign
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 02:53:45 pm
content: Quote from: MrOmnos on December 29, 2016, 09:34:28 amThe book itself was SkunkWorks. Absolutely fantastic read. But there is a part you've blurred a bit - the busybodies didn't come in, until they started pushing Ben out the door. Up through the F117, the Government largely left them alone. The worst of it was building a false neighborhood on top of their buildings to fool Soviet Spy Satellites. As Ben pointed out, the toxic paints used for the stealth coating didn't even get OSHA attention. But, once the F22 started getting drafted... out comes the "management" of government. Management always chases out Leadership. The F22 was pulled off because they still had some level of technical command over the project. Modern Lockheed appears to have none.

author: XFDDesign
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 02:55:16 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on December 29, 2016, 01:15:47 pmChange the designator to the F41 with trims -LUR. F41LUR is highly appropriate.

author: KhronX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 03:46:14 pm
content: Nah, skip the trim, just go for "F41 Lure"Quote from: XFDDesign on December 29, 2016, 02:55:16 pm

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2016, 03:53:12 am
content: F35's likely competitor:"The newest version of the J-31, now renamed the FC-31 Gyrfalcon, took to the air for the first time on Friday, the China Daily reported."Since they are still in prototype stage, real price will differ. "Expected to be around" $70million (USD) - from the article linked below, but don't know where they got the figure.http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2057260/china-tests-prototype-most-advanced-stealth-fighter-jetTheir F22 class fighter J-20 v US F35http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2054492/americas-f-35-fighter-jet-vs-chinas-j-20-which-betterI think their first (and only) airwing certified for carrier operation is equipped with J-20's and not the initially deployed J-15's.While not in the articles linked above, it is important to note that the Liaoning is NOT equipped with catapult launch capability and lacks midair refuel capability. So, their fighters will have a correspondingly reduced range.

author: boffin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2016, 04:02:50 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 28, 2016, 07:40:24 pmAnd likely a CF-105 Arrow would have eaten an F106 for breakfast.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2016, 09:38:12 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on December 30, 2016, 04:47:13 amBut that doesn't have anything to do with whether the F35 is a good plane for the military or not.20 million people died in WWII. Some on the "good" side, some on the "bad" side. Bad people exist, so war will happen. That is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is if F35 is a good choice for when we need to prevent or to fight a war.I think F35 is too expensive, and may be another case of generals fighting the last war. Drones is more attractive. But with J-20, J-31 (FC31), PAK-FA, Su-35 coming, we need do an F35 class of fighter to counter such move.Now the problem of "joint" is really causing a problem. Just the delay alone is affecting not just one or two in the "West" but affected every allies in the West. Any method our enemy can find to defeat the F35, we got nothing else - all our allies will also be F35 and just as much a sitting duck.The second problem this whole affair is showing: It took a little less than 4 years after Pearl Harbor for the US to be in Tokyo Bay. It is taking more than twice that now just to get a new plane into service. Even with that much time, things are still just "almost done" instead of "done". F35 is still work in progress. Disappointing.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 02:26:30 am
content: Here is one for the armchair warriors:http://sofrep.com/71164/watch-f-35-air-force-pilot-compared-lightning-ii-vs-f-16-f-22-10/

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 02:50:52 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on December 30, 2016, 03:53:12 amI think their CIWS supported mobile SAM sites are a bigger competitor, I doubt China will get a competitive plane in the sky any time soon. China being able to develop air defenses effective against F35 incursion, that I'd rate much more likely. It's an easier engineering challenge IMO.I wonder, do buyers of the F35 have to promise they won't develop or buy/test foreign anti-stealth SAM technology? Without such a contractual promise, the proliferation of the F35 would be problematic for the US. They'd just be shipping out ideal test beds AND marketing aids for technology capable of taking out their own planes.Bit of a poison pill though to sign such a contract, gain offensive capability while losing defensive capability ... bad trade.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 03:26:21 am
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on December 31, 2016, 02:26:30 amHere's the viewpoint from those trying to pay for it:http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666042.pdfThe report directly contradicts the pilot's cost assessments.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 07:28:06 am
content: Report date: September 2014Report conclusion: The aircraft is too expensive. Please, pretty please, get off your asses and get it built asap, within budget.There is no viable cheaper alternative to the F-35 that was presented by the bean counters.Congress didn't kill it. Trump won't kill it either.If you want top shelf equipment, it will hurt financially. These days top shelf means foremost stealth, sensors and connectivity.Current export:United Kingdom 138BTurkey 100AAustralia 100AItaly 60A 30BNetherlands 37ACanada 65ANorway 52AJapan 42ASouth Korea 40AIsrael 33A (+17 optional)Denmark 27APotential export:Poland 48ABelgium 35ATaiwan

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 07:59:05 am
content: I think economically it would be better for us to just not buy them. Get the UK to fly them through our air space occasionally and have Thales develop an anti-stealth missile defence system.That we could sell as hotcakes with stealth planes flying all across the world.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 08:17:34 am
content: Quote from: Marco on December 31, 2016, 07:59:05 amIIRC the/a main European repair base (whatever that might mean) is somewhere in Italy. So their transit time will be extended

author: Paul Moir
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 08:23:50 am
content: May want to double check that Canadian buy. The current government was elected with a platform promise of "We will not buy the F35." In classic Canadian compromise this is being executed in a way not to annoy the elephant much: we're picking up a few Super Hornets as a stop-gap but still laying out some cash to stay a participant in the F35 program. Gotta hang onto those sweet sub-contracts!

author: PChi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 11:09:25 am
content: It's going to be interesting to see if the UK actually buy many F35Bs. I believe that they have 4 on order and the UK tax payer has contributed to the development costs. It's only needed for the Aircraft Carriers which may never be commissioned. I suspect that they were only started to be part of a European defence force and to prop up Labour support in Scotland.Both requirements have disappeared.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 11:13:20 am
content: Canadian contract no cancelled yet, AFAIK. 350M USD penalty to get out of jail and no work for domestic companies.Trudeau will have to eat humble pie and fork out some serious cash for the F-35. There is just nothing else available, unless he wants to see Sherman against Tiger in Normandy all over again.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 05:22:15 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on December 31, 2016, 07:28:06 amAny large scale war is won by breaking the other side economically. Value for money really does matter in war. Its only in the cozy peace time world of the military industrial complex where it has no place.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 05:25:03 pm
content: More recent pilot feedback:

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 05:51:48 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on December 31, 2016, 05:25:03 pmThey're good sales reps. At 8:57 "internet of things"I know almost nothing about this topic but I can't help but wonder how vulnerable all that technical complexity is - both from a cost to build and maintain perspective and more importantly from a perspective of robustness and vulnerability in battle.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 06:30:06 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 31, 2016, 05:22:15 pmThis is true. Small numbers of really expensive things are not what you want to put in the way of danger in an actual conflict. Because when you then lose those things the cost of the loss is magnified enormously.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 07:51:19 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on December 31, 2016, 06:30:06 pmLook no recently than the Afghan set. World's poorest country, no real government, no real military, yet they ( with a small amount of backing from the USA for sure, which really came back to bite them as well in the end) fought the Soviet military to a standstill, or at least stalemate. Then the Soviets left, and the US came, and got the same treatment as well.When you have a supply line that is extremely long, very fragile and can easily be disrupted by a single guy with a home made AK variant, a few hundred rounds and some determination, and you have to guard all of this line. A million dollars per camp, and you cannot really be sure that you are doing the right thing, along with being micromanaged by a committee that is both totally ignorant of what is happening locally, unwilling to actually learn and which is running to a few sets of conflicting agendas.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 07:56:11 pm
content: I'll bet you $20 that one or both of those pilots retire out to work for Lockheed or another defense contractor.The notion of wireless networking capability in an aircraft is horrifying given the military's utter negligence in this in the past - like where predator video feeds could be received unencrypted by the enemy using nothing more than a satellite tv receiver. Maybe they have a really secure key exchange mechanism, but likely not given that it's a one-off system.With all of NATO going in whole hog on the F-35, all of us will now have an Air Force with identical vulnerabilities to hack into.

author: boffin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 07:59:06 pm
content: The US military (and most of the western military's) have been screwing up procurement since the 60s.Look no further than the F-20 project, which resulted in a very inexpensive, capable, easy to maintain fighterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 08:35:58 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on December 31, 2016, 07:56:11 pmYep - that's the path. I know a former Navy fighter pilot who is now a vice president at Northrup Grumman. Notice that they are being interviewed at Capitol Hill after a meeting that was certainly about ongoing lobbying for the F35 to congress. They are not unbiased evaluators.QuoteYep, perhaps as secure as the "Internet of Things". Notice they talk about it's ability to move beyond the RF spectrum. Does that include communications?? Perhaps they'll call it the "Internet of Wings"

author: meeder
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 08:57:05 pm
content: The Netherlands ordered a brunch of these flying disasters as well.A lot of people compare them with the train disaster we had with the Italian high speed trains which kept falling apart and failed to operate when there was a couple of cm of snow.The train was called 'Fyra' so we call the F35 'the flying Fyra'...http://nltimes.nl/2013/06/04/fyra-disasterAs a coincidence the Italian company AnsaldoBreda is also going to build parts of the European F35's so it's fingers crossed that these things will actually become operational.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 09:46:38 pm
content: Quote from: meeder on December 31, 2016, 08:57:05 pmNo. Finmeccanica is building parts for the F35, more precisely its Alenia subsidiary. While AnsaldoBreda was a part of the Finmeccanica group in the past (it has been sold to Hitachi a year ago), it never had really anything to do with anything aerospace. I am not saying that Alenia has a better reputation than AnsaldoBreda; if they have, then not by much. So, yeah, fingers crossed. Well, not that the F35 would need Alenia's "help" to be a disaster...

author: meeder
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 10:26:29 pm
content: Thanks for the clarification!

author: Paul Moir
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2016, 11:31:32 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on December 31, 2016, 11:13:20 amThere is no contract despite what the National Post says to purchase planes and there is no cancellation fee. We are committed to development of the F35 however, and in return we're eligible for contracts. That is the reason for that latest 36M payment.Personally I have faith the Canadian companies who currently have subcontracts could find work doing something else easily enough.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2017, 09:26:26 am
content: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/exactly-how-trump-can-end-f35-and-save.html

author: meeder
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2017, 09:41:56 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on January 01, 2017, 09:26:26 amLet Trump please do this right so my government can switch to a better plane like the Eurofighter or SAAB offerings.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2017, 06:34:18 pm
content: I don't think Trump cares about the F35 at all. He wants to get some short term concessions which look good but end up costing more, and also funnel a few million $ in the direction of his friends or family.The message is "you better suck up to me otherwise I can and will jerk you around". It's the same abuse of power that Putin has been playing for years, I can see why they are such good pals!

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 02, 2017, 10:33:29 pm
content: Quote from: meeder on January 01, 2017, 09:41:56 amAnd to heck with that new fangled stealth stuff?

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2017, 05:20:33 pm
content: Canada will consider Lockheed’s F-35 jet, despite criticism about cost, said Trudeau.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-will-consider-lockheeds-f-35-jet-despite-criticism-about-cost-trudeau/article33303378/

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2017, 07:33:17 pm
content: Quote from: retrolefty on January 02, 2017, 10:33:29 pmIf it lets us be part of less foreign adventures I'm all for it.I'd rather have anti-stealth SAM coverage than a stealth plane.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2017, 08:13:08 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 03, 2017, 07:33:17 pmThe USSR went broke trying to keep up defending against newer better technical threats. Sometimes deterrence is the most economical defence.

author: senso
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2017, 02:34:01 pm
content: The guy is using a XP laptop, there's your problem..I cant imagine how over-charged everything is, and how many billions lockheed as pocketed, 1 trillion is a lot of zeros, but its all relative, just numbers on a screen, then there is Nasa getting budget cuts and nowhere to get plutonium for RTG's

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2017, 02:35:33 pm
content: Every F35 shootdown will be a financial and political disaster for any kind of regime.The Serbs shoowed it was possible to shoot down the F-117A, nemas problemas!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2017, 02:44:05 pm
content: Senso, I have to admit though, that step ladder looks like a thousand bucks ... wonder what it costs.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2017, 03:38:38 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 04, 2017, 02:44:05 pmMy thoughts exactly, it looks much better than my Ikea one. I assume it supports USB 1, I would put more faith in RS232 and what are those red emergency stop buttons for?

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2017, 08:46:25 pm
content: I'm no fan of the F-35 but I don't think it will be the unrivaled wreck many here make it out to be. The problem I have is that it's looking to do too much at a time when specialized drones are often the better choice, in spite of the negative press drones get. Frankly, the manned missions that makes sense to me are more along the F-22 lines and if we were looking to command the skies into the future we should probably be looking at a successor to the F-22 as it's already closing in on 30 years old. I think most missions are best done by drones and I'd argue that the future of air supremacy is likely to be a mix of manned and unmanned AC. Imagine a flight of three AC, one manned and the other two unmanned, in which the drones act as wing-men for the maned lead. The drones would have 20G or greater turning capability and would serve as decoys to expose the enemy.So, I'm certainly not 100% happy with the strategy behind the F-35 and maybe the worst aspect is the foolish notion of making one plane in three variant for the three use cases. Robert Strange McNamara lives on...Brian

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 05:30:44 am
content: I don't think a bunch of engineers on the internet are really qualified to pass judgement on the F-35. There are a lot of really, really smart people working on this project.A lot of the criticisms are based on ignorance (not specifically here, but in general). How it sucks in dogfighting, for example. With current missile technology and the way wars are prosecuted and the way information flow works, dogfighting just isn't a thing anymore. Much of the rest of the criticism is the cost - yep, not much to defend there, however it really is multiple planes in one. The fact that they share a name is marketing wank. A lot of the other criticisms are things like the lack of weapons it can use or how it can only carry 2 bombs. Much of that is because there are weapons that are being built around this plane, and until they are ready, the plane is stuck working with what is currently out there. It's unfair to use this as a criticism of the plane... it's really no different than the silly criticism of electric cars.The people that are flying the plane like it and its performance. There is huge discussion on professional pilots forums on this plane and the people who really know what they are talking about like the plane and its capabilities. The only criticisms are the costs, really.Overall, it is a fantastic piece of technology that is head and shoulders above anything else out there. And that's really the point. The PAK-FA is a joke. It's been in development for years, and even when (if) it ever comes out, it will be behind the F-22, which is behind where the F-35 is. The J-20 is about the same - it's years behind and they have literally a handful of them. It's not about guys in the desert shooting AK's at them. It's about military superiority over your competitors - and right now that's China and Russia.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 05:44:21 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on January 05, 2017, 05:30:44 amI trust their judgement, I don't trust their intentions.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 05:55:21 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on January 04, 2017, 08:46:25 pmWhat's the point in being in close proximity to the drones doing the work? Do you need low latency? No. Does proximity make it easier to maintain communication? No, the manned plane couldn't do anything a relay drone couldn't (if the enemy can take those out you wouldn't want to be there with a manned plane either).

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 12:49:43 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on January 05, 2017, 05:30:44 amLockheed is a company. It's purpose is not to make planes. It is to make money. The smart people are focused on that. Making things on time, on spec, and on budget is a very poor way to work as a company trying to make money out of weapons. History has taught them that no matter how hard they bleed their customer, the repurcussions are minor.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 01:08:50 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 05, 2017, 05:55:21 amThe vehical and the operator form a control system. The bandwidth required dictates the maximum allowable latency. No surprises there.Where the "next step/action" requires operator intervention or decision, the latency is important.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 02:17:51 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 05, 2017, 05:55:21 amI agree. The limiting factor for the Air Superiority role is the G force a human can maintain before blanking out. Drones will have a huge advantage both offensively and defensively in the future. The F-35 is just an interim step and probably the last with a human on board. Drones won't require an oxygen system, ejections system, etc.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 02:27:13 pm
content: Quote from: retrolefty on January 05, 2017, 02:17:51 pmThis is sounding a bit like world war 1 (and later). Where the British, thought that mighty battleships were the king of the sea.Then found that they were being sunk by submarines (U-boats).Also when battleships were thought to be king of the sea. The Aircraft carriers said "NO", we are the king of the sea. E.g. Bismarck losing out to an aircraft carrier.So these days we have mighty aircraft carriers as king of the seas. (Pretty much no massive battleships anymore).At some point (which we may have already reached), drones will be superior (which is basically what you were saying).Until maybe fully AI autonomous drones come along ...

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 03:11:51 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 05, 2017, 01:08:50 pmDescribe me a situation where it would be. With long range missiles I don't see any situations where 0.1 vs 1 second would make a big difference (and a small difference doesn't matter, not having men in danger already being such a massive advantage).Maybe if you made a drone to strafe ground targets with guns, but the ground troops near it could handle firing control in that case.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 03:24:42 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 05, 2017, 03:11:51 pmAir-to-air combat is the canonical example, but there are many others. Even drones and their munitions aren't cheap, so you don't want to lose them to something the local militia or airforce has.As for "local control", the latency depends on the propagation path, not on the point-to-point distance. You don't know what the propagation path is.The "long range missile" argument was promulgated in the 60s and 70s, and lead to embarrassing loss of manned aircraft when the missiles didn't work as advertised - and crews found themselves in dogfights. Don't believe the adverts.As for the difference between 0.1 and 1s being unimportant - you've just plucked those figures and the conclusion out of thin air. Life isn't that simple.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 03:49:34 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 05, 2017, 03:24:42 pmLoS, either through satellite or relays. Because that's easiest to make resistant to jamming with a high bandwidth.

author: Nauris
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 05:07:28 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on December 31, 2016, 07:28:06 amYeah, and when you actually need to get shit done in modern warfare, you send in AC130's, A-10's and few B-52 to support.Fifty years of warplane development gone amiss, perhaps?

author: Ice-Tea
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 05:35:53 pm
content: Quote from: Nauris on January 05, 2017, 05:07:28 pmYou're not taking into account "the enemy". Those work fine for low tech bogies. Neither of those would last against any kind of modern fighter.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 05:38:23 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 05, 2017, 03:49:34 pmThat reason is only a small part of the necessary system; there are many many other considerations!Now do the calculation for the minimum possible latency and variation in latency (vital for a control loop); not pretty.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 08:26:14 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 05, 2017, 05:55:21 amLocal, real-time, command and control augmented with remote capabilities.Brian

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 08:28:38 pm
content: Quote from: retrolefty on January 05, 2017, 02:17:51 pmYes, the drones will have much higher G-tolerance and that's one of the main factors for using them. But, there is still an advantage to having eyes on the action when dealing with highly dynamic events -- for bombing fixed assets -- not so much.Brian

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 08:29:03 pm
content: That's like saying there are many other considerations when I say it needs wings, yes there are other considerations. They're just not allowed to interfere with getting the highest jamming resistance possible if you're going to design drones as a complete replacement for autonomous manned planes.Which is obviously LoS, combined with small aperture aimed antennas.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 11:33:49 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 05, 2017, 08:29:03 pmEarlier today for position was via satellites, now it is LoS. You still need to calculate the satellite latency.Do you realise how limited true line of sight is on a battlefield? Unless you are very exposed sitting on a hilltop, I suppose.Doubly so if you have small aperture antennas!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 05, 2017, 11:47:48 pm
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on January 04, 2017, 08:46:25 pmThe F-35 *is* designed to be the successor to the F-22. It's also designed to be the successor for every other plane in existence, and that's it's problem.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2017, 02:59:25 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on January 05, 2017, 05:30:44 amAs a U.S. taxpayer, I feel perfectly entitled to question the bang for the buck of yet another fantastically opulent weapons program. I do not need to fly the plane in order to read the dollar figures and performance reports then come to my own conclusions.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2017, 06:46:23 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 05, 2017, 11:47:48 pmNot quite ... The main role of the F-22 is to command the sky -- air supremacy, whereas the F-35 is more of a jack of all trades master of none but biased towards the attack role. It will not serve the role of air supremacy like the F-22 though with newer avionics its limitations are somewhat offset by avionics that are better at some things. They don't freeze the tech in military AC and the nearly 60 year old B-52 is still updated -- the F-22 is going to be upgraded throughout its lifetime.The Chinese are working on stealth and there J-20 looks aimed at naval attack, probably to deploy anti-ship cruise missiles then turn around before being noticed. I would think the NATO/USA long term plans need to include something qualitatively superior to the J-20 and while the F-22 is no doubt still ahead of the best the Chinese have the margins are less.So, I would argue that the F-35 is not the ideal platform to deal with an emerging Chinese threat and the F-22, though still ahead and being upgraded, is still a 30 year old design.Brian

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2017, 07:08:53 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 05, 2017, 11:33:49 pmWhy are you putting these in opposition? Satellites are the easiest method for LoS communication, you generally have them in LoS from a plane.Otherwise you'd use relay drones, there are already tethered communication drones for instance which ground troops can use.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 06, 2017, 08:06:14 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on January 05, 2017, 05:30:44 amHaving worked at military companies working with lots of really really smart people on leading edge projects, I can assure you that those really really smart people can't magically fix problems that are inherent in the specification itself that dooms the project to failure or general mediocrity.I'm sure they will produce a fantastic plane, but there is only so much you can do when your hands are tied and you are trying to please half a dozen different customers with differing requirements with the same product.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 06, 2017, 08:14:32 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on January 06, 2017, 06:46:23 amBut they aren't building any more, so good luck with upgrading them when you only have 187 operational airframes. The B-52 had 744 airframes to work with.

author: denverpilot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2017, 08:28:08 am
content: Quote from: rob77 on December 26, 2016, 11:10:29 amFor us electronics buffs, it's also why Bourns is private.Disclaimer and background: Father, deceased, used to work for them. After talking to him over the years about his lifetime selling electronic components both for publicly-traded companies, and then later for Bourns, the business side differences in what drove quality and customer service decisions (especially when something got fouled up) were night and day.The much more positive responses for doing what was "the right thing to do" for customers, fell squarely on the privately held side of that. A privately held business could take a much longer term view of customer relationships beyond "this quarter's numbers".

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2017, 04:54:31 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 06, 2017, 08:14:32 amWell that's kind of my point -- they do not have very many F-22's and the F-35 is not the best design for air supremacy so that's why they need to be working on a replacement for the F-22.The selling point for the F-35 is that it will be in service for 50 years or some nonsense. I'd bet the F-35 will start being phased out within 20 years unless the global economy collapses first. Touch call...Brian