Help support TMP


"The F-35 is a" Topic


22 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2006-present) Message Board



758 hits since 31 Mar 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Phil Hall31 Mar 2017 7:39 a.m. PST

failure.

link

Personal logo aegiscg47 Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2017 8:17 a.m. PST

Wow, talk about dredging up every complaint from the last few years and putting it into the same article! I've been seeing them fly here almost every day and the F-16 pilots who have transitioned to the F-35s love them. They also had a great performance at a recent Red Flag exercise, so you can pretty much discount most of what this article says.

My father was part of the F-16 transition team and the same things being said about the F-35 were said about that plane as well. They should have bought more F-15s, skip the F-16 and move to F-18s, they can't beat F-15s and Mig-29s in air combat, etc. 30 years afterwards there are thousands of F-16s still flying and it has had an exemplary record. The F-35 will get upgrades, problems will be addressed, and in 5-10 years people can move on to complain about other defense projects that will be coming out.

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2017 8:59 a.m. PST

A work in progress, maybe not a cost-effective one or even the best project to allocate our resources. But only time can answer the question of whether it's a failure or not.

Personal logo Andrew Walters Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2017 9:29 a.m. PST

There is zero chance of producing anything today without truckloads of criticism. I don't think the critics of the F-35 have said anything new for years. I don't think they've said anything that wasn't obvious to the people who made the design choices. We've made serious mistakes in the past (like the F-4 having no internal gun before the E model) and survived. I don't see a reason to panic.

Time will tell.

McKinstry Fezian31 Mar 2017 10:25 a.m. PST

It's a fighter-bomber with an emphasis on bomber, not an air superiority fighter and not a CAS aircraft.

Dwindling Gravitas31 Mar 2017 10:29 a.m. PST

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't really get why every iota of development of this next-gen aircraft is so openly disclosed in the public domain?

Or am I a closet fascist?

daler240D Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2017 10:33 a.m. PST

…boondoggle.

daler240D Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2017 10:37 a.m. PST

If you feel that way, then yes you are a closet fascist. transparency is what is SUPPOSSED to keep the system fair, honest and actually capable of providing for a common defense, not just enriching the military industrial complex that games the procurement process.

Dwindling Gravitas31 Mar 2017 10:49 a.m. PST

OK, I get you on the boondoggle bit (I admit I had to Google it).

But what about keeping your cards close to your chest as regards "The Enemy" (whoever that may be nowadays)?

What "system" are you referring to?

Isn't defence development "always" shrouded in secrecy?
I understand transparency as being essential when it comes to bidding and initial budget allocation, etc, but once dev has started, I'd have thought secrecy would be a given?

Colour me naive (but not as a fascist, please… I'm not … REALLY! :-))

Personal logo Waco Joe Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2017 11:27 a.m. PST

How do you know that what is being released to the public is what the Pentagon wants our enemies to believe?

Or perhaps the Russians are planting fake news stories in the media to make the taxpayers outraged and call for the cancellation of the project which would then confirm that it is in fact a superior plane to anything they have.

Or perhaps Mossad, using the CIA playbook for leaving false fingerprints in their hacking, is hoping to get the government to give up on the plane so that Israel can then pick them up at discount prices. (I mean who pays retail anymore, oy)

There is some serious 7th dimensional chess playing going on people and only those in the know, know the truth, which is out there somewhere.

twawaddell Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2017 12:23 p.m. PST

Modern military hardware goes through the same "acceptance cycle" as any other new product. I've watched something similar happen to cars, computers, software, etc.

It goes something like this: 1st: The new product is proposed and selected. 2nd: Everybody in the process goes on and on about how this will be the greatest thing since sliced bread. 3rd: The thing actually gets made. There are the normal issues stemming from one of the laws of engineering that everything costs more and takes longer. 4th: Product hits the market. People buy it but you'd never know why due to the wailing and gnashing of teeth that accompanies the product release. It's not as good as the predecessor, it costs too much, etc. Note that some of these complaints may actually be spot on the mark and will need to be dealt with. Finally: since the product meets the specs of the people that ordered it and they get to see ALL the details the product enters service. After that things start to settle down.

Its worse with aircraft for a number of valid reasons particularly that people's lives hang on it's performance. If you want to watch the sequence in a smaller version just wait for Microsoft to issue a new release of Windows and watch the fun begin.

Waco Joe hit the nail right on the head with the possible sources of many complaints. Do you really want to heed your enemy's complaints about your new weapons system?

Dwindling Gravitas31 Mar 2017 12:27 p.m. PST

@twawaddell

Understandable, of course.

But "my" point was (and you might not have been addressing me!): "shouldn't this be treated as classified" once everything has "settled down"?

It used to be, didn't it?

Personal logo aegiscg47 Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2017 12:49 p.m. PST

The sensors, software, various configurations, etc., used by the USAF, USN, and USMC will remain unknown by most. The Israelis will put in their own avionics and sensors, but the rest of the foreign orders will get the basic package and that's about it.

Defense journals, contractors, aviation experts, and so on know a great deal about the materials, armament, and general capabilities of most modern aircraft, but they don't know what they can actually do. For example, it's publicly acknowledged that U.S. aircraft have AESA radar capability, but what does that really mean? How effective is it in picking up 4th and 5th gen fighters? The Pentagon and pilots know, but that's not going to get published. From what I understand there are some nasty tactics that F-22s and F-35s working in tandem can do, but you'll never publicly know the full extent unless there's an actual war.

Dwindling Gravitas31 Mar 2017 2:08 p.m. PST

Good :-)

(I say, in my best fascist voice…,-))

twawaddell Supporting Member of TMP31 Mar 2017 4:55 p.m. PST

Dwindling Gravitas, no, my remarks were in general and not directed at any one specific person. It's been my experience in both private life and on the job that many have opinions but few actually know. All of us are in one camp or the other on every issue. I've heard all the issues about the F-35 but, like with all other issues, I follow the money. Somebody is laying down quite a bit of money for these things and I doubt they'd be doing that if all the observations on the aircraft were valid or unfixable.

As for the classified part, it's still classified and a lot of the discussion hinges on what people think is true, want to be true, or are trying to convince you is true. Read the stuff on RT about the F-35 if you want to gauge how much our little Russki buddies like this aircraft.

Dn Jackson31 Mar 2017 10:05 p.m. PST

"If you feel that way, then yes you are a closet fascist. transparency is what is SUPPOSSED to keep the system fair, honest and actually capable of providing for a common defense, not just enriching the military industrial complex that games the procurement process."

Dwindling Gravitas, congratulations! You won the argument. You can always tell when you're beating a, (insert political group here), because they call you a fascist, (or Hitler).

Khusrau01 Apr 2017 6:06 a.m. PST

I'm personally of the belief that manned aircraft are on the cusp of obsolesence. It's not so much the comparative capabilities of manned vs unmanned, it's the time to train a human pilot as opposed to manufacturing another relatively low cost drone. The lesson is as old as 1940. They could manufacture plenty of planes, but finding pilots is the limiting factor.

paulgenna Supporting Member of TMP01 Apr 2017 7:09 a.m. PST

I hope everything we are reading proves to be false. We have spent billions on the F-35 so hopefully it works like it should.

daler240D Supporting Member of TMP01 Apr 2017 7:10 p.m. PST

Dn Jackson, he used the term fascist himself, I was corroborating his categorization of the term in the classical sense. I do not believe he is a fascist but the misapplication of blind trust in the institutions is often used by those who wish to gain power or riches at the expense of the sincere patriots.

ScoutJock02 Apr 2017 8:45 a.m. PST

Brand new nugget female fighter pilot friend was told by the Navy powers that be that hers would be the last generation of pilots actually in the aircraft…

Personal logo Great War Ace Supporting Member of TMP02 Apr 2017 1:09 p.m. PST

Orrin Hatch loves the F-35.

Lion in the Stars05 Apr 2017 10:00 a.m. PST

I'm personally of the belief that manned aircraft are on the cusp of obsolesence. It's not so much the comparative capabilities of manned vs unmanned, it's the time to train a human pilot as opposed to manufacturing another relatively low cost drone. The lesson is as old as 1940. They could manufacture plenty of planes, but finding pilots is the limiting factor.

Which is why most pilots in WW2 were actually enlisted, not officers.

I still expect to see pilots in aircraft for a couple reasons. The big one is that we don't have a combat-capable artificial pilot yet. As a result of the first problem, we need to have comms channels open to drones which represent a weakness between comms lag and jamming or even hacking potential.

My best guess for 6th Gen aircraft would be a single pilot as the command aircraft for a flight of drones that are the same airframe. So, one manned bird with ~3 unmanned escorts.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.