User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/15/2016 9:28:12 PM EDT
[#1]
yes
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2016 9:29:49 PM EDT
[#2]
We need to throw a couple more trillions at it before we find out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2016 9:32:06 PM EDT
[#3]
Hang on. We have an incoming threat and I need to reboot the radar.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2016 9:39:56 PM EDT
[#4]
Yes, along the same lines as the new Navy ships that seem to break down every 5 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2016 9:40:45 PM EDT
[#5]
It was a dumbass idea from the get go. VTOL + carrier + air force versions of the same airframe? In what universe was this actually going to be a cost savings over just using purpose built aircraft? Not in this one with the procurement system we have now.
How many F-22's could we have purchased and how much more capable could it have been with incremental upgrades? How many super hornets? etc. How much more money should we pour into this to find out if it's worth it? Obviously our procurement system is a complete mess and we should learn from this boondoggle but I doubt that will happen since apparently people can work their entire career on a project without it mattering if it works or not and we just keep giving them money. Hell that sounds a lot like your average welfare rat to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2016 9:58:39 PM EDT
[#6]
It is, maybe a good idea but poorly executed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2016 10:22:03 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was a dumbass idea from the get go. VTOL + carrier + air force versions of the same airframe? In what universe was this actually going to be a cost savings over just using purpose built aircraft? Not in this one with the procurement system we have now. How many F-22's could we have purchased and how much more capable could it have been with incremental upgrades? How many super hornets? etc. How much more money should we pour into this to find out if it's worth it? Obviously our procurement system is a complete mess and we should learn from this boondoggle but I doubt that will happen since apparently people can work their entire career on a project without it mattering if it works or not and we just keep giving them money. Hell that sounds a lot like your average welfare rat to me. +1000 Jack of all trades, master of none. Mediocre at best. Such a shame to see stupid people waste so much money, and at the same time leaving us with a huge hole in our capabilities. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2016 10:30:33 PM EDT
[#8]
The Israelis sure seem happy with the ones they just got the other day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2016 10:32:43 PM EDT
[#9]
From an outsider (no experience granted,) it looks like a disaster. A very, very expensive one.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2016 10:37:24 PM EDT
[#10]
It is fulfilling its true purpose, which is to have money sent to Lockheed Martin.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2016 10:46:43 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need to throw a couple more trillions at it before we find out. On a side note... how have you been here only 2 years and accumulated over 28000 posts? Do you really post 40x a day? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 12:48:45 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Is it? From a project that has gone way over budget, yes. They want a VTOL jet but didn't learn from the Harrier that you are always going to have the possibility of getting exhaust gases fed back into the intake which results in that engine shutting down and causing the jet to crash during a vertical take-off or landing. Who knows how many F-35 prototypes crashed on trying to fix this issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 12:59:24 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From a design standpoint from the beginning, yes. From a project that has gone way over budget, yes. They want a VTOL jet but didn't learn from the Harrier that you are always going to have the possibility of getting exhaust gases fed back into the intake which results in that engine shutting down and causing the jet to crash during a vertical take-off or landing. Who knows how many F-35 prototypes crashed on trying to fix this issue.  OK....how many?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 1:12:22 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From a design standpoint from the beginning, yes. From a project that has gone way over budget, yes. They want a VTOL jet but didn't learn from the Harrier that you are always going to have the possibility of getting exhaust gases fed back into the intake which results in that engine shutting down and causing the jet to crash during a vertical take-off or landing. Who knows how many F-35 prototypes crashed on trying to fix this issue. Stupid question here.....isn't the purpose of a prototype to test things that could not go right so you can fix them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 1:15:33 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Israelis sure seem happy with the ones they just got the other day. And because the Israelis aren't idiots, they never openly complain about the free stealth fighter fleet we bought them, especially if they suck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 1:21:37 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From a design standpoint from the beginning, yes. From a project that has gone way over budget, yes. They want a VTOL jet but didn't learn from the Harrier that you are always going to have the possibility of getting exhaust gases fed back into the intake which results in that engine shutting down and causing the jet to crash during a vertical take-off or landing. Who knows how many F-35 prototypes crashed on trying to fix this issue. Not a jump jet. It has a lift fan right by the intakes that cycles cool air down. F-35Bs can hover for awhile because the hot exhaust gases are away from the intakes. Harriers stalled when hovering for too long because the hot air would recirculate in the engine and being thrust down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 1:23:57 AM EDT
[#17]
.gov/.mil doing what they do best. Pissing it all away.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 1:25:30 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From a design standpoint from the beginning, yes. From a project that has gone way over budget, yes. They want a VTOL jet but didn't learn from the Harrier that you are always going to have the possibility of getting exhaust gases fed back into the intake which results in that engine shutting down and causing the jet to crash during a vertical take-off or landing. Who knows how many F-35 prototypes crashed on trying to fix this issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 1:26:15 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This year Congress decided to send Israel $38 billion of our tax money in military aid over the next ten years for, I don't know, just in case. All of their enemies are fighting each other and can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but hey, you never know. Coincidentally Israel uses that money to order the most expensive military equipment in the world from American defense contractors who happen to own the Congressmen who sent the aid to Israel. Congress -> Israel -> Defense Industry -> Congress -> Israel -> Defense Industry -> Congress.... And because the Israelis aren't idiots, they never openly complain about the free stealth fighter fleet we bought them, especially if they suck. They also turn around and sell tech to the Chinese that we were gracious enough to gift them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 1:27:19 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is fulfilling its true purpose, which is to have money sent to Lockheed Martin. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 1:36:05 AM EDT
[#21]
Lot of experts in here... The F-35 has issues, no doubt about it. F-22 had issues too, anyone remember that?
The F-35 is very impressive. Your problem is the public compares it to the A-10. To me, that's like comparing an F-16 to the F-22. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 1:42:25 AM EDT
[#22]
It's the aircraft the Joint Program Office wanted.
In the mid to late 1980s, work began on two complimentary system specs: ATF and JSF. Each was optimized for a different role. In fact, ATF's original spec was very limited, with absolutely no provisions for air to ground; over time, however, that changed. By the late 1990s, the two specifications shared more overlap, with each being able to perform part of the other's primary design mission, but not excel at doing so. ATF brought us the F-22, and JSF, the F-35. Looking at costs and the evolution of threats, barring some massive force transformation to ground/sea based missile systems in lieu of aircraft-delivered, F-35 does make more sense than F-22 - provided that additional funding comes forward to take it beyond the original specification (increased air to air internal carriage). Failure to do so would be penny wise and pound foolish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 1:45:35 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From a design standpoint from the beginning, yes. From a project that has gone way over budget, yes. They want a VTOL jet but didn't learn from the Harrier that you are always going to have the possibility of getting exhaust gases fed back into the intake which results in that engine shutting down and causing the jet to crash during a vertical take-off or landing. Who knows how many F-35 prototypes crashed on trying to fix this issue. I'll take "Things That Are Equal to Zero," for one-hundred, Alex. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 1:51:24 AM EDT
[#24]
I gotta be honest.
I'm not happy to learn that FBI Director, James Comey, was involved in this when he was on the board of directors for Lockheed Martin, especially since they donated generously to the Clinton Foundation and that his brother's firm audited the CF to make them look legit, instead of what everyone knew them to be: a pay-to-play bribery clearing house of political and economic favors. FBI Director took millions from Clinton Foundation Donor, Lockheed Martin |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 1:52:50 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From a design standpoint from the beginning, yes. From a project that has gone way over budget, yes. They want a VTOL jet but didn't learn from the Harrier that you are always going to have the possibility of getting exhaust gases fed back into the intake which results in that engine shutting down and causing the jet to crash during a vertical take-off or landing. Who knows how many F-35 prototypes crashed on trying to fix this issue. The JSF isn't comparable to the Harrier at all, and there were zero prototypes that crashed because of that issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 1:55:40 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stupid question here.....isn't the purpose of a prototype to test things that could not go right so you can fix them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
From a design standpoint from the beginning, yes. From a project that has gone way over budget, yes. They want a VTOL jet but didn't learn from the Harrier that you are always going to have the possibility of getting exhaust gases fed back into the intake which results in that engine shutting down and causing the jet to crash during a vertical take-off or landing. Who knows how many F-35 prototypes crashed on trying to fix this issue. Stupid question here.....isn't the purpose of a prototype to test things that could not go right so you can fix them? The prototypes would have been the two X-35A/B and X-35C that flew in 2000 and 2001. Anything after that would have been an engineering/manufacture/design or production representative test vehicle asset. Serious design deficiencies such as hot air ingestion or inlet instabilities would be disastrous if carried into EMD - fortunately, the initial CFD and X-35B testing demonstrated that the design significantly mitigated the risk of hot air ingestion compared to more traditional approaches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 2:10:27 AM EDT
[#27]
IDK. They are certainly very capable aircraft, and from what I've read the Marine version whoops the shit out of the Harrier (which isn't tough, as they are handfuls at the best of time according to everything I've read, and Pilots I've talked to on deployment.)
So I think a more legit way to phrase it, is the F-35 program is a failure in terms of procurement efficiency and minimizing waste. The F-35 itself is pretty successful and developing all the technologies that will make UAV's that much better when they replace manned aircraft. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 2:38:11 AM EDT
[#28]
The correct discussion should be, "is the F-35 program the best way to meet all the operational needs of the Air Force, Navy and Marines?"
The answer is, of course not. Having 1 airframe fill all those roles sounds good, but is obviously tremendously difficult to bring into service. Also of course, our procurement system is in need of a major overhaul, though it's hard to see how this si the F-35s fault. The follow-on question, "well does the F-35 at least meet the operational needs?" is not something I'm qualified to answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 2:45:58 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was a dumbass idea from the get go. VTOL + carrier + air force versions of the same airframe? In what universe was this actually going to be a cost savings over just using purpose built aircraft? Not in this one with the procurement system we have now. How many F-22's could we have purchased and how much more capable could it have been with incremental upgrades? How many super hornets? etc. How much more money should we pour into this to find out if it's worth it? Obviously our procurement system is a complete mess and we should learn from this boondoggle but I doubt that will happen since apparently people can work their entire career on a project without it mattering if it works or not and we just keep giving them money. Hell that sounds a lot like your average welfare rat to me. The mil-industrial complex needs some welfare lovin' too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 2:47:15 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IDK. They are certainly very capable aircraft, and from what I've read the Marine version whoops the shit out of the Harrier (which isn't tough, as they are handfuls at the best of time according to everything I've read, and Pilots I've talked to on deployment.) So I think a more legit way to phrase it, is the F-35 program is a failure in terms of procurement efficiency and minimizing waste. The F-35 itself is pretty successful and developing all the technologies that will make UAV's that much better when they replace manned aircraft. <img src=http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/icon_smile_clown.gif border=0 align=middle> Not gunna happen until society is ok with the uav finding and engaging targets autonomously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 2:52:03 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not a jump jet. It has a lift fan right by the intakes that cycles cool air down. F-35Bs can hover for awhile because the hot exhaust gases are away from the intakes. Harriers stalled when hovering for too long because the hot air would recirculate in the engine and being thrust down. The engine in the Harrier blows fan air through the forward nozzles and turbine air through the aft nozzles. The core is still a jet turbine. Plenty of work was done for the recirculating hot gas problem before the JSF program was invented. Here's a photo of the reconfigurable hot gas ingestion model I worked on during the MDC ASTOVL project. 
Both airplanes are blowing air from forward nozzles or a fan that is cooler than the air from the aft nozzles, and the column of air helps fence off the hot air, but does not prevent it from entering the engine inlet. I also worked on the shaft driven lift fan in the MDC airplane, and the Harrier engine installation before that. In any case, a STOVL F-35 is not the cause for the entire program's failure, the list contains dozens and dozens of poor decisions and engineering. My favorite for illustrating extraordinarily design work is the simple failures at LM to lay out the geometry of the C model's launch bar, and then a few months after that issue surfaces the arresting hook geometry is screwed up. Those don't even rise to a level of rooky mistakes, they're juvenile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 2:54:13 AM EDT
[#32]
Aircraft get more complex. Aircraft get more technology stuffed into them. All that stuff inside means that it takes more time and work to make it all work together. With all that complexity there are more chances for things to go wrong and need to be fixed.
And yet we expect them to be cheap, simple and immediately perfect. We have such short memories (and now easy access to echo chambers) that we don't realize this happens with pretty much every new aircraft
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 2:57:46 AM EDT
[#33]
Not a disaster.
New technology takes awhile to perfect. New technology is not cheap. It took 30 years for the Osprey to be operational |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 3:07:32 AM EDT
[#34]
It seems like much of the concept could work...but the package as a whole sucks.
Perhaps if they had just stayed in LRIP/Prototype world and not tried to field it before it worked...or if they focused on core functions without trying to make it do so much... And the development time...does it really take that long to design/build something? Why? As it seems...no so good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 9:45:16 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aircraft get more complex. Aircraft get more technology stuffed into them. All that stuff inside means that it takes more time and work to make it all work together. With all that complexity there are more chances for things to go wrong and need to be fixed. And yet we expect them to be cheap, simple and immediately perfect. We have such short memories (and now easy access to echo chambers) that we don't realize this happens with pretty much every new aircraft <img src=http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_freak.gif border=0 align=middle> Yet the tools and systems for designing things have kept pace with technology too. all that complexity can be modeled in software before a part is ever made. I would bet a dollar if the country went back to more stringent bid processes, and didn't "spread the wealth" to defense contractors who lost and so on that things would tighten up. If companies had to have a working product, that fit the requirements, and if they went grossly over time and budget the program got terminated before too much was invested to stop because so much was already spent as a justification, things would change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 9:50:04 AM EDT
[#36]
Anyone want to bet DJTJR is checking out ARF for issues like the F35 and giving dad the low down of what REAL America is thinking?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 9:52:22 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not a disaster. New technology takes awhile to perfect. New technology is not cheap. It took 30 years for the Osprey to be operational The Osprey was a model clusterfuck.
Hardly the program to cite in trying to say something isn't a disaster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 9:55:57 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet the tools and systems for designing things have kept pace with technology too. all that complexity can be modeled in software before a part is ever made. I would bet a dollar if the country went back to more stringent bid processes, and didn't "spread the wealth" to defense contractors who lost and so on that things would tighten up. If companies had to have a working product, that fit the requirements, and if they went grossly over time and budget the program got terminated before too much was invested to stop because so much was already spent as a justification, things would change. So your suggestion is that companies should build prototype fighters out of hide and hope they win, otherwise they are out the development costs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 10:08:53 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your suggestion is that companies should build prototype fighters out of hide and hope they win, otherwise they are out the development costs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yet the tools and systems for designing things have kept pace with technology too. all that complexity can be modeled in software before a part is ever made. I would bet a dollar if the country went back to more stringent bid processes, and didn't "spread the wealth" to defense contractors who lost and so on that things would tighten up. If companies had to have a working product, that fit the requirements, and if they went grossly over time and budget the program got terminated before too much was invested to stop because so much was already spent as a justification, things would change. So your suggestion is that companies should build prototype fighters out of hide and hope they win, otherwise they are out the development costs? You really want to argue acquisitions with a guy who thinks BBs are the height of Naval power? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 10:11:12 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Israelis sure seem happy with the ones they just got the other day. Yeah because they didn't pay for them, US taxpayers did |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 10:30:23 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone want to bet DJTJR is checking out ARF for issues like the F35 and giving dad the low down of what REAL America is thinking? I really, really hope he isn't so stupid as to form an opinion on the F-35 based on the uninformed blatherings of a bunch of cackling old women here in GD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 10:43:24 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone want to bet DJTJR is checking out ARF for issues like the F35 and giving dad the low down of what REAL America is thinking?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 11:02:36 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IDK. They are certainly very capable aircraft, and from what I've read the Marine version whoops the shit out of the Harrier (which isn't tough, as they are handfuls at the best of time according to everything I've read, and Pilots I've talked to on deployment.) So I think a more legit way to phrase it, is the F-35 program is a failure in terms of procurement efficiency and minimizing waste. The F-35 itself is pretty successful and developing all the technologies that will make UAV's that much better when they replace manned aircraft. <img src=http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/icon_smile_clown.gif border=0 align=middle> Yes. It is, at least right now, a mismanaged program. I'm hoping Trump will look into it, cut waste and mismanagement, while leaving the good parts alone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 11:04:53 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone want to bet DJTJR is checking out ARF for issues like the F35 and giving dad the low down of what REAL America is thinking? I sure as fuck hope they aren't |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 11:06:17 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It seems like much of the concept could work...but the package as a whole sucks. Perhaps if they had just stayed in LRIP/Prototype world and not tried to field it before it worked...or if they focused on core functions without trying to make it do so much... And the development time...does it really take that long to design/build something? Why? As it seems...no so good. It takes infinite time when the customer keeps changing the spec and setting off a waterfall of necessary reengineering changes, only to change the spec again. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 11:15:41 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's the aircraft the Joint Program Office wanted. In the mid to late 1980s, work began on two complimentary system specs: ATF and JSF. Each was optimized for a different role. In fact, ATF's original spec was very limited, with absolutely no provisions for air to ground; over time, however, that changed. By the late 1990s, the two specifications shared more overlap, with each being able to perform part of the other's primary design mission, but not excel at doing so. ATF brought us the F-22, and JSF, the F-35. Looking at costs and the evolution of threats, barring some massive force transformation to ground/sea based missile systems in lieu of aircraft-delivered, F-35 does make more sense than F-22 - provided that additional funding comes forward to take it beyond the original specification (increased air to air internal carriage). Failure to do so would be penny wise and pound foolish. Excellent summation admiral/general. Your board of directors position with a comp. package of $12 million is all set for when you retire. Sincerely, Lockheed Martin |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 11:21:38 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your suggestion is that companies should build prototype fighters out of hide and hope they win, otherwise they are out the development costs? Only if you have poor reading comprehension. I didn't say that at all. I implied if that was the case as well as the losing contractors didn't get a piece of the pie like some current contracts (which you left out), things would have different results. I didn't advocate for it. -eta actually I didn't imply it, it was a pretty plain statement, I bet if things went back to older styles of bidding, then the products wouldn't follow the current model of get tons of money, fail to deliver, then get approved to spend the way out of the hole. "It'll work right if we spend more money". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 11:26:38 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really want to argue acquisitions with a guy who thinks BBs are the height of Naval power?  I love how you follow me around ankle biting at me in threads trying to do what? I like how your'e now having to resort to lying to people making claims about things I have not said.
I know you're still mad because of a few threads where I didn't let you be the smartest person in the thread and cited sources sources showing you were wrong a few times but that was what? a year or two ago? Maybe it's time to let it go? Or are you just going to keep stage 5 autist clinging to me like a little butthurt lamprey?
Anyways, back to ignoring you, you should really ask yourself if wasting time concerning yourself so deeply over my opinions is a valuable use of your time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 11:32:46 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Excellent summation admiral/general. Your board of directors position with a comp. package of $12 million is all set for when you retire. Sincerely, Lockheed Martin Your response is exactly why these threads can't be taken seriously-the kind I'd expect from a deranged, bitter leftist from Code Pink. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2016 11:33:19 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+1000 Jack of all trades, master of none. Mediocre at best. Such a shame to see stupid people waste so much money, and at the same time leaving us with a huge hole in our capabilities. . And what would that be? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
