Jump to content

F35 giggle


Selwyn

Recommended Posts

 

 

Had a good laugh today.  Chap at work  described the F35  as follows:

 

"Stealthy, except when you put pylons and external bombs on it, not nearly maneuverable enough to dogfight the latest generation fighters, and two slow to run away if intercepted, in fact its the the  21st Century Fairey Battle!

 

What do you think?

 

Selwyn

 

Ducking for cover!

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Selwyn said:

 

 

Had a good laugh today.  Chap at work  described the F35  as follows:

 

"Stealthy, except when you put pylons and external bombs on it, not nearly maneuverable enough to dogfight the latest generation fighters, and two slow to run away if intercepted, in fact its the the  21st Century Fairey Battle!

 

What do you think?

 

Selwyn

 

Ducking for cover!

 

 

1. It was never meant to be stealthy with pylons and external ordnance.

 

2. How does he know? Is he read into the program(me), or is he going on the reports about the DACT conducted with the F-16 which were gleefully seized on by non-believers who were only too eager to ignore certain critical points as to why the test was hardly representative? Too slow to run away from what? Under what parameters?


3. Is possessing 2x AIM-120 and (if going slightly non-stealth) 2 x AIM-9X (and a gun on the A-model), plus a decent DAS, and top-notch SA in any way, shape or form equivalent to a Fairey Battle? Which didn't have any escort supercruising at FL50 which the opposition hadn't seen, or any SA other than 'damn it, old man, that flak/109 is awfully close, no SEAD/DEAD support, no...

What do I think? Let me put it this way - there's a chap at my workplace who was a cynic about the F-35 when I first met him coming through said location. Between that time and his return to my workplace, he's flown it. He isn't a cynic any more... 

 

Edited by XV107
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go again, lets wait and see it's all guessing at the moment, and we are getting them come what may as we have two carries and nothing else will do. And before anyone says Harrier well that would have done the job.But even were we are now the F35 will and is the more capable aircraft for today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh...this is getting boring.  The need for stealth is a mission role only needed until such time as air supremacy has been achieved.  At that point, the aircraft can fly dirty with external stores with impunity.  No current 4th generation combat aircraft can achieve this breadth of operational capability.

 

Those who are against the F-35 will never listen to any evidence that contradicts their personal bias because any positive description is clearly "fake news" manufactured by Lockheed and military pilots who have to say the politically correct thing (even though it's those same pilots who would be risking their lives in the aircraft if its performance is as bad as the critics make out).  The evidence that it can dogfight (eg the Norwegian ex-F-16 driver who said he could get into a firing solution faster and had greater ability to engage at extreme angles than the F-16) and that it is a capable combat platform (eg the latest Red Flag results where it took out several advanced SAM systems and achieved a 20:1 air-to-air kill ratio) is clearly fabricated, right?  Sheesh...can we stop going over the same ground again and again...and AGAIN? 

 

And as for looks, it's a lot better-looking that its Boeing-designed competitor that looks like an F-16 got amorous with a Basking Shark:

98b06130c24584e9d9c345f1ce947d99.jpg

 

 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as those who are for the F-35 will slurp up any LM press release as if it is gospel.

 

The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.

 

But I do agree with you about the X-34. That really did hit every branch as it fell down the ugly tree, and then climbed back up to do it all over again.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take some personal offence at your first comment.  I am broadly in favour of the F-35 but not because I believe LM marketing.  I base my views on my personal experience in the military, including combat operations and flight trials.  I try to take a balanced view based on available info...and while it was easy for LM to control the message during the earlier phases of testing and deployment, it's increasingly difficult to do so at this stage of the programme. 

 

The latest Red Flag data is not a LM press release so where does that sit on your "somewhere in the middle" scale?  Is it towards the detractors or the proponents?

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, XV107 said:

 

 

1. It was never meant to be stealthy with pylons and external ordnance.

 

2. How does he know? Is he read into the program(me), or is he going on the reports about the DACT conducted with the F-16 which were gleefully seized on by non-believers who were only too eager to ignore certain critical points as to why the test was hardly representative? Too slow to run away from what? Under what parameters?


3. Is possessing 2x AIM-120 and (if going slightly non-stealth) 2 x AIM-9X (and a gun on the A-model), plus a decent DAS, and top-notch SA in any way, shape or form equivalent to a Fairey Battle? Which didn't have any escort supercruising at FL50 which the opposition hadn't seen, or any SA other than 'damn it, old man, that flak/109 is awfully close, no SEAD/DEAD support, no...

What do I think? Let me put it this way - there's a chap at my workplace who was a cynic about the F-35 when I first met him coming through said location. Between that time and his return to my workplace, he's flown it. He isn't a cynic any more... 

 

Any chance of a translation for us numpties not sufficiently "in the know".

DACT,DAS,SA,SEAD/DEAD. Its all a bit meaningless without understanding those acronyms. :unsure:

Steve.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having seen two or three in flight, merciful heavens but they're noisy on final appoach, I don't think they look too bad and I expect when they've shaken the snags out they'll do the job they were designed for pretty well.

 

However, the thing that troubles me about the F35 is the intermittent trickle of reports in the computing trade press about the way the software testing (it's a computer with wings and weapons) is being handled; "Not well" is a good summary.  How much reliance can be placed on those reports is another matter altogether, but the overall tone is not reassuring. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bentwaterstf81 is correct with his definitions of DACT and SEAD/DEAD.  Couple of corrections on the others:

 

DAS = Defensive Aids Suite (eg radar and infra-red countermeasures such as chaff, flares and jamming capabilities)

SA = Situational Awareness

Edited by mhaselden
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TheLurker said:

However, the thing that troubles me about the F35 is the intermittent trickle of reports in the computing trade press about the way the software testing (it's a computer with wings and weapons) is being handled; "Not well" is a good summary.  How much reliance can be placed on those reports is another matter altogether, but the overall tone is not reassuring. 

 

I'd like to better understand what you mean by "not well".  Is that related to the process being used to test the software or is it merely the fact that software issues continue to be found? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mhaselden said:

 

I'd like to better understand what you mean by "not well".  Is that related to the process being used to test the software or is it merely the fact that software issues continue to be found? 

A bit of both, but the thing that troubled me most (and, annoyingly, I can't find the original story at the moment) was a report that a block of testing was skipped and the justification offered, as reported - so keep the salt handy, for skipping the block didn't strike me as convincing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Slater said:

The US Marines have been operational with their F-35B's since last year, although I believe they eventually require a software upgrade and are limited in the type of weapons they can employ.

 

To be strictly accurate the USMC declared IOC with the F-35B on 31 July 2015.  The USAF also declared IOC with F-35A effective 2 Aug 16.  Software updates are required to reach FOC and there will likely be further updates to both software and hardware to grow the capability over time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheLurker said:

A bit of both, but the thing that troubled me most (and, annoyingly, I can't find the original story at the moment) was a report that a block of testing was skipped and the justification offered, as reported - so keep the salt handy, for skipping the block didn't strike me as convincing. 

 

Thanks for the additional info.  The parallel-tracking of testing and deployment has certainly caused some considerable issues for the programme.  That said, it's not like we haven't seen this kind of thing before - 'Blue Circle' radar on the Tonka F2 or the F-15 entering service with a radar that performed worse than the aircraft it was supposed to replace.  That's not an excuse, simply a reflection of the complexity of combat aircraft systems and the extreme rigour required just for airworthiness...and that's before we consider combat readiness. 

 

I will say that the response to emergent issues seems to have been pretty solid.  The bug where the radar shut down every 4 hours was one example of a big problem that was satisfactorily (and pretty rapidly) resolved.  There are surely plenty of other issues still outstanding but we need to be a little cautious with "the sky is falling" rhetoric given that software is never "done"; it requires bug fixes and updates throughout its life (ie until the software is retired).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TheLurker said:

A bit of both, but the thing that troubled me most (and, annoyingly, I can't find the original story at the moment) was a report that a block of testing was skipped and the justification offered, as reported - so keep the salt handy, for skipping the block didn't strike me as convincing. 

 

 

I'm thinking this might be a misconstrued understanding of the capabilities re-ordering, or the prioritization of some bits of programming to get the IOC for the B and A models. 

 

 There are no "skipped blocks" in testing: they can't by law. For the aircraft to pass the Full Operating Capacity and Full Rate Production decision points. Actually blind adherence to the DoT&E's test points has cost the US government more money they it actually should. Earlier this year the F-35 program office asked if IOC testing could start with 18 aircraft rather than the 23 required (the additional five would be ready two months later). DOT&E rejected that, which will cost the US about 60 million dollars. The body is reviled within DoD: its seen as overly bureaucratic, which helps not to improve programs but increase the cost and generates (often inaccurate) negative press.  

 

That being said, its been interesting to watch how the test schedule has been developed in order to compress the time and create savings. So where you had flights to test a single point... they've had flights looking at multiple test points. They've been using synthetic environments to test other areas (in some cases its the only way they can do it). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stevehnz said:

Any chance of a translation for us numpties not sufficiently "in the know".

DACT,DAS,SA,SEAD/DEAD. Its all a bit meaningless without understanding those acronyms. :unsure:

Steve.

 

Sorry...had been doing some work-related stuff immediately prior to posting that and was still in TLA (Three Letter Acronym) and ETLA (Extended Three Letter Acronym...) mode.

 

The definitions have all be given, and I did mean 'Situational Awareness' by SA vice Systems Analysis (SA being a RTLA - Reduced Three Letter Acronym) which is also a CAMTTWC ('Camt - wick' - Confusing Acronym Which Means Two Things Without Context).

 

And yes, some staff officers of my acquaintance did get bored and come up with all that one afternoon, prompting an email 'TCBCYGBTWP?' from their 1*

 

(Thanks, Chaps, But Could You Get Back To Work, Please?)  Followed by  'YIF'

Board rules mean you'll have to work that one out from my explaining that the 'I' stood for 'Idle'...

 

The software issue is one that is open to misinterpretation; it isn't working as well as hoped, but at the same time, this isn't entirely unexpected or filling people involved with the beast with unmitigated gloom. Equally, the software it isn't meant to be quite as all singing and all dancing at this stage as critics of the F-35 claim.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mhaselden said:

Sigh...this is getting boring.  The need for stealth is a mission role only needed until such time as air supremacy has been achieved.  At that point, the aircraft can fly dirty with external stores with impunity.  No current 4th generation combat aircraft can achieve this breadth of operational capability.

 

Those who are against the F-35 will never listen to any evidence that contradicts their personal bias because any positive description is clearly "fake news" manufactured by Lockheed and military pilots who have to say the politically correct thing (even though it's those same pilots who would be risking their lives in the aircraft if its performance is as bad as the critics make out).  The evidence that it can dogfight (eg the Norwegian ex-F-16 driver who said he could get into a firing solution faster and had greater ability to engage at extreme angles than the F-16) and that it is a capable combat platform (eg the latest Red Flag results where it took out several advanced SAM systems and achieved a 20:1 air-to-air kill ratio) is clearly fabricated, right?  Sheesh...can we stop going over the same ground again and again...and AGAIN? 

 

And as for looks, it's a lot better-looking that its Boeing-designed competitor that looks like an F-16 got amorous with a Basking Shark:

98b06130c24584e9d9c345f1ce947d99.jpg

 

 

 

I think Boeing's one looks like a Hasegawa Egg Plane.  I wonder what an Egg Plane kit of it would look like!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mhaselden said:

I take some personal offence at your first comment.  I am broadly in favour of the F-35 but not because I believe LM marketing.  I base my views on my personal experience in the military, including combat operations and flight trials.  I try to take a balanced view based on available info...and while it was easy for LM to control the message during the earlier phases of testing and deployment, it's increasingly difficult to do so at this stage of the programme. 

 

The latest Red Flag data is not a LM press release so where does that sit on your "somewhere in the middle" scale?  Is it towards the detractors or the proponents?

 

 

 

If you take offence there's not much I can do about that. Personally, looking back through your own comments on the subject I'm quite offended by your remark that you take a balanced view of the F-35, as you must think we're all idiots. You have anything but a balanced view on this subject, my friend, so don't be too quick on the moral outrage when someone disagrees with you. We are allowed to think otherwise.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...