Jump to content

F-35 bellies in in S Korea


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, junglierating said:

That is quite reasonable reporting for THAT PAPER must be a slow news day 

A non fatal flying accident 8000 miles away and, it's front page headlines? A catatonic day I'd suggest.

I'm just waiting for someone to blame COVID.

Its become the go to excuse for almost anything now.

 

John

Edited by Beermonster1958
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Beermonster1958 said:

A non fatal flying accident 8000 miles away and, it's front page headlines? A catatonic day I'd suggest.

I'm just waiting for someone to blame COVID.

Its become the go to excuse for almost anything now.

 

John

Well it does delay stuff .....or makes my job just a little bit more random ...so far all my test have been negative ...got em all lined up in the kitchen....modern art 🎨 👌 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DM’s agenda, IMHO is to peddle the story that the type is unreliable. The accidents aren’t connected, different sub-types in different stages of flight, and yet… 

 

Yawn.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-35 Jump-Jet! :frantic:

 

That one was literally a flop.  Another safe pilot though, so not all bad :)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sundowner14 said:

DM’s agenda, IMHO is to peddle the story that the type is unreliable. The accidents aren’t connected, different sub-types in different stages of flight, and yet… 

 

Yawn.

 Well, maybe it is and , maybe it ain't but, if such allegations were true it would never be allowed in the Daily Howl. After all, they adhere firmly to the first rule of journalism : "Don't ever let inconvenient facts stand in the way of a good story".

Second rule is :"Never underestimate the ignorance and /or gullibility of our readers".

Meanwhile, I long ago discovered the Howl's true virtue - its exactly the right size to line the bottom of my cat's litter tray! 😉😂

 

John

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in the US there are still people who think that the whole program should have gotten binned from the beginning. It will probably continue to be a news item due to the aircraft's expense and the plethora of issues (some still unaddressed) that it has had.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a difference if you loose 1 million, 10 million or 100 million of a y money.

On the other side, if you need to crash some aircraft before getting used to it, as on each type, but it is a matter of money. If such an a/c is so expensive, ot is a financial risk. Which will dominate the mind.

And if this a/c is called to be the best from start on, so no wonder if you have a safe place on the front page of a  e

newspaper.

Happy modelling 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2022 at 10:46 PM, Slater said:

Here in the US there are still people who think that the whole program should have gotten binned from the beginning. It will probably continue to be a news item due to the aircraft's expense and the plethora of issues (some still unaddressed) that it has had.

 

If the same people had known how many issues were encountered by so many famous types, maybe they'd understand how every new aircraft goes through problems of one kind or another. There have been aircraft and other weapons that had issues that where never solved during the type career, simply the services carried on with them untile the retirement.

Yet people always wax lirically about the good old days when we were able to do things right...yes, the good old days before the internet was around and if there was a problem the only ones who knew it were the few working in the sector

Edited by Giorgio N
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2022 at 9:03 AM, Beermonster1958 said:

its exactly the right size to line the bottom of my cat's litter tray!

It's ultrastrong and super absorbent... always part of my contingency planning in the event of a loo roll shortage... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2022 at 9:46 PM, Slater said:

Here in the US there are still people who think that the whole program should have gotten binned from the beginning.

In the UK that's been the background to just about every new military aircraft programme we've had since the 1960s. And in light of these views expressed in the US (and not just by the media) what is surpising is that the F-35 seems to have largely escaped any significant negative press here in the UK - outside the specialist media anyway. I doubt many will remember the hugely vociferous campaigns by parts of the media to kill the Tornado programme well into its testing;  but for its multi-national context, would probably have gone the same way as TSR2. Similarly with the Eurofigher Typhoon... what was the point of spending money on a highly agile aircraft, designed as a supremely effective dogfighter in combat to challenge / defeat Su 27 Flankers or Mig29s?   Didn't these cold war warriors know we were living in a new age and there would never be the prospect of peer level conflict, or any more advanced successor aircraft...?   or so the story went. 

 

Although it has to be said in the case of the Typhoon by the early 90s the German government of the day was its worst critic with a serious case of cold feet. German Defence Minister Volker Rühe  wanted to withdraw Germany from the project in favour of using the technology developed for Eurofighter in a cheaper, lighter plane. Unfortunately for Rühe, his predecessors (ironically I think, fearing a similar UK withdrawal at some stage) had locked themselves into the project with a punitive penalty system of their own devising! Nevertheless this all resulted in signifant delay and extra cost to taxpayers.

 

Rich

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

Some aircraft seem to have gotten relatively little attention from the press/media such as the T-7A Redhawk, P-8 Poseidon, and F-15EX.

 

The USAF claims to have designed, built, and flown a prototype of the "Next Generation Air Dominance" fighter. For such an apparently important achievement, it has garnered few mentions in the press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Slater said:

Some aircraft seem to have gotten relatively little attention from the press/media such as the T-7A Redhawk, P-8 Poseidon, and F-15EX.

 

The USAF claims to have designed, built, and flown a prototype of the "Next Generation Air Dominance" fighter. For such an apparently important achievement, it has garnered few mentions in the press.

I don't find that surprising. Other than enthusiasts and, members of the military, I suggest it's a matter of little to no  interest to a lot of people.

It won't become a matter of interest until the cost is mentioned and then, it's shock!, horror! "How much???. Waste of money. We could do(insert) for that instead!"

 

John

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a previous poster has written, virtually ALL modern military-development projects are subject to cost-overruns, missed deadlines, political controversy, unwanted interference by "interested parties" and any number of other troubling issues. 

 

When they were developing the Rockwell B-1B bomber in the 80's, the US Airforce added a new requirement to it - all the crew had to be able to eject at 100 feet altitude, when the airframe was upside down. Legend has it that this one requirement added a Billion dollars to the cost. 

 

Chris.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2022 at 4:46 PM, Slater said:

Here in the US there are still people who think that the whole program should have gotten binned from the beginning. It will probably continue to be a news item due to the aircraft's expense and the plethora of issues (some still unaddressed) that it has had.

Those are the same people who said the same thing about the F-15 (why not just keep building F-4's?), the M1 tank (upgraded M60's are just as good), the M2 Bradley (what's wrong with all those M113's?), etc, etc. 

 

Always got people who can't understand that technology marches on, despite the love they have for their pet weapons systems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 11bravo said:

Those are the same people who said the same thing about the F-15 (why not just keep building F-4's?), the M1 tank (upgraded M60's are just as good), the M2 Bradley (what's wrong with all those M113's?), etc, etc. 

 

Always got people who can't understand that technology marches on, despite the love they have for their pet weapons systems. 

Yeah.... but then, more than often yhose fancy expensive promises do not deliver...for the one or other reason of course

Hustler, Valkyrie, Rah-66 Comanche, ...NH-90,....Nimrod AEW, A-12, various VTOL platforms..

 

And the M1 seems long in the teeth for some tiime already... as does the A-10  for some, not for others!

 

The "better" is the enemy of the "good" ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the world's tanks have been around forever - M1 Abrams, Leopard II, Merkava, T-72/-64/-80/-90 series. They just get continually upgraded.

 

The Abrams' replacement was supposed to be a product of the the Future Combat Systems program. It was a tank much lighter and less armored than the M1. The theory was that it would survive by superior situational awareness and technology - essentially avoiding being hit instead of absorbing punishment like Abrams. The US Army's experience in Iraq and Afghanistan tossed that concept out the window, and Future Combat Systems proved to be a costly and embarrasing failure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, exdraken said:

Yeah.... but then, more than often yhose fancy expensive promises do not deliver...for the one or other reason of course

Hustler, Valkyrie, Rah-66 Comanche, ...NH-90,....Nimrod AEW, A-12, various VTOL platforms..

 

And the M1 seems long in the teeth for some tiime already... as does the A-10  for some, not for others!

 

The "better" is the enemy of the "good" ;)

 

 

 

And yet there have been a number of very expensive promises that did deliver: the F-106, F-14, B-52... yes, even the B-52 that was in its day a terribly expensive program and many wondered it it was worth pursuing it. Don't think anyone today would criticize the decision to go ahead with the Buff...

 

The programs you mention may have not been successes but all for different reasons and to different degrees: the B-58 worked fine but grew old quickly because of changes in the air defence technology. The B-70 was a very extreme aircraft, could have worked but suffered the same fate of the B-58, the RAH-66 was maybe too advanced for its days, the many VTOL types were mostly the answer to problems that very few had, the Nimrod AEW was not particularly groundbreaking but was a project badly managed from several points of view... and so on..

 

May be worth adding that in aviation there is no good or better, what the customers want is the best ! Where best means the solution that best suits the specifications. In the US in particular this has often meant trying to get the best aircraft possible, This may have not always been achieved but just naming types like the F-86, the F-4 and the F-15 shows that this objective was achieved more often than in any other country. Yes, they also generally had more money than any other country, this does help

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With programs like the AH-56A Cheyenne attack helicopter, the contractor (Lockheed) was well on the way to solving the aircraft's problems but by then it was too late. The Army (and Congress) had lost confidence. And the price tag didn't help matters either. Also, by then the Bell AH-1G HueyCobra was proving it's worth in Vietnam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

types like the F-86, the F-4 and the F-15 shows that this objective was achieved more often than in any other country.

F-86 probably yes, F-4 was more an USAF accident , or a McDonnell/ Navy genious design.

The F-15 may have been overall the best but for sure not because of the "no pound for air to ground" doctrine, that was no complied to  ;)

I think the F-16 is the acctual "best" - most versatile/ cos effective and successful fighter of its time... and NOT the most expensive... especially from 1992 with AMRAAM capabily or the MLU upgrades..

I think USAF would have done just as fine with F-4s and then F-16s as main fighters..... but that is of course my opinion only!

 

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...