F-35B can VTOL but is going to be STOVL and "they" have gotten it to work
Last edited:
F35 cant beat the plane is supposed to replace...
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
You don't think that we will save money when we are training, maintaining, and arming a single aircraft across the services vs the half dozen or so now? Yeah there will always be numerous aircraft that each fit a particular role but streamlining most operations into a single aircraft will save money. I don't know how you don't see that. It's obvious to even the most casual observer.
I'm likely the only one here who does know what I'm talking about, and the only one here who has had clearance for both the F22 and F35.
so the 70 or so STOVLs in DT were intermittent? Did the F-35B barely and intermittently STOVL in OT-1?
...and if you are on this (or in any other) forum boasting about your clearance and about "knowledge" of particular programs, you probably aren't mature enough or trustworthy enough to have it and that clearance should probably be revoked.
Last edited:
Without the numbers that's not obvious to anybody. At some point, the cost and schedule overruns wipe out any savings the pentagon would achieve through commonality. I suspect we've already hit that point. If we haven't, then someone should be able to show the numbers and show a contract that forces LMCO to hit projected costs going forward.
As long the contract incentivizes the contractor to NOT meet cost and schedule, then I'll continue to say the thing is a giveaway to some politician's favorite contributor.
Like I said, you're a moron. You apparently don't realize that most everything within the supply chin and logistics base will NOT be handled by Lockheed Martin.
And you also don't understand that a cost + fixed fee is only really used on highly development programs such as the F35 to date. It is NOT used on standard procurement programs where a contractor is building to print. If they exceed their own internal cost assumptions then it comes out of the contractor bottom line. However, I'm sure in your serverely delusional view of things, you really think that every single DOD contract is cost + fixed fee.
We're not even talking about just commonality within the US services. We'll now have 15 partner nations buying the same exact aircraft with the same armaments and ammunition. That means that Israel, the UK, Australia, Japan, etc can all submit their needed procurement quantities and they can be produced toghether, generating massive economies of scale.
But hey, that's not true since EE said so*
Who said anything about LMCO handling logistics and supply chain? You literally just made that up so you could fling more poo.
You're still talking pie in the sky. Show me numbers. It shouldn't be that difficult to provide a justified estimation of the savings the pentagon expects to achieve and then compare to it the costs of the program.
I've worked cost+ development programs. I've seen what the contractor's incentives are and the typical results. It's a sham in many cases
Actually, I don't want to get in to details. I've seen practices that cause costs to balloon far higher than initially agreed upon by making the contract language intentionally vague because the government customer is naive (or worse). There's a reason I'm very skeptical when I see government program costs balloon in exactly the way F35's are.
Last edited:
You can't get into details because you're talking out of your ass about things you don't understand.
First of all...
Second: Bob, shut the fukc up.
Third: unfortunately, chemmie actually knows what he's talking about here and as much as I'd like to insult him like I normally do, I must admit to his knowledge on THIS specific subject.
Second: Bob, shut the fukc up.
Third: unfortunately, chemmie actually knows what he's talking about here and as much as I'd like to insult him like I normally do, I must admit to his knowledge on THIS specific subject.
I mean isn't that effectively what the F-35 is? What about the F-18 and Harrier? You'd also need a replacement for those and very expensive programs to design/manufacture them. The airframes are extremely old and the technology riding in them extremely out-of-date. Maybe it would've been more beneficial to have separate programs instead of trying to bake them all into one but the idea that the current fighters are fine and don't need to be updated/replaced is wrong. We would have to have spent similar amounts of money to update/replace these other platforms, most likely more.
I think you are giving him too much credit. Just because he ignores OPSEC and carelessly spouts off about his clearance and the programs he works on to try to support the cause of the month doesn't make him all knowledgeable on the F-35. To say that it CAN'T VTOL and then to say that it can barely / intermittently STOVL is just wrong.
Unless, of course, the 2 aircraft used during DT barely and intermittently completed over 70 STOVLs at sea. The reports aren't public yet but I am willing to wager a growler of Alvarado Street Minesweeper (deliverable in person at the Stanford game) that the F-35B STOVL'd above the "barely and intermittent" threshold in the recent OT (at sea by Marine Aviators & crew - NOT contractors). Unless of course the aircraft in this video are barely/intermittently taking off and landing (If this is barely and intermittent, the program is doing much better than ever):
Have the solved the issues with the F-35 burning the shit out of the ship decks, other than expensive and time-consuming retrofits to the decks?
An advanced attack stealth fighter can take off on barely any runway and land vertically.
But it is behind UAV technology!
Right EE?*
But it is behind UAV technology!
Right EE?*
Thermion. The deck on the WASP appears not to be melting. It is also needed for the MV-22. I am pretty sure that the Office of Naval Research is still supporting research in advanced materials sciences ... so there may be more innovation on the way.
Last edited:
Not saying he's an expert, just saying this is one of the 3 or 4 subjects that he actually can speak with some knowledge of.
An advanced attack stealth fighter (that can't dogfight) can take off on barely any runway and land vertically (like the Apache that's been in service for 20+ years)
But it is behind UAV technology (Which we actually have in operation unlike the F35).
Looking forward to seeing the "savings" this project was intended to bring about when it's finally off the ground.
But it is behind UAV technology (Which we actually have in operation unlike the F35).
Looking forward to seeing the "savings" this project was intended to bring about when it's finally off the ground.
Do you understand the difference between an attack helicopter and a multi-mission, single seat jet fighter?
Last edited:
I'm not going to keep going in the same circle. The differences are obvious, but from an overall capability perspective JSF brings nothing new (and in some cases reduces capability).
No, he doesn't. He literally is the biggest idiot on this board.
He's gone from making absurd claims about UAVs to now making actual comparisons between advanced fighter aircraft and helicopters. LMAO.
Like I said, he's trying to talk about something that he doesn't have a goddamn clue about. As usual.
Keep willfully missing the point. Your heads would explode if you acknowledged a program you've supported has been a giant pit of government waste.
Not to defend EE, but it's only a matter of time before UCAS's replace manned aircraft. The technology will be there before the F35 is EOL.
My head would explode if you didn't say something that was butthole stupid.
Couldn't you call every massive government program a giant pit of government waste?
I'm going to have to take this as a long winded 'no.'
I am only speaking in regards to my posts direct to you. You don't answer the questions I have posed to you directly, you just brush them off. Do you expect me to take your opinions seriously by taking this course of action?
The differences between an attack helicopter and a fighter jet are too obvious to need an answer, and since my point has not been related to differences between individual aircraft but overall capability the answer hasn't been relevant. But if you want to compare differences in capability, here are the highlights of some current aircraft we have in service. I want you to tell me what NEW capability that F-35 is adding to this. The one and only thing I could identify is the air-to-ground capacity being higher for a stealth aircraft, but once you strap anything to the external hardpoints the stealth capability becomes moot.
So for the $1+ trillion dollar (and growing) price tag, what new capability are we providing the U.S. military? That question becomes more relavent when you consider sk8's point that actual NEW unmanned technologies are going to be qual'd before this pit even EOLs.
Aircraft Capability Armaments Performance
AH-64 Close Combat Attack, VTOL, Hover Anti-Armor, Covering Force, Escort 197 kts, Range 257 miles, Combat Radius: 260 miles
B-2 Stealth Bomber Internal up to 40,000 lbs Mach 1, Range: 6,000 miles
F-15 Multirole fighter Air-to-Air, Air-to-Surface, Bomber (up to 23,000 lbs) Mach 2.5, Range 1,600 miles, Combat Radius: 790 miles
F/A-18E/F Carrier-borne multirole fighter Air-to-Air, Air-to-Surface, Anti-Ship Mach 1.5, Range 1,100 miles, Combat Radius: 400 miles
F-22 Stealth, carrier-borne Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground Internal 2x 1000 lbs or 4x 250 lbs, External 4x 5,000 lbs external Mach 2.2, Range 1,600 miles, Combat Radius: 450 miles
F-35 Stealth, carrier-borne, VTOL, Hover Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground Internal 2x 3,000 lbs Extenal 2x 15,000 Mach 1.6, Range 1,200 miles, Combat Radius: 613 miles
Why do we need boats when we have scuba divers?
Why do we need to replace the Humvee when we already have Abrams?
Why do we need a new tank round when we have artillery?
Why do we need missile defenses when we can just buy more rifles?
Signed,
EE
Why do we need to replace the Humvee when we already have Abrams?
Why do we need a new tank round when we have artillery?
Why do we need missile defenses when we can just buy more rifles?
Signed,
EE
In some cases the answers to those questions are improvements upon current capabilities and that justifies the expenditure, but that doesn't apply here....in many cases the answer is that military contractors have friends in congress. When the answer is the latter, then you have government waste.
I had a nice long response but nevermind. You're not worth the time spent, especially since you don't have the intellectual capability to the understand obvious benefits of having a universal platform that can perform 75%+ of all tactical aircraft objectives.
We've discussed the benefits and came to the conclusion that if you wanted to prove those benefits, you need to provide the numbers in an ROI analysis that includes the up front investments being made. No one could provide that, so you reverted to "you're too dumb to unerstand". Lame.
