June 30, 2015

It Is Time to Scrap the F-35 And Simply Begin Building Somewhat Updated F-15s Again
— Ace

Have you heard the bad news? We have spent one trillion dollars on the F-35, which is intended to be the main battle plane across three different services (Navy, Air Force, Marines), filling at least two different roles (air superiority, that is, dogfighting and radar-destroying, and ground-striking) and the thing is an absolute piece of shit which will kill our pilots.

This is not some niche plane. This is intended to be the main airframe in use by all of our military. This will end up being 70% of the planes we fly. (Note: I just made that up, but I really want to push that this is not just some niche flier we can afford to limp along with.)

A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.

"The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage," the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled "for official use only."

The test pilot's report is the latest evidence of fundamental problems with the design of the F-35 -- which, at a total program cost of more than a trillion dollars, is history's most expensive weapon.

...

The fateful test took place on Jan. 14, 2015, apparently within the Sea Test Range over the Pacific Ocean near Edwards Air Force Base in California. The single-seat F-35A with the designation "AF-02" -- one of the older JSFs in the Air Force --took off alongside a two-seat F-16D Block 40, one of the types of planes the F-35 is supposed to replace.

...


The F-35 was flying "clean," with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage.

But the JSF's advantage didn't actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. "Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement," the pilot reported.

...


In the end, the F-35 -- the only new fighter jet that America and most of its allies are developing -- is demonstrably inferior in a dogfight with the F-16, which the U.S. Air Force first acquired in the late 1970s.

I am not even close to expert. One caveat I'd note here: Dogfighting is not everything. Agility is not the most important thing. Speed is. For example, I remember in the nineties some lesser plane -- maybe the F-16, maybe some British fighter -- would routinely beat F-15s in dogfighting.

But the F-15 pilots laughed. They said, basically, this: "We lost because we were under the artificial conditions where we had to dogfight. In real life, we get to decide whether we have the superiority and thus whether to engage at all. And in the air, speed, not agility, is king: we can close on them if they flee, and we can flee them if they close on us. Add in our ability to hit them from very far away, and it all shakes out that the F-16's advantage in dogfighting is trivial, and not one that will make a difference on the battlefield very often."

Fine.

But no one hears anything but one problem after another with this plane. (See video below for more.) Australia's going a little big wiggy that they've contracted to buy this lemon.

There is no doubt that the US fighter fleet could use a refreshing -- but this plane seems to be awful.

We need some brave voices to stand up to the serious Career-Momentum of this thing -- that is, everyone who shepherded this piece of shit along is going to suffer a career-ending embarrassment if we pull the plug on it, or put it back on to the chalkboards -- to take a stand and say that our boys, and our security, are more important than some Pentagon Procurement Asshole's career.

Put the F-35 back into the chalkboard stage, and begin designing some incremental, evolutionary changes to the F-15.

No, a slightly upgraded F-15 will not give us the sort of dominance we need.

But the F-35 sure won't, either, and at least we know, with the F-15, we're getting a reliable and effective platform.

We do need more stealth. Fine. Use the money saved from canceling the F-35 rollout (and buying cheaper upgraded F-15s) to buy some extra stealth planes.

But this F-35 seems to be a disaster, and Washington seems to be doing with this disaster what it does with all disasters of its own making: Pretending it's not happening so that no one actually has to (gasp!) get a demotion over the catastrophe.

For a contrary take, see Defense Tech, quoting pilots who claim flying the F-35 is "like magic."

I don't know.

There's a certain rah-rah that happens when you're in a group project and you want it all to turn out all right...

New Video Added: Dave in Texas recommends the below video-- from the co-designer of the F-16.

He calls the F-35 "dumb," and the whole F-35 plan a "stunt" and "public relations campaign."



Posted by: Ace at 11:55 AM | Comments (499)
Post contains 936 words, total size 6 kb.

1 -and keep the A10 Warthog while we're at it..

Posted by: Insert Clever Name Here at June 30, 2015 11:56 AM (xptlg)

2 We have spent one trillion dollars on the F-35 Nothing a single platinum coin couldn't handle.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at June 30, 2015 11:57 AM (W5DcG)

3 alas, pilot-less is more likely the futue, so ... drone/pilot-less f15, anyone?

Posted by: Insert Clever Name Here at June 30, 2015 11:57 AM (xptlg)

4 Avenge me!

Posted by: the A-10 at June 30, 2015 11:59 AM (21zCy)

5 Honest question, has anyone said anything good about this plane ever?

Posted by: alexthechick - sternum rester at June 30, 2015 11:59 AM (mf5HN)

6 This is what you get when congress is involved in procurement.

Posted by: Vic[/i] We Have No Party at June 30, 2015 11:59 AM (GpgJl)

7 The ghost of John Boyd approves of this post.

Posted by: Roland THTG at June 30, 2015 12:00 PM (QM5S2)

8 Ace,

I recall that the original F-35 was supposed to be a twin-engine plane, but they cut that to a single engine for cost savings. This is one of the many design flaws that were driven by things other than quality.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at June 30, 2015 12:00 PM (Zu3d9)

9 Well, at least some politicians and hangers-on got their palms greased. Hope it was worth it.

Posted by: Insert Clever Name Here at June 30, 2015 12:00 PM (xptlg)

10 Barack Obama is a SCOAMT.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 30, 2015 12:00 PM (kff5f)

11 iirc there actually were some problems with the oxygen system on the F-35 that could kill the pilot

Posted by: the real ch3 at June 30, 2015 12:01 PM (IG5KL)

12 Burn it down. Scatter the stones. Salt the earth where it stood.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 30, 2015 12:01 PM (kff5f)

13 5 Honest question, has anyone said anything good about this plane ever? Posted by: alexthechick - sternum rester at June 30, 2015 04:59 PM (mf5HN) All the contractors that have pulled in over a trill of work are pretty high on it.

Posted by: the real ch3 at June 30, 2015 12:01 PM (IG5KL)

14 >>>We have spent one trillion dollars on the F-35 a trillion here, a trillion there and pretty soon you're talking real money.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 30, 2015 12:01 PM (AkOaV)

15 Bring back the F-22 that Obama killed.

Posted by: Vic[/i] We Have No Party at June 30, 2015 12:02 PM (GpgJl)

16 Who are we going to dogfight in the next 100 years, nobody. Is my expert military opinion. The enemy is usually 100% grounded first.

Posted by: JD at June 30, 2015 12:02 PM (TzeLs)

17 It might be junk. I don't know. I am old enough to remember, however, the 1970s when we were being told that the F-15 was absolute junk and needed to be scrapped. Just sayin'...

Posted by: RD Walker at June 30, 2015 12:03 PM (6RtJb)

18 They can talk to F4 Phantom pilots about not having to dogfight. Sometimes it's going to come up. Other air forces have "stealth fighter" jets now, meaning many of our missiles will be less effective (smaller radar return, baffled emissions- radar guided and heat-seeking missiles will be less effective). That means, sometimes, to get the mission done, you're going to have to close in and shoot them full of holes with your machine guns. If you suck at dog fighting, that means you're going to lose a lot of planes, and a lot of pilots.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 30, 2015 12:03 PM (kff5f)

19 My late dad, patriot and former AF test pilot, rolls in his grave, I'm sure.

I miss him terribly, but boy, and I glad he didn't live to see Commander Clusterfuck in office.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 12:03 PM (FsuaD)

20 been hearing this for a year the test pilots do not want to throttle the engines all the way up because it gets too hot, and acts like its going to wobble out of the casing they seem to be pretty sure it will kill them

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:03 PM (zOTsN)

21 It's the Aardvark of the millennium. Unless some moron military boffin can clue me in otherwise, upgrade the F-15's and the F-16's.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:03 PM (St6BJ)

22 Ace, P J Media has articles & links about Mike Flynn. I know & apologize for being OT so soon, but don't know if you've seen them. I've put on Twitter past few days.

Posted by: Carol at June 30, 2015 12:03 PM (sj3Ax)

23

What a smart military blog.

Posted by: Tony Blankley at June 30, 2015 12:04 PM (4KOF2)

24 Hey I thought this was a thoughtful scrap booking blog......

Whats with the military shit.

Posted by: Jacob's Step Stool at June 30, 2015 12:04 PM (VNgld)

25 " The ghost of John Boyd approves of this post. Posted by: Roland THTG at June 30, 2015 05:00 PM (QM5S2)" Yeah, I read a book on him which explains all this stuff pretty well. Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War If anyone is interested in reading it. A classmate of mine was test pilot on this for the Navy, wonder what he thinks.

Posted by: Dr. Shatterhand at June 30, 2015 12:04 PM (n/ogz)

26 Hey, we're a smart military blog. This is the shit we do. If we say dump the plane, dump it.

Posted by: jwest at June 30, 2015 12:04 PM (9ZZd+)

27 Also, it is amusing that they set up the test "rigged", probable to show that the new plane was superior to the older model. Yet, even with the "aeronautical disadvantage" on the older model the new one flopped. Top. Men. (just ask them)

Posted by: Insert Clever Name Here at June 30, 2015 12:05 PM (xptlg)

28 Also, it is amusing that they set up the test "rigged", probable to show that the new plane was superior to the older model. Yet, even with the "aeronautical disadvantage" on the older model the new one flopped. Top. Men. (just ask them)

Posted by: Insert Clever Name Here at June 30, 2015 12:05 PM (xptlg)

29 this is the plane congressmen demanded be made and like everything managed by Congress it is an over priced piece of shit

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:05 PM (zOTsN)

30 Ace, why do you hate the military so much? Don't you know that it is unpatriotic to question military spending...EVER??!?!?

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 30, 2015 12:05 PM (0LHZx)

31 oops. (sorry for the double-click)

Posted by: Insert Clever Name Here at June 30, 2015 12:05 PM (xptlg)

32 A trillion dollars? For real? On one shitty plane that doesn't work the way it's supposed to? This is beyond insane.

Posted by: TrivialPursuer at June 30, 2015 12:05 PM (kGrdk)

33 Pentagon Wars 2

Posted by: Meric1837 at June 30, 2015 12:05 PM (yrsus)

34 Second look at the Attack Super Tomcat 21...? http://preview.tinyurl.com/pqcqktk

Posted by: antisocial justice beatnik at June 30, 2015 12:06 PM (EHU9F)

35 That's what I've been saying the whole time!

Posted by: A leftist who's deeply concerned about the safety of pilots at June 30, 2015 12:06 PM (JVEmw)

36 **rubs kitty's head; kitty's face scrunches in delight** Now, back to the smart military blogging, and such.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:06 PM (St6BJ)

37 I'm not sure you're giving enough credit to the F-15 pilots' argument combined with the F-35 LO. If everything the Eagle driver said about being able to dictate the engagement is true - and I have no reason to doubt it - how much of an advantage do you think low-observability ("stealth") will give them? Not defending the F-35 procurement process, just saying that LO could be a bigger deal than goggles-and-white-scarf stuff.

Posted by: hogmartin at June 30, 2015 12:06 PM (Gqiv+)

38 Honest question, has anyone said anything good about this plane ever? Posted by: alexthechick - sternum rester at June 30, 2015 04:59 PM To our knowledge, no manatee has been harmed by the F-35. So there's that.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState[/i][/s][/b] at June 30, 2015 12:06 PM (h4vJk)

39 Honest question, has anyone said anything good about this plane ever? It's the best plane ever!

Posted by: Lockheed Martin at June 30, 2015 12:07 PM (W5DcG)

40 A) Whose congressional district is the factory in? B) Over/under as to how soon the left uses this to claim we don't spend enough on social programs?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:07 PM (St6BJ)

41 See also NASA.

Something's gone fundamentally wrong with us.

Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at June 30, 2015 12:08 PM (oVJmc)

42 There's a certain rah-rah that happens when you're in a group project and you want it all to turn out all right... Like the MFM going apeshit over it when they hate all defence spending? Sounds like "missile defence will never work: bullet hitting a bullet" to me.

Posted by: [/i][/b]andycanuck[/s][/u] at June 30, 2015 12:08 PM (kivUY)

43 Yeah, what exactly was wrong with the F-22. Wasn't it the price?

Posted by: Kenway at June 30, 2015 12:08 PM (HhHk8)

44 Lockheed, eh? Well this skunk don't work but it sure fucking stinks.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:08 PM (St6BJ)

45 Next time I get a job offer, I'm going to demand "cost-plus" compensation. And no deadlines for anything, ever.

Posted by: FireHorse at June 30, 2015 12:09 PM (yckiS)

46 Someone else said it up-thread: bring back the F-22. Produce the shit out if it.

Posted by: catmman at June 30, 2015 12:09 PM (aRB23)

47 The F-35 would never be deployed in the Air Force of Alextopia.

Posted by: F-22 [i]Raptor[/i] Sky Ravage at June 30, 2015 12:09 PM (21zCy)

48 Bring back the F-22 that Obama killed.>>>

Yes we need moar Raptors.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at June 30, 2015 12:09 PM (P/aDH)

49 42 There's a certain rah-rah that happens when you're in a group project and you want it all to turn out all right... Like the MFM going apeshit over it when they hate all defence spending? Sounds like "missile defence will never work: bullet hitting a bullet" to me. Posted by: andycanuck at June 30, 2015 05:08 PM (kivUY) Dunning Krueger meets Lysenko. This is Obama's America. Gevalt.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:09 PM (St6BJ)

50 I recall that the original F-35 was supposed to be a twin-engine plane, but they cut that to a single engine for cost savings. This is one of the many design flaws that were driven by things other than quality.

I read an interesting article that traced the flaws in the plane all the way back to Guadalcanal.  It seems the Marines found, to their great displeasure, that they couldn't count on NavAir sticking around to provide them with CAS.  As a result, the Marines now demand that they have their own planes.  The problem is that the Marines are usually deployed where long runways are in short supply.  Therefore, the F-35 must have VSTOL capability. 

However, the constraints imposed on the airframe by that requirement make the plane a dog, even if it's one of the versions that doesn't do VSTOL. 

Just what I read.

Posted by: pep at June 30, 2015 12:09 PM (LAe3v)

51 Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 05:07 PM (St6BJ) Well, to be fair... $1 trillion does seem like a bit much to spend on designing a plane, especially one that doesn't work well. In fact, I almost wonder if that number is inaccurate. 10 years in Iraq cost $1 Trillion. $1 Trillion is 25% of our annual budget. $1 Trillion is a metric fuckton to the shitton'ed power.

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 30, 2015 12:09 PM (AkOaV)

52 Convert all the F-35s to drones and have them deliver pizzas. The Air Force should have the F-22 as their main fighter and the Navy should work on a dedicated carrier plane. So let it be written , so let it be done .

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 30, 2015 12:09 PM (Q4pU/)

53 Vic is right - bring back the F-22 Raptor.  For that matter, the YF-23 and the F-22 are both faster and more capable than the '35.  Add some modernized F-15s and F-18 Advanced Super Hornets.  And save the A-10, dammit.  Why scrap the one vehicle that the enemy fears more than any other?

If someone's intentional plan was to bankrupt America and degrade out air superiority, the '35 would have been a great way to accomplish those goals.  Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but...

Posted by: Keith Arnold at June 30, 2015 12:10 PM (iIzG7)

54 Daddy test piloted for the AF at Lockheed Martin.  This was during WWII.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 12:10 PM (FsuaD)

55 I always ask, what would Trump do.

Posted by: JD at June 30, 2015 12:10 PM (TzeLs)

56 I can see dogfights in a proxy war between NATO and Russia-Plus in the 5-10 year timeframe. Not likely, but in the realm of possibility.

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 30, 2015 12:10 PM (2cS/G)

57 Actually, I'd like to bring back the Nikon F-2.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:10 PM (St6BJ)

58 its being built in Ft Worth Texas Lockheed Martin/Northrup Grumman

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:10 PM (zOTsN)

59 **Snicker... hiss... ** Stupid italics.

Posted by: F-22 [s]Raptor[/s] Sky Ravage at June 30, 2015 12:10 PM (21zCy)

60 Meh, we spent trillions on "stimulus" which went directly into the pockets of connected politicians and affiliated groups. So at the end of the day we might actually get a weapons platform or not at this point what difference does it make, to paraphrase a certain Democrat politician running for POTUS.

Posted by: Kreplach at June 30, 2015 12:10 PM (F+kpO)

61 I recall that the original F-35 was supposed to be a twin-engine plane, but they cut that to a single engine for cost savings. I think it is due mostly to the Marine Corps' insistence that their version have VTOL capability, which requires that their version have a single engine, which in turn means that everyone's version has to have a single engine in order for it to be the same basic design. And, yeah, we had better be able to dogfight in it. Speed and climb rate can be used to compensate for a larger turn radius, but you have to be able to get in close and win.

Posted by: Grey Fox at June 30, 2015 12:11 PM (a42f0)

62 I have no opinions on these planes. I do want to share the anecdote that my dad was in the Air National Guard and when I was a kid he would show me the scenes of planes flying around in Top Gun on mute! and tell me about the planes.

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 30, 2015 12:11 PM (lIU4e)

63 4 Avenge me!

Posted by: the A-10 at June 30, 2015 04:59 PM (21zCy)



No sh*t.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 12:11 PM (FsuaD)

64 Restart the F22 line to guard the F18 SuperHornets we will order to replace the POS.

Posted by: Grump928(c) at June 30, 2015 12:11 PM (evdj2)

65 ace, these video ads in the comments are driving me nuts. Even with ad block, they're lagging up the page. oh, and they keep pulling me up to the ad. I don't know what kind of Pixy magic is at play, but it scrolls me up the page. anyone else experiencing this?

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 30, 2015 12:12 PM (AkOaV)

66 Me? I want a fully-loaded F-14D Super Tomcat for Christmas. Really, is that so much to ask?

Posted by: Sharkman at June 30, 2015 12:12 PM (72D6h)

67 Get Elon Musk to build it! /s

Posted by: @votermom at June 30, 2015 12:12 PM (cbfNE)

68 54 Daddy test piloted for the AF at Lockheed Martin. This was during WWII. Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 05:10 PM (FsuaD) Lockheed or Martin? They were separate back then. And each produced some great planes; Lockheed's were exceptional. See Clarence Kelly Johnson.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:12 PM (St6BJ)

69 In fact, I almost wonder if that number is inaccurate. 10 years in Iraq cost $1 Trillion. Posted by: mynewhandle at June 30, 2015 05:09 PM (AkOaV) ________ It was a little over $2T. But who's counting?

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 30, 2015 12:12 PM (0LHZx)

70 We're putting our Marines on foreign ships.  How soon until we're "borrowing" some old planes from some third world country?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 12:13 PM (FsuaD)

71 flying the F-35 is "like magic." -------------------- I've had a few dates like that. Then..., came the time for real life stuff. All that glitters is not gold...

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 30, 2015 12:13 PM (F2IAQ)

72 Yup, I blame the attempt to build one plane to fit multiple roles. Like trying to fit A-10 and F-15 roles into one airframe. Wonder if Cyberdyne has a solution.

Posted by: Man from Wazzustan at June 30, 2015 12:13 PM (uPxUo)

73 Sir- I just wanted to say I like your writing and would like to give you some positive affirmation. My work here is done.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 30, 2015 12:13 PM (QqP2o)

74 We could build some cool pyramids for a trillion dollars and it would employ a lot of people especially if they didn't use machinery.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at June 30, 2015 12:13 PM (W5DcG)

75 The F-35 doesn't even look badass.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 30, 2015 12:13 PM (Q4pU/)

76 **looks at F-35**

It stinks!

Posted by: zombie Kelly Johnson's Skunk Works at June 30, 2015 12:14 PM (21zCy)

77 they are putting some sexy avionics in it

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:14 PM (zOTsN)

78 @50  Not to mention all the follow-on problems created by VSTOL.  They are not kind to carrier decks.

Posted by: pep at June 30, 2015 12:14 PM (LAe3v)

79 $2 Trillion?! That can buy a carrier battle group!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:14 PM (St6BJ)

80 It's almost as if everyone in charge of everything in the government is trying to destroy this country on every level. If we suddenly must have some SuperTank that costs 50 million dollars each, but is too big to be transported on any rollo ship and too heavy to cross any existing combat bridges, then the circle will be complete.

Posted by: Grump928(c) at June 30, 2015 12:14 PM (evdj2)

81 I recall reading that the F35 was good in Top Gun style fights, but because of the stand-off fighting capability. The F35 could get in, launch, and the F15s would be toast. As for dogfighting, we went through this in Vietnam with the F8 Crusader (which had a gun) and the F4 (which did not have a gun) The pilots liked having the ability to shoot hunks of metal at other planes. _

Posted by: BumperStickerist at June 30, 2015 12:14 PM (0MJOU)

82 Yeah, this.

This is why design always works best when you have one person with a lot of skill, experience, and "vision" calling the shots.

This is true in software, architecture, aeronautics, etc -- any complex program that requires a lot of trade-offs and hard decisions.

Or, you can use a committee of congressmen and military bureaucrats and design a piece of shit.

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at June 30, 2015 12:14 PM (LWu6U)

83 An updated F-15 doesn't fill the slot opened up by failing out the JSF. Hell, the F-22 was supposed to replace the F-15. The JSF was supposed to replace the F-16, the F-18, the Harrier and the A-10. That's a lot of hats, and in order to wear them all they made a three-headed monster. Might as well have called the damned thing the Ceberus. They can keep stretching out the A-10 - it's pretty much a perfect expression of its niche. They can try and start up the F-22 factories in order to replace the F-16, although the F-22 is optimized for air superiority, not the general-purpose fighter-bomber that the F-16 is and was. But replacing the F-18? Ehhh... We're already in a position where it will be harder and harder to run the gauntlet if we have to reinforce Taiwan in case of a Chinese invasion. The F-35 was supposed to be the crowbar which would open the way for American and Japanese supports in case of an all-hands-on-deck war with China over Taiwan. All I have to say is that I really hope the fact we haven't been hearing about high-performance air superiority UAVs out of DARPA is because they're maintaining proper security for a change. Yeah, I know, stop laughing already.

Posted by: Mitch H. at June 30, 2015 12:15 PM (jwKxK)

84 Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 30, 2015 05:12 PM (0LHZx) Well, I don't know whose numbers to believe. The one that is cited most often is $80-100 billion a month which would be around $1T over 10 years. I've seen leftist orgs say upwards of $4 Trill. So who knows? Because it would be too much to ask for the government to keep track on how many trillions they're spending, ya know?

Posted by: mynewhandle at June 30, 2015 12:15 PM (AkOaV)

85 Get Elon Musk to build it! That would be a blast!

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at June 30, 2015 12:15 PM (W5DcG)

86 Speaking of rocket scientists, which we're not, but still.  I saw this gem on the back of two vehicles today:

Windmills, Not Oil Spills!

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 12:15 PM (FsuaD)

87 Why do we need so many kinds of fighter planes when kabillions of children are starving everywhere?

Posted by: President Bernie Sanders at June 30, 2015 12:15 PM (cbfNE)

88 The problem with the plane is one of ballast. More ballast equals greater stability.

Posted by: Chris Christie at June 30, 2015 12:15 PM (xQX/f)

89 >>anyone else experiencing this? I have had the ads issue. A constant error that says something about amazon and if I should except it. I get it at instapundit too, but it's sort of been coming and going on this blog.

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 30, 2015 12:15 PM (lIU4e)

90 Watch the movie "Pentagon Wars" with kelsey grammer.   Sounds pretty much like what you said in a nutshell. (Comedy about the development of the Bradley IFV)

Posted by: SAAR at June 30, 2015 12:15 PM (EDN2/)

91 See Clarence Kelly Johnson. Posted by: J.J. Sefton -------------- Friend just loaned me the book, "Skunk Works". He raved about it, I'm looking forward to it.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 30, 2015 12:16 PM (F2IAQ)

92 As a very experienced engineer, this was easily predictable.  "Swiss Army Knives" are "OK" when you don't have the right tool, but will never come close to equaling the performance of a dedicated tool.

Asking one plane to do three quite different jobs (some say five) was a pretty much guaranteed formula for failure.  I doubt that this is a much of a surprise to any knowledgable person not in government.

Posted by: GaryS at June 30, 2015 12:16 PM (xsNNf)

93

Don't forget, our 4 demensional chess master of a Commander in Cheif killed the F22 Raptor, which is a awesome airsuperiority platform, for this flying turd, *and* has left our work horse A10 hanging in the wind for the same piece of crapola...

 

Posted by: TSgt Ciz at June 30, 2015 12:16 PM (xcAaF)

94 Posted by: pep at June 30, 2015 05:09 PM (LAe3v) Posted by: Grey Fox at June 30, 2015 05:11 PM (a42f0) Also this. Marine Aviation has been jerking itself raw over steel-mat airstrips on Guadalcanal and demanded a VSTOL version. Kind of blew up the project. Not sure how they planned on getting fuel, munitions, maintenance, &c. in to the notional unimproved airstrip.

Posted by: hogmartin at June 30, 2015 12:16 PM (Gqiv+)

95 ace, these video ads in the comments are driving me nuts. Even with ad block, they're lagging up the page. oh, and they keep pulling me up to the ad. I don't know what kind of Pixy magic is at play, but it scrolls me up the page. anyone else experiencing this? Posted by: mynewhandle at June 30, 2015 05:12 PM ________ I've been getting ads with the New Jersey Devils logo in them. I'm a Devils fan, so I'm not complaining.

Posted by: FireHorse at June 30, 2015 12:16 PM (yckiS)

96 its trying to be and F 15 and an A 10 AF wants to use it for close air support and it has a cannon hope the underbelly can take the pounding an A 10 can

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:16 PM (zOTsN)

97 It's a good plane! It's getting its act together!

Posted by: F-35 Dindunuffin's Mom at June 30, 2015 12:17 PM (6yehy)

98 More ballast equals greater stability. Posted by: Chris Christie ------------------ Chris, See: Polar Moment

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 30, 2015 12:17 PM (F2IAQ)

99 We could build some cool pyramids for a trillion dollars and it would employ a lot of people especially if they didn't use machinery. Why build anything at all? Just hand 40 million people a spoon apiece. Have them dig up a spoonful of dirt, then fill the hole with the dirt they just dug up. Repeat. Viola. 100% employment. No training required.

Posted by: bonhomme at June 30, 2015 12:17 PM (jhqr1)

100 We can build cheaper fighter jets with fertile New Americano workers!

Posted by: President Jeb! at June 30, 2015 12:17 PM (cbfNE)

101 There's barely anything that can touch a Super Hornet now as it is, and the Navy should have twin engine fighters anyway. USAF should have F-22's. Give it to the jarheads.

Posted by: gzulux at June 30, 2015 12:17 PM (2pOTb)

102 All I have to say is that I really hope the fact we haven't been hearing about high-performance air superiority UAVs out of DARPA is because they're maintaining proper security for a change.


Yeah, turns out there are some problems.

Posted by: DARPA PM hiding under his desk at June 30, 2015 12:18 PM (LAe3v)

103 I'm finally getting an Amazon ad for shovels.  Nothing yet for quick lime.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 12:18 PM (FsuaD)

104 So, maybe this is the beginning of the end? China's market dropped 8%, supposedly because of Greece. Not bloody likely. Their economy is built on a mountain of debt, just like ours. It's got to crumble. The progs only challenge: coming up with a plausible construct that will blame this on Jeb!'s brother.

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at June 30, 2015 12:18 PM (5buP8)

105
Some perspective on "just build more F-22s!":

Status of the tooling as of 2011:

http://tinyurl.com/c82f6od

And to do list for restarting production:

http://tinyurl.com/nktjlmo

Realistically, since the supply chain is gone or downsized, as is the technical design and administrative manpower -- status unlikely.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 30, 2015 12:18 PM (kdS6q)

106 >>>They can keep stretching out the A-10 - it's pretty much a perfect expression of its niche. Posted by: Mitch H. at June 30, 2015 05:15 PM (jwKxK) The A-10 is alright for fighting insurgents in desert shitholes, but will get chewed up against any professional military that's bothered to upgrade it's anti-air defenses since 1990.

Posted by: Paul at June 30, 2015 12:18 PM (9qDRl)

107

Jack of all trades doesn't work.

Over-engineered doesn't work.

And yet we keep running back to it.

 

Honestly, the US seems to work best with simple and middle-of-the-pack quality.  We don't have the best equipment, but we don't have the worst either.  And we can produce a shit ton of it and train our people well.

 

Posted by: Colorado Alex at June 30, 2015 12:19 PM (OiH3z)

108 As a very experienced engineer, this was easily predictable. "Swiss Army Knives" are "OK" when you don't have the right tool, but will never come close to equaling the performance of a dedicated tool. ---- Very true. Also, See: Any replacement part that touts itself as "Universal"

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 30, 2015 12:19 PM (F2IAQ)

109 >>>Why do we need so many kinds of fighter planes when kabillions of children are starving everywhere?

Posted by: President Bernie Sanders at June 30, 2015 05:15 PM (cbfNE)<<<



Bern it down. 


Scatter the drones.


Salt the assembly line where it stood.


Posted by: Comrade Sanders 2016! at June 30, 2015 12:19 PM (21zCy)

110 88 The problem with the plane is one of ballast.

More ballast equals greater stability.

Posted by: Chris Christie


Is that like "road-hugging weight"?  Worked wonders for the Mustang.

Posted by: pep at June 30, 2015 12:20 PM (LAe3v)

111 The F-35's inability to dogfight is a very small issue. Modern jet fighter combat is not about dogfighting. It's about getting superior radar coverage and shooting missiles at enemy planes before they get in their radar range to shoot missiles at you. There never has been a large-scale modern air war and if or when there is, dogfighting will be the most minimal component of it. The F-35 has a bunch of other issues that make it a shitty plane and are far more important than its inability to dogfight.

Posted by: deepelemblues at June 30, 2015 12:20 PM (jAbSE)

112 The F-15 is a prime example of military scope-creep and over-engineering. Maybe we should be building more F-16s instead.

Posted by: red sweater at June 30, 2015 12:20 PM (v8Svi)

113 Look up the Arthur C. Clarke story "Superiority."  (A google search shows that omeone else has already made the reference as to  the F-35).

Posted by: Bud Norton at June 30, 2015 12:20 PM (6cOMd)

114 Pffft. It's not much better than my T-16 back home.

Posted by: Luke Skywalker at June 30, 2015 12:21 PM (2Ojst)

115 86 Speaking of rocket scientists, which we're not, but still. I saw this gem on the back of two vehicles today: Windmills, Not Oil Spills! Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 05:15 PM (FsuaD) Beans! Not Greens!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:21 PM (St6BJ)

116 Thought game: if Britain had an F-80 sabre in 1940 instead of 1949 , do you think Hitler would have started a war? That is why we need to continue to be a decade ahead of our enemies in our military equipment. The F-35 does just the opposite . The F-22 fills that role ( not for the Navy though)

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 30, 2015 12:21 PM (Q4pU/)

117 The problem is the whole idea of reconfiguring the engine for vstol.

No sane engineer would design one frame for both configurations, but gov. would because it expands the budget and makes the program easier to sell to congress.

but with or without that goofy fucking radio shack hoovercraft kit blower attached, the frame has a lot of wasted space and weight making it inferior.

Only a real fucking idiot would have gone that route, and fortunately, gov. has an abundance of rfi's.

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at June 30, 2015 12:21 PM (LWu6U)

118 I can honestly understand liberals railing against conservatives when it comes to some defense spending.   This is mind blowing what has been wasted on this project.

It doesn't mean two wrongs make a right and they get to waste money, but it's hard to make a case for fiscal conservatism and rail against things like auto bailouts which make up rounding errors to what this project cost.  Yet our own side is always screaming we need to dump more money into Pentagon boondoggles like this.

We need a leaner, cheaper military that is primarily set up to protect our homeland, not police the world.  Our debt is a much bigger threat than some camel jockeys.

Posted by: McAdams at June 30, 2015 12:21 PM (QpJdz)

119 the F 35s proclivity to kill its pilot is a pretty big problem

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:21 PM (zOTsN)

120 When they came out years ago and said the F-35 was gonna be a do-everyfukkinthing aircraft I knew it would be a failure. They didn't learn a fucking thing from the F-111. Not a fucking thing.

Posted by: maddogg at June 30, 2015 12:21 PM (xWW96)

121 And we can produce a shit ton of it and train our people well. Posted by: Colorado Alex at June 30, 2015 05:19 PM (OiH3z) That may have been true before the Muslim Marxist took office.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at June 30, 2015 12:21 PM (n6Nt0)

122 This is why design always works best when you have one person with a lot of skill, experience, and "vision" calling the shots. Why is iTunes such a piece of crap then?

Posted by: Steve Jobs at June 30, 2015 12:22 PM (jhqr1)

123 If we suddenly must have some SuperTank that costs 50 million dollars each, but is too big to be transported on any rollo ship and too heavy to cross any existing combat bridges, then the circle will be complete. You will pay to send me on vacation, human.

Posted by: The Mooch 10000, sentient MBT Bolo prototype at June 30, 2015 12:22 PM (kivUY)

124 The F35 just broke the OODA loop.

Posted by: John Boyd at June 30, 2015 12:22 PM (P/aDH)

125 Or, you know, a Attack Super Tomcat 21.

Posted by: Sharkman at June 30, 2015 12:22 PM (72D6h)

126 The "joint" in JSF is a Frankenstein-like mashup between Lockheed and Boeing. Each contracting to do what they do worst.

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at June 30, 2015 12:22 PM (5buP8)

127 >>I've been getting ads with the New Jersey Devils logo in them I get the shoes I was looking at last week, but I don't mind that. I only mind the popup errors...

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 30, 2015 12:22 PM (lIU4e)

128 "More ballast equals greater stability."

Stability isn't always the best engineering goal.  The F-22, for example, is an inherently and deliberately unstable airframe design.  The instability makes that thing able to turn on a dime and give you nine cents change.

It's like comparing a drag racer to a Formula One car.  The latter is nimble, and can handle decent lefts and rights with a flick of the wrist.  The drag racer is stable; it goes in a straight line.  It does so damned fast, but it's not geared for making a sharp left turn at the end of the quarter mile.  Steering a top-fuel dragster is a cast-iron bitch.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at June 30, 2015 12:22 PM (iIzG7)

129 Fuck it. Bring back the Tomcat!

Posted by: CDR M at June 30, 2015 12:23 PM (TWXpK)

130 The A-10 is alright for fighting insurgents in desert shitholes, but will get chewed up against any professional military that's bothered to upgrade it's anti-air defenses since 1990. So? Pretty much every airframe in existence is going to catch holy shit in those conditions. Better a cheap, heavily armored bath-tub like the A-10 than a platinum-plated spun-glass brick like the JSF.

Posted by: Mitch H. at June 30, 2015 12:23 PM (jwKxK)

131 111 Posted by: deepelemblues at June 30, 2015 05:20 PM (jAbSE) It seems that with every passing decade, people keep saying that the era of the dogfight is over. Until the latest conflict finds pilots in one with the most current airframes. Faster speeds, greater battle space but there will still be dogfights.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:23 PM (St6BJ)

132 At least x1 a month, goggle chances it settings and I have to worry about private info being spewed on the internet. They also make it difficult to find out how to turn off this shit. I'm sick of it. I like gmail but it is not worth it.

Posted by: Mrs. Ace of Spades with a Wang! at June 30, 2015 12:23 PM (iQIUe)

133 What we really need is a craft equipped with a Wave Motion Gun.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 30, 2015 12:23 PM (2Ojst)

134 Windmills, Not Oil Spills! Beans! Not Greens! Buttplugs, not gun butts!

Posted by: Rainbow Demon at June 30, 2015 12:24 PM (W5DcG)

135 >>Why is iTunes such a piece of crap then? Posted by: Steve Jobs at June 30, 2015 05:22 PM (jhqr1) Good freaking question. I have music inapple and mp3 formats and it is a pita to much it together. ITunes is so, so dumb.

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 30, 2015 12:24 PM (lIU4e)

136 The F-35's software "had trouble in the use of radar, passive sensors, friend-or-foe identification, and electro-optical targeting." Let's immediately farm the system out to China for fixes. Just be sure to get them all the needed security clearances and root passwords.

Posted by: gzulux at June 30, 2015 12:24 PM (2pOTb)

137 We are going to have two teams compete to submit the best fighter team design. Losers get fired at.

Posted by: President Trump at June 30, 2015 12:24 PM (cbfNE)

138 That may have been true before the Muslim Marxist took office.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at June 30, 2015 05:21 PM (n6Nt0)

 

If we have to go into a large-scale shooting war, I still have faith in the ability of American engineering and the US Army to clear out the cobwebs and get creative.  It will be bloody in the beginning, however.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at June 30, 2015 12:24 PM (OiH3z)

139 Haven't you heard the bad news?  We have spent trillions of dollars of trying to fix societies ills.  But to no avail, we are still fucked.


Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 12:24 PM (baR5c)

140 How are we going to get to flying cars if this is what we do with billions in Public Funds?

Posted by: Garrett at June 30, 2015 12:24 PM (p0KI9)

141
Don't forget, our 4 demensional chess master of a Commander in Cheif killed the F22 Raptor,
Posted by: TSgt Ciz



Uh uh.  The program was ramped down by the Dubya administration and congress, in part because of their fixation on WOT weapons only.  Then Bush-Obama Sec Def Gates gave it the true death in 2009.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 30, 2015 12:24 PM (kdS6q)

142 iirc there actually were some problems with the oxygen system on the F-35 that could kill the pilot Nope, that was the F-22.

Posted by: scrap all the things! I read something bad on the Internet! at June 30, 2015 12:24 PM (ZtFr+)

143 Posted by: Paul at June 30, 2015 05:18 PM (9qD You must hate helicopters.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 30, 2015 12:24 PM (Q4pU/)

144 I could do better...

Posted by: Michael Vick at June 30, 2015 12:25 PM (2cS/G)

145 The government would never waste billions of dollars on a dangerous, unproven and unnecessary piece of equipment.

Posted by: MV-22 Osprey at June 30, 2015 12:25 PM (pjQCL)

146 Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 05:23 PM (St6BJ) When you're getting 80% of your air-to-air kills (or more) from scenarios other than dogfighting, it doesn't matter much except to the pilots who get into dogfights. And that would be the goal in combat war between two modern air forces. The air force that put an emphasis on dogfighting would lose, big time.

Posted by: deepelemblues at June 30, 2015 12:25 PM (jAbSE)

147 Friend just loaned me the book, "Skunk Works". He raved about it, I'm looking forward to it. Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at June 30, 2015 05:16 PM (F2IAQ) --- I'm rereading it right now! Excellent book.

Posted by: All Hail Eris, Literate Savage at June 30, 2015 12:25 PM (jR7Wy)

148 138 It will be bloody in the beginning, however. Posted by: Colorado Alex at June 30, 2015 05:24 PM (OiH3z) With the exception of Desert Storm perhaps, that is always the case with the USA, sadly.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:25 PM (St6BJ)

149 Excellent point, Mr Christie. Has anyone done an inclining experiment on the F-35? Metacentric height of an aircraft is critical to stability.

Posted by: Man from Wazzustan at June 30, 2015 12:26 PM (uPxUo)

150 >> iirc there actually were some problems with the oxygen system on the F-35 that could kill the pilot
 
That was the F-22 iirc.
 
But don't worry about the F-35, it is protected by that most amazing phenomenon, the sunk cost fallacy.
 
I prefer drones. Microchip speeds vs. human reaction speeds = no contest
 
Sure, Skynet will eventually take them all over but Sarah Conner has a plan to deal with that.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 30, 2015 12:26 PM (TAd/T)

151 Posted by: Colorado Alex at June 30, 2015 05:24 PM (OiH3z) I'm glad that you are optimistic. The past 6+ years has drained alot out of me. Then throw in last week and I'm real close to being a paid member of the LIB Club

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at June 30, 2015 12:26 PM (n6Nt0)

152 146 Posted by: deepelemblues at June 30, 2015 05:25 PM (jAbSE) You seem to have an expertise in this field so I will defer.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:27 PM (St6BJ)

153 I just can't wait for the children of the gays and lesbos to sign up and join the fight.


Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 12:27 PM (baR5c)

154 does anyone know what day Dependence Day falls on?

Posted by: X at June 30, 2015 12:27 PM (xGNLA)

155 If the A-10 can't survive modern air defenses, then nothing else will either, and you might as well give up on providing close air support entirely and worry about air superiority instead. 

Posted by: Colorado Alex at June 30, 2015 12:27 PM (OiH3z)

156 145 The government would never waste billions of dollars on a dangerous, unproven and unnecessary piece of equipment. Posted by: MV-22 Osprey at June 30, 2015 05:25 PM (pjQCL) 10's of billions, 100's of billions. Trillions! But never billions.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:27 PM (St6BJ)

157 Why not build more F22s? Aren't they proven?

Posted by: darkthought at June 30, 2015 12:28 PM (c0ZTb)

158
There never has been a large-scale modern air war and if or when there is, dogfighting will be the most minimal component of it.
Posted by: deepelemblues




Define "modern". The 1973 Yom Kippur War and the Iran-Iraq War in the 80s had significant ATA warfare.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 30, 2015 12:28 PM (kdS6q)

159 But don't worry about the F-35, it is protected by that most amazing phenomenon, the sunk cost fallacy. Posted by: GnuBreed at June 30, 2015 05:26 PM (TAd/T) ----- With a side of internationalism.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 12:28 PM (NUqwG)

160 Imagine how many Solyndras Barry could have bailed out with that money....

Posted by: Daniel Simpson Day at June 30, 2015 12:28 PM (aA2hG)

161 If you need a fighter, build a fighter. We have the F-15, F-16, F-18 and F-22.

If you need a close-air support aircraft, build a close-air support aircraft. We have the A-10 and AV-8.

If you need an attack aircraft, build an attack aircraft. Theoretically, we have the F-35, but we used to have the F-111, A-4, A-6 and A-7. Each one provided the correct amount of firepower for their missions.

The United States needs a real attack aircraft again. Re-purposing fighter aircraft doesn't work as well as building a dedicated airframe. The braintrust at the Pentagon has forgotten about the "too big for CAS, too small for strategic bombing" mission, it seems.

Until they decide to build new F-111 and A-6 aircraft, the F-15E and F/A-18 will have to muddle through the attack mission.

Posted by: PaperworkNinja at June 30, 2015 12:28 PM (J991N)

162 Don't get me started on the Osprey money dump/crowd killer. That POS will be on the scrap heap in a few years. Should have NEVER been put in production.

Posted by: maddogg at June 30, 2015 12:28 PM (xWW96)

163 Good freaking question. I have music in apple and mp3 formats and it is a pita to much it together. ITunes is so, so dumb. Don't forget the twice a week updates that are 160 Megabytes apiece!

Posted by: Steve Jobs at June 30, 2015 12:28 PM (jhqr1)

164 Hi guys, haven't read the comments, so sorry if this has been brought up.  I saw this article this morning, and read it out loud to my hubby.  He (back in the day...) was a fighter test pilot at Edwards.  He understands the point of the article but said if we could read some of the same reports regarding the F15 and F16, you would find the same type of complaints.  The article states the pilot of the F35 is a former F15E driver.  The E model (according to hubby) is primarily air to ground which means this pilot might not have been very current in BFM (Basic Fighting Maneuvers).  That is what happened when he flew test missions as the 'bad guy' against a pilot in a newer jet who wasn't proficient in dogfighting.  He also stated that if a F35 pilot was put into an air to air encounter, he wasn't doing his job anyway because it's a strike fighter, not an air to air fighter.  Anyway, there might very well be issues with the airframe, but to take this report with that in mind.  Might be interesting to find a more current (leaked) report and compare.

Thought you might be interested in his insight.

Posted by: RedDish at June 30, 2015 12:28 PM (5eXg1)

165 "You must hate helicopters. "

Helicopters can't actually fly; they're just so damned ugly that the ground naturally repels them.  A helicopter is an assemblage of random parts, bolted together, but all flying is different directions at high speed.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at June 30, 2015 12:28 PM (iIzG7)

166 "Viola. 100% employment. No training required." I know people who would dump the dirt in their eye, and chip a tooth, even with training.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 30, 2015 12:28 PM (VPLuQ)

167 153 I just can't wait for the children of the gays and lesbos to sign up and join the fight. Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 05:27 PM (baR5c) Fabulously butch Hugo Boss uniforms! With spangles and buckles! Scrumptious!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:29 PM (St6BJ)

168 if th F 35s radar, friend or foe recognition, passive sensors and electro-optical targeting are bad we aint winning alot of air to air with it, dog fight or no dog fight

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:29 PM (zOTsN)

169 That's bullshit

Posted by: Kelly McGinnis when she was really, really hot at June 30, 2015 12:29 PM (baR5c)

170 Those of you who keep saying we will not have to dogfight must answer one question.  What will pilots have to do with a plane that can not dog fight if the COC gives then ROE that says they must visually ID any aircraft before taking hostile action against it. 


Don't say that will never happen.  It already has.

Posted by: Vic[/i] We Have No Party at June 30, 2015 12:29 PM (GpgJl)

171 If we allocate enough energy to the Phaser 1's and Disruptors, we can hit hard and outrun any Plasma from those nefarious Romulans!

*pushes glasses back up*

Posted by: Glasses With Tape at June 30, 2015 12:29 PM (OQ9R7)

172 Faster speeds, greater battle space but there will still be dogfights.

Iceman's gonna be a drone.  o.O

Maybe Maverick will die after being the machine, John Henry-like.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 30, 2015 12:30 PM (ZKzrr)

173 Daddy test piloted for the AF at Lockheed Martin. This was during WWII.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 05:10 PM (FsuaD)

 

 

----------------------------------------

 

 

My uncle was a  squid test pilot  during WWII.  Was one of the  group of pilots  that finally perfected  the landing technique for Corsairs onto carriers.

Posted by: Soona at June 30, 2015 12:30 PM (P25Hh)

174 J.J., if you ever come south, let me know.  we are kindred spirits.

I cannot travel (wifey is disabled).


Posted by: Kelly McGinnis when she was really, really hot at June 30, 2015 12:30 PM (baR5c)

175 the F 4 guys who were not riffed in the draw down went to the F 15 E they know air to air

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:30 PM (zOTsN)

176 I don't see the problem with the F-35!

Posted by: Littoral Combat Ship at June 30, 2015 12:30 PM (nL0sw)

177 Why would a banana republic with over 100% debt to GDP have any expectations of being a significant world military power?

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at June 30, 2015 12:30 PM (zauWW)

178 How many F-35's can the LCS platform carry?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 30, 2015 12:30 PM (VPLuQ)

179 With Emperor Clusterfuck in charge, I'm surprised we're not flying Spads.

Posted by: tu3031 at June 30, 2015 12:30 PM (YFFpo)

180 F-35 for the AF has a single engine, but the Navy/Marines require 2 engines in every airframe (including helo), did they retract this root requirement just for the F-35?  I admit to not paying attention for a long while, but in the beginning the 3 variants for the services had the same basic airframes but differed around the service requirements.  Is this no longer the case?

Posted by: JD at June 30, 2015 12:31 PM (Vgx5M)

181 171 If we allocate enough energy to the Phaser 1's and Disruptors, we can hit hard and outrun any Plasma from those nefarious Romulans! *pushes glasses back up* Posted by: Glasses With Tape at June 30, 2015 05:29 PM (OQ9R7) This country is getting an agonizer, right up its collective culo.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:31 PM (St6BJ)

182 Off hubba hubba sock.

btw, we did get to see her rack in "The Witness."

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 12:31 PM (baR5c)

183 but all flying is different directions at high speed. Posted by: Keith Arnold ------------ Heh, heh.

Posted by: The Jesus Nut at June 30, 2015 12:31 PM (F2IAQ)

184 If the A-10 can't survive modern air defenses, then nothing else will either, and you might as well give up on providingclose air support entirely and worry about air superiority instead. The thought is that the JSF's nominal stealthiness would add to its survivability in the ground support role, I guess. Except I doubt it's particularly stealthy in ground-attack mode, as it has its payload in internal bays that have to break profile in order to launch.

Posted by: Mitch H. at June 30, 2015 12:31 PM (jwKxK)

185 179 With Emperor Clusterfuck in charge, I'm surprised we're not flying Spads. Posted by: tu3031 at June 30, 2015 05:30 PM (YFFpo) Spades. Or Israeli "Kaffirs." Now I denounce myself.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:32 PM (St6BJ)

186 Giant Government Software Project - those are always easy, especially man-rated.

Posted by: healthcare.gov[/i][/b][/s] at June 30, 2015 12:32 PM (DL2i+)

187 Nothing's wrong with the F-35s that a little metric won't solve.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 30, 2015 12:32 PM (AC0lD)

188 86 Speaking of rocket scientists, which we're not, but still. I saw this gem on the back of two vehicles today: Windmills, Not Oil Spills! Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 05:15 PM (FsuaD) Videos of live birds flapping in the exceedingly rare oil slicks are far more emotive than the theoretic photos of gore piles that were once birds prior to them flying into turbines.

Posted by: antisocial justice beatnik at June 30, 2015 12:32 PM (EHU9F)

189
Why not build more F22s? Aren't they proven?
Posted by: darkthought



See my above. Production needs tooling, plant, manpower, engineering, administrative and support staff. and a supply chain.

The only thing the F-22 might have at the moment is the tooling stored in boxes, if it wasn't disposed of since the last status.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 30, 2015 12:32 PM (kdS6q)

190 Posted by: Kelly McGinnis when she was really, really hot at June 30, 2015 05:29 PM (baR5c) The name is McGillis. *pushes glasses back up*

Posted by: Slapweasel (Cold1) ([b]T[/b]) [/i][/b][/u][/s] at June 30, 2015 12:32 PM (OQ9R7)

191 Fabulously butch Hugo Boss uniforms! With spangles and buckles! Scrumptious! Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 05:29 PM (St6BJ) ---- Throw in a Mercedes staff car and I'm in!

Posted by: All Hail Eris, Literate Savage at June 30, 2015 12:32 PM (jR7Wy)

192 I know people who would dump the dirt in their eye, and chip a tooth, even with training. Just a few broken eggs. What's the matter with you? You hate omelets? /sarc

Posted by: bonhomme at June 30, 2015 12:32 PM (jhqr1)

193 174 J.J., if you ever come south, let me know. we are kindred spirits. I cannot travel (wifey is disabled). Posted by: Kelly McGinnis when she was really, really hot at June 30, 2015 05:30 PM (baR5c) We did Savannah and the Low Country a couple years back. Would love to but it depends on schedules and such. Appreciate the offer.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:33 PM (St6BJ)

194 A helicopter is an assemblage of random parts, bolted together,

But the FADEC is amazing.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 30, 2015 12:33 PM (ZKzrr)

195 Fabulously butch Hugo Boss uniforms! With spangles and buckles!

Like "Starship Troopers"?

Posted by: tu3031 at June 30, 2015 12:33 PM (YFFpo)

196 "Posted by: The Jesus Nut at June 30, 2015 05:31 PM (F2IAQ) "

You know how that part got its name, right?  Because if that ever fails, guess who's the next person you're going to see?

Posted by: Keith Arnold at June 30, 2015 12:33 PM (iIzG7)

197 We have a Spaz in Charge.  Isn't that good enough?

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 12:33 PM (baR5c)

198

F-22

F-22

F-22

F-22

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at June 30, 2015 12:33 PM (LWWrf)

199 How many F-35's can the LCS platform carry? Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 30, 2015 05:30 PM (VPLuQ) ------ They could easily operate two temporarily, if one takes off immediately after the other. After that the LCS platform will be melted.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 12:34 PM (NUqwG)

200 195 Fabulously butch Hugo Boss uniforms! With spangles and buckles! Like "Starship Troopers"? Posted by: tu3031 at June 30, 2015 05:33 PM (YFFpo) Always makes me think of Yes.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:34 PM (St6BJ)

201 Until they decide to build new F-111 and A-6 aircraft, the F-15E and F/A-18 will have to muddle through the attack mission. The F-111 was the last time they tried to build something like the F-35. I can't evaluate whether it was a cheaper boondoogle for its time - anybody have any feeling on that?

Posted by: Mitch H. at June 30, 2015 12:35 PM (jwKxK)

202
If we allocate enough energy to the Phaser 1's and Disruptors, we can hit hard and outrun any Plasma from those nefarious Romulans! *pushes glasses back up*
Posted by: Glasses With Tape




How many boxes do the front shields have left?

Posted by: Star Fleet Battles Paper and Dice Game Reference

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 30, 2015 12:35 PM (kdS6q)

203 McGillis, McGinnis?

I was too busy looking at other things (e.g. face, bod).

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 12:35 PM (baR5c)

204 How well does it perform against mainline ChiCom and Ruskie jets?

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at June 30, 2015 12:35 PM (hBIFh)

205 Videos of live birds flapping in the exceedingly rare oil slicks are far more emotive than the theoretic photos of gore piles that were once birds prior to them flying into turbines. Ever see a wind turbine catch fire? Clouds of black smoke pouring from the nacelle. Very environmentally friendly. I've also seen videos of them exploding.

Posted by: bonhomme at June 30, 2015 12:36 PM (jhqr1)

206 "They could easily operate two temporarily, if one takes off immediately after the other. After that the LCS platform will be melted." Aw Horse shit. I have it on good authority that fire can not melt steel. Good.Authority.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 30, 2015 12:36 PM (VPLuQ)

207 At least the Osprey's are flying. I see them every day wop-wop-wop

Posted by: JohnnyBoy at June 30, 2015 12:36 PM (l2Gqi)

208 hey gang! guess who is the biggest fan of the F 35? and guess who was the biggest contributor to his campaigns? Why John Wayne Cornyn thats who

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:36 PM (zOTsN)

209 This is pretty much to be expected from a gaggle of non-engineers/non-pilots who also made the vehicle and crew of the most modern spacecraft ever developed... ...expendable in the first two minutes of flight. Confidence is not high.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t [/i][/s][/b][/u] at June 30, 2015 12:37 PM (eEb+d)

210 Something designed to do everything typically does nothing well.

Posted by: Jay Guevara[/i][/b][/s][/u] at June 30, 2015 12:37 PM (oKE6c)

211 Maybe this debacle will finally get the Air Force to admit to the obvious; it's time to get the man out of the aircraft for air combat. Games going back to Falcon 3.0 in 1991 had smart enough AI's to beat a human pilot (think perfect situational awareness), especially if you factor in the weight , G limit and size/radar cross-section penalties for having a human in the aircraft. We need maybe 10% of the planned buy of F-35's for use by flight leaders for swarms of UCAVs. Politics will demand that human eyes be nearby for the at least a decade or so.

Posted by: Pluskat's Dog at June 30, 2015 12:37 PM (IbP8q)

212 207 At least the Osprey's are flying. I see them every day wop-wop-wop Posted by: JohnnyBoy at June 30, 2015 05:36 PM (l2Gqi) The stealth ones go guinea-guinea-guinea . . .

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:37 PM (St6BJ)

213 "How many boxes do the front shields have left?" Posted by: Star Fleet Battles Paper and Dice Game Reference -Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 30, 2015 05:35 PM (kdS6q) Doesn't matter! *snort!* They only have Phaser 3's and one Plasma 'R'! *snort!*

Posted by: Slapweasel (Cold1) ([b]T[/b]) [/i][/b][/u][/s] at June 30, 2015 12:37 PM (OQ9R7)

214

Wasn't the F-4 sort of a pig too?

Something about not having a gun/cannon  to start and each bend in the wings was a fix to something aeronautical...

 

???

Posted by: Yo! at June 30, 2015 12:37 PM (W6iIX)

215 The stealth ones go guinea-guinea-guinea . . . Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 05:37 PM (St6BJ) That's how dago? I had no idea.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 30, 2015 12:38 PM (2Ojst)

216 "At least the Osprey's are flying. I see them every day wop-wop-wop" Hey!!!

Posted by: Italian Air Force Pilots at June 30, 2015 12:38 PM (VPLuQ)

217 Only a real fucking idiot would have gone that route, and fortunately, gov. has an abundance of rfi's. Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at June 30, 2015 05:21 PM (LWu6U) You would not believe some of the shit that I hear get proposed where I work (or maybe you would). And just about everything that the Army develops, or proposes, comes through my office at some point. The letters "GCV" are a dirty word in our office.

Posted by: Country Singer at June 30, 2015 12:38 PM (nL0sw)

218 The F-35 is Robert McNamara's ultimate wet dream.  This should tell everyone a lot.

Posted by: Soona at June 30, 2015 12:38 PM (P25Hh)

219

The Chinese pretty much stole the schematics of the F-35 and built a version from those plans.

They gave their version two engines, but even they think it's a dog.

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at June 30, 2015 12:38 PM (LWWrf)

220 Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 05:35 PM (b Unfortunately she plays for the other team.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 30, 2015 12:39 PM (Q4pU/)

221 210 Something designed to do everything typically does nothing well. Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 30, 2015 05:37 PM (oKE6c) Except the Slap-Chop and Popeil's Kitchen Magician. Oh and Shimmer, which is a floor wax and dessert topping in one.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:39 PM (St6BJ)

222 You guys make it sound like trying to design a single multimission platform for service across the mission sets of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and our allies has ever been anything than a raging success. Picture everyting you know about committees, then add the military, and Congress. PICASSO!!!!

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 30, 2015 12:39 PM (659DL)

223
sure how they planned on getting fuel, munitions, maintenance, &c. in to the notional unimproved airstrip.
Posted by: hogmartin



In the modern world, with cities and airports everywhere. it more about operating from smaller or damaged airports in an area that has infrastructure.

SeeBees and wiremats out in the jungle isn't really the focus.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 30, 2015 12:39 PM (kdS6q)

224 220 Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 05:35 PM (b Unfortunately she plays for the other team. Posted by: Cruzinator at June 30, 2015 05:39 PM (Q4pU/) Didn't age too well, either.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 30, 2015 12:39 PM (2Ojst)

225 All we need is a BFH. Big Fucking Hammer fix just about anything.

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 30, 2015 12:40 PM (2cS/G)

226 Cornyn is all over the F 35 like a bird strike

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:40 PM (zOTsN)

227 You know how that part got its name, right? Because if that ever fails, guess who's the next person you're going to see? Posted by: Keith -------------------- Of course I do...., but for the few who do not, it is a slang reference to the nut which secures the helicopter rotor to it's shaft. Some say that the name also refers to the effort required to tighten-to-torque (or loosen) said nut. The effort generally being accompanied by a blasphemous, "Jaaaysus.....", as the number is somewhere in the region of a bazillion ft/lbs.

Posted by: The Jesus Nut at June 30, 2015 12:40 PM (F2IAQ)

228 The F-111 was the last time they tried to build something like the F-35. I can't evaluate whether it was a cheaper boondoogle for its time - anybody have any feeling on that? I used to work with a guy who was a radar tech at Nellis AFB back in the early 70's. He thought the F-111 was the greatest plane ever made. He didn't have to fly one though.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at June 30, 2015 12:40 PM (W5DcG)

229 180 F-35 for the AF has a single engine, but the Navy/Marines require 2 engines in every airframe (including helo), did they retract this root requirement just for the F-35? Posted by: JD at June 30, 2015 05:31 PM (Vgx5M) The Navy's requirement for dual-engines over water is a mercurial and cynical tool used to sink projects they don't want to participate in. They had F-8s, A-7s, and A-1s in Vietnam. I think the last time it was invoked was to get the F-18 instead of the F-16.

Posted by: hogmartin at June 30, 2015 12:40 PM (Gqiv+)

230 Posted by: Yo! at June 30, 2015 05:37 PM (W6iIX) F-4 proved that if you strap enough power to a brick it will fly. But yeah, the whole "you don't need to maneuver, you just need speed and distance" was why early F-4s had no gun. Then they developed a centerline external gun pod for it for dogfighting. Later models had an internal gun.

Posted by: Country Singer at June 30, 2015 12:40 PM (nL0sw)

231 So basically, the F-86 Sabre my dad flew in Korea at a cost of $219K per unit was a better aircraft?

Posted by: Cheri at June 30, 2015 12:40 PM (oiNtH)

232 Aardvark II

Posted by: Jean at June 30, 2015 12:40 PM (ztOda)

233 I have it on good authority that fire can not melt steel.

Goddam right!!!

Posted by: Rosie O'Doughnuts: Melted Steel Expert at June 30, 2015 12:40 PM (YFFpo)

234

I grew up next to a base with F-111's.

 

those things went down all the time.

 

Side by side pilots though

Posted by: Yo! at June 30, 2015 12:40 PM (W6iIX)

235 America needs a plane the enemy can shoot down. Otherwise it's not a fair fight.

Posted by: Barack Obama at June 30, 2015 12:40 PM (3GFMN)

236 Will any of these aircraft be flown by transgendered pilots, who's ancestors fought for the Confederacy?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at June 30, 2015 12:41 PM (VPLuQ)

237 Take Shatterhand's recommendation. Boyd: the fighter pilot is a great book, not only about a great American, but about how truly screwed up the Pentagon was when it comes to procurement. Maybe still is. Another look at Boyd's ideas are in The Mind of War by Grant Tedrick. Get some Republicans to read this because all that OODA loop stuff applies to campaigns. Not that anyone can tell the consultants anything that might help.

Posted by: John Oh at June 30, 2015 12:42 PM (aR/kH)

238 Well, bigots might say I'm a fighter jet, but I consider myself a trans-single passenger jet. Anyone who would question that is a bigot.

Posted by: Trans-F35 at June 30, 2015 12:42 PM (AkOaV)

239 The Navy's requirement for dual-engines over water is a mercurial and cynical tool used to sink projects they don't want to participate in. They had F-8s, A-7s, and A-1s in Vietnam. I think the last time it was invoked was to get the F-18 instead of the F-16.

Posted by: hogmartin at June 30, 2015 05:40 PM (Gqiv+)

 

Thank you, I figured it was something like that.

Posted by: JD at June 30, 2015 12:42 PM (Vgx5M)

240 Side by side pilots though Not really. One was the radar/weapons officer.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 30, 2015 12:42 PM (659DL)

241 You know you are in trouble when you fly and are tagged Aardvark.

Posted by: Man from Wazzustan at June 30, 2015 12:43 PM (uPxUo)

242 Trillions and trillions.

Posted by: Nasty Dogfight Sluts at June 30, 2015 12:43 PM (xkSSa)

243 Something designed to do everything typically does nothing well. Posted by: Jay ----------- Sure..., the topic always turns out to be about me. H8rs.

Posted by: Brucie Caitlyn at June 30, 2015 12:43 PM (F2IAQ)

244 You know how that part got its name, right? Because if that ever fails, guess who's the next person you're going to see? Not to be confused with the "Jeesus Clip" which is an inner clip that goes on the inside of a shaft assembly, the last thingy that holds all the other thingys inside. Notorious for slipping off of the specialty pliers that hold them if they have the slightest amount of anything slippery on them, and launching itself somewhere into Heaven, never to be seen again.. *sproing!* "Jeesus, where'd that thing go?"

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t [/i][/s][/b][/u] at June 30, 2015 12:43 PM (eEb+d)

245 What I remember about the F-35, having spent decades in the aerospace business, was that in their very first design review, the team presented a design that was 35% OVERWEIGHT. It the aerospace business, WEIGHT is one of the most important parameters there is. Imagine a bird trying to fly with a rock tied to it. OMG. So that was an astounding failure on an epic scale. Yes, Ace, I believe this was to be the single most expensive aircraft program ever, replacing every other fighter aircraft, aside from the very awesome F-15 (which is being replaced by the F-22). At the time I was was calling the failure "the Y2K of the systems engineering world". (I consider the Y2K crisis as being the quintessentially epic failure of the software industry, because the literally failed to account for the fact that time would pass - some circumstances are unpredictable, but ... "time passing"? OMG!)

Posted by: Optimizer at June 30, 2015 12:43 PM (/q6+P)

246 EWOWs can fly if they have to

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:44 PM (zOTsN)

247 The Chinese pretty much stole the schematics of the F-35 and built a version from those plans. They gavetheir versiontwo engines, but even they think it's a dog. We NOT stearl prans!! Was gift from Mr Cwinton and he wife, Hirrarey.

Posted by: The ChiComs at June 30, 2015 12:44 PM (5buP8)

248 "Energy disadvantage?" Didn't the P-51 have an energy disadvantage at first and was completely under-powered as shit? Do the Brits still make engines anymore?

Posted by: gzulux at June 30, 2015 12:44 PM (2pOTb)

249 So basically, the F-86 Sabre my dad flew in Korea at a cost of $219K per unit was a better aircraft? The F86 was the best fighter jet of it's day. The F35, not so much.

Posted by: Grump928(c) at June 30, 2015 12:44 PM (evdj2)

250 235 America needs a plane the enemy can shoot down. Otherwise it's not a fair fight.

Posted by: Barack Obama at June 30, 2015 05:40 PM (3GFMN)



I can actually see that as a thought bubble over TFG's head.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 12:44 PM (FsuaD)

251 I know, we make the F-350! It'll be ten times better than the F-35! Like turning the Volume to 11 !!!

Posted by: Lincolntf at June 30, 2015 12:44 PM (2cS/G)

252 232 Aardvark II Posted by: Jean at June 30, 2015 05:40 PM (ztOda) Pfft.

Posted by: Fairey Battle at June 30, 2015 12:45 PM (St6BJ)

253 They wanted 1 airframe for every single possible mission profile. That's like making one vehicle to haul groceries, coal, butter, the family, be a 4 wheel drive, do freeway driving (nimbly) and also pull a tractor trailer rig as a tow truck. It will barely do everything at a disadvantage and since it is a war fighting vehicle, it will cost lives and victories.

Posted by: Inspector Cussword at June 30, 2015 12:45 PM (ukTrJ)

254 We don't need fighter jets when we have same sex marriage!

Posted by: President Hillary at June 30, 2015 12:45 PM (vZGUI)

255 This generation of fighters is temporary anyways. With the speed of advancement in computing power over the past 20 years, the design of the F-22A and F-35 variants were marginal in their exploitation of this. Both from a design/simulation and implementation stand-point. The better question is if these systems can be upgraded to form part of a usable platform that integrates the UAV and UCAV's being designed now that take full advantage of the increase in computing power for designs that have drastically better aerodynamics, stealth signatures and combat abilities. If you're taking dogfighting as you are; there isn't a single manned fighter that can sustain 10 or 15G turns, but there is nothing preventing a UCAV from doing this. For precedence, look to the Ryan Firebee's ability to drastically outmaneuver the F-15 and F16 on occasion. And the design timeframe for the UCAV's will be much more rapid than for a several billion (trillion!) dollar platform like a manned fighter. I'd foresee the F-22A and F-35 pilots well behind the frontline in most future high-intensity conflicts, say an incident in the South China Sea. They will overwatch and provide a (more) local man-in-the-loop controlling the UAV and UCAV's doing the dirty work.

Posted by: Uriah Heep at June 30, 2015 12:45 PM (ZMZ2g)

256

>>>Not really. One was the radar/weapons officer.

 

I realised that both were not pilots right after I hit post.

 

Weren't F-111's used to bust Quadaffieies a$$ back in the 80's?

Posted by: Yo! at June 30, 2015 12:46 PM (W6iIX)

257 "I grew up next to a base with F-111's."

I grew up a mile and a half from a SAC base full of C-141 Starlifters, and to this day I still want to get my fingers around the windpipe of whoever had the brilliant idea of running Thrust Reverser Tests every morning just before the buttcrack of dawn.  The local K-Mart stopped carrying alarm clocks, because nobody in town needed one.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at June 30, 2015 12:46 PM (iIzG7)

258 It's the Bradley Fighting Vehicle * 1000

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 30, 2015 12:46 PM (K2eYy)

259 The F-15K  (for  South Korea) and F-15J  (for Japan) are still or were still in limited production by Boeing - McDonald.  They would LOVE to get an Air Force order for new F-15's.  I'll bet.

It was discussed some years ago to give a new F-15 the vectored thrust/supercruise engines of the F-22, and get a pretty high performance fighter for lower cost than the F-22 (which was pretty expensive for  185 airframes).

Gates was largely responsible for killing the F-22 as SecDef under Obama.  The F-35 was supposed to be "cheaper" per airframe.  Regardless if the F-35 meets most of its performance goals, it is no longer cheaper than the F-22 per airframe.

John Boyd is always quoted as the guru of air-to-air gunfights, but frankly, he was wrong about a lot of stuff.  It's just he was very articulate and clever in his arguments.  He invented the whole idea of the "OODA"  loop.  He was the clever iconclast the media loved to quote.  He was mad because the Air Force hung all kinds of equipment on his precious F-16, but they had to take an airframe and actually turn it into a war fighting machine.

And Pierre Spey is another know -it-all military crank.  These guys turn up all the time.

I too, have no idea what kind of plane the F-35 will turn out to be.  And for all we know, this is deliberate mis-information from the military to deceive our enemies.  They did this in the 1960's to make the Russians think we could not develop terrain following radar, when in fact, the Air Force got it to work.

Posted by: Bossy Conservative....outlaw in America at June 30, 2015 12:46 PM (RFeQD)

260 I want to throat-punch Juan Williams.

Sorry.

Carry on.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 12:46 PM (FsuaD)

261 America needs a plane the enemy can shoot down. Otherwise it's not a fair fight. Posted by: Barack Obama at June 30, 2015 05:40 PM (3GFMN) --- I can actually see that as a thought bubble over TFG's head. Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 05:44 PM (FsuaD) Don't forget all the Dem-voting union members it would keep employed building replacements.

Posted by: Country Singer at June 30, 2015 12:46 PM (nL0sw)

262

Restart the F22 production line

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 30, 2015 12:46 PM (vJki2)

263 If it can transition when taking off, Caitlyn approves.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:46 PM (St6BJ)

264 BAE systems is British and Rolls Royce

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:46 PM (zOTsN)

265 Some planes you can simply look at it and know it is a disaster. The F35 is a modern day ME 309. Drones may be the future, but if you want a manned plane why not ressurect the F22? But the good news from the Defense Tech link is that it seems the F35 controls have been simplified to the point that generation onesies will be able to fly it.

Posted by: Noir at June 30, 2015 12:47 PM (yfJVi)

266 Those on the outside have no idea how much "decision" space and time this program has eaten up.  I have seen entire avenues of promising research die because they didn't have the support of the F35 folks.   Several multi-hour, senior briefings completely dominated by this one program.  Everything else, tabled for later.


Posted by: Jean at June 30, 2015 12:47 PM (ztOda)

267 You have to remember, there are two types of problems in a program like this.

1. fixable.

2. inherent.

What you hear about most is the fixable shit that makes the plane look bad - mostly electronic, or subsytem crap. That is what they spend most time testing and that is what is reported on.

The fixable stuff is what the engineering team focuses on early in the life cycle, but after all that is taken care of is when the program can really be evaluated.

This makes it very hard to evaluate the program until it has many many years of service.

Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at June 30, 2015 12:47 PM (LWu6U)

268 A word to the wise: This might be a good time for Lockheed Martin to invest in a few speeches by Chelsea Clinton. The topic doesn't matter; she's equally knowledgeable about everything.

Posted by: Sir Hillary Edmund Rodham Clinton at June 30, 2015 12:47 PM (8ZskC)

269 Posted by: gzulux at June 30, 2015 05:44 PM (2pOTb) Yep . The put a rolls Royce Merlin in it.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 30, 2015 12:48 PM (Q4pU/)

270 Hey don't worry, the Chinese have inserted little heat producting   bomb into every microchip sent to the US.  At a signal from China they will all catch fire, and we will all burn up in our sleep.

Posted by: Colin at June 30, 2015 12:48 PM (WQLtV)

271 The Chinese pretty much stole the schematics of the F-35 and built a version from those plans.


A triumph of our security services. The idea is to leave plans for a lousy plane out where the Chinese can steal them, and thereby induce them to waste years and trillions of dollars trying to make the piece of shit work. The joke's on them!

Posted by: Jay Guevara[/i][/b][/s][/u] at June 30, 2015 12:48 PM (oKE6c)

272 We have spent one trillion dollars on the F-35 Is that for real? Jesus keee-ryst]/i]....... ...and yes, the best pure dogfighter in the sky, is the F-16.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at June 30, 2015 12:49 PM (CFcIt)

273 Quantity has its own quality -- Someone mentioned that above, and it is in large part why we beat both the Germans and the Japs. We simply outproduced them once we geared up production. We pumped out fully outfitted carriers in months. Now it takes a year for us to settle just on the name.
 
Looking around briefly on the web, the F-35 is going to cost somewhere around $150 million per copy. Even in ObamaBucks, that's some serious per copy scratch.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 30, 2015 12:49 PM (TAd/T)

274 It's the Bradley Fighting Vehicle * 1000 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 30, 2015 05:46 PM (K2eYy) Speaking of which, the entire movie The Pentagon Wars is available on YouTube. Supposedly, the JCIDS process was going to fix those issues. It didn't.

Posted by: Country Singer at June 30, 2015 12:49 PM (nL0sw)

275 Queen picked up an 8 million buck sex pad in NYC. Looks unsecure: http://goo.gl/reHGyD

Posted by: Mrs. Ace of Spades with a Wang! at June 30, 2015 12:50 PM (iQIUe)

276 265 265 Some planes you can simply look at it and know it is a disaster. The F35 is a modern day ME 309. Drones may be the future, but if you want a manned plane why not ressurect the F22? But the good news from the Defense Tech link is that it seems the F35 controls have been simplified to the point that generation onesies will be able to fly it. Posted by: Noir at June 30, 2015 05:47 PM (yfJVi) Focke Wulf Ta-154 Moskito. A complete disaster. And the Me 210, which merely was a failure.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:50 PM (St6BJ)

277 What I remember about the F-35, having spent decades in the aerospace business, was that in their very first design review, the team presented a design that was 35% OVERWEIGHT. You can be 35% overweight and still be effective.

Posted by: Chris Christie at June 30, 2015 12:50 PM (8ZskC)

278 What did you expect? It's designed for inclusiveness of ideas and diversity of mission.

Posted by: dogfish at June 30, 2015 12:50 PM (jWtyG)

279 First, I'll admit I know very little about fighter planes. But I have some thoughts. Each great advance in fighter capability came because a breakthrough in technology has given engineers a new tool in the toolbox. Propulsion, materials, computer aided design, and computer aided flight control. Has there been a new breakthrough technology that engineers can use to produce a new fighter design with highly advanced performance beyond what existing fighters can do?

Posted by: bergerbilder at June 30, 2015 12:50 PM (+jijM)

280 Restart the F22 production line This. We need an air superiority fighter.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 30, 2015 12:51 PM (K2eYy)

281 Remember when we could make revolutionary planes on short notice that were truly groundbreaking? But hey, at least it will let us focus on the real enemy of America: Small churches who won't celebrate teh buttsecks!!1!

Posted by: The Stealth Hat at June 30, 2015 12:51 PM (7YlUk)

282 Re" Kelly McGillis, After Hollywood shitheads  can you blame her?

Kim Novak quit Hollywood and married a dentist.


Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 12:52 PM (baR5c)

283 Has there been a new breakthrough technology that engineers can use to produce a new fighter design with highly advanced performance beyond what existing fighters can do? Does Facebook access count?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at June 30, 2015 12:52 PM (8ZskC)

284 A triumph of our security services. The idea is to leave plans for a lousy plane out where the Chinese can steal them, and thereby induce them to waste years and trillions of dollars trying to make the piece of shit work. The joke's on them!
Posted by: Jay Guevara

I remember reading back in the 1980's that the Russians had stolen all the plans to the F-18, and they proved it because somebody stole all the Russian copes back. It didn't matter as much, because the Russian industrial base was retarded.
The Chinese industrial base, not so much.

Posted by: Bossy Conservative....outlaw in America at June 30, 2015 12:52 PM (RFeQD)

285 And Pierre Spey is another know -it-all military crank. These guys turn up all the time. Posted by: Bossy Conservative....outlaw in America at June 30, 2015 05:46 PM (RFeQD) ------- Yeah. The Spey and Boyd idea of a good fighter was an F-5 without a targeting radar. Perfect for a poor Latin American country. Ahh, forget I mentioned it.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 12:52 PM (NUqwG)

286 This generation of fighters is temporary anyways. With the speed of advancement in computing power over the past 20 years, the design of the F-22A and F-35 variants were marginal in their exploitation of this. Both from a design/simulation and implementation stand-point. Not to mention the physical forces that act on the pilots in these aircraft. It's been said for several years now that the human body can only take so much stress and continue to function as an airborne warrior who has to stay frosty all the time. We're approaching that point. I'm not sure if LEO hypersonic drones aren't the future of air combat. Keep them in orbit until they're needed, then fire one up, designate a target and push the button

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t [/i][/s][/b][/u] at June 30, 2015 12:52 PM (eEb+d)

287 if you go unmanned, you no longer have to worry about the aircraft flying beyond the capablities of the human body to endure. More Gs. That is the next thing

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:52 PM (zOTsN)

288 I want to throat-punch Juan Williams. Sorry. Carry on. Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 05:46 PM No need to apologize. We understand.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState[/i][/s][/b] at June 30, 2015 12:52 PM (h4vJk)

289 Introducing The Homer!

Posted by: Grump928(c) at June 30, 2015 12:53 PM (evdj2)

290 "Jeesus, where'd that thing go?" Posted by: BackwardsBoy ------------------ For decades, I have been surprised to find highly critical shafts, cogs, levers, etc., retained by e-clips or c-clips. The engineers always have high confidence in their design, and I don't know of any displacing or crawling out of their grooves, but still..., they give me pause. I always make damned sure that upon installation, the flatter side of a clip is placed against the loaded side of the groove. It's one thing to retain a lawn mower wheel, it is another thing to retain a shaft on a 200 ton crane.

Posted by: Brucie Caitlyn at June 30, 2015 12:53 PM (F2IAQ)

291 Don't forget Climate Change is the biggest worry the military has, so says the Weather Channel.

Posted by: Colin at June 30, 2015 12:53 PM (WQLtV)

292 282 Re" Kelly McGillis, After Hollywood shitheads can you blame her? Kim Novak quit Hollywood and married a dentist. Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 05:52 PM (baR5c) Shh! Nevergiveup has her under wraps!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:53 PM (St6BJ)

293 The F-35 is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle of the 21st century.  Too many admirals and generals trying to make the damn thing into a one-size-fits-all flyer.

It was a turd from the start and it will likely remain a turd until it's kicked into the dustbin pentagon blunders.

Posted by: Fritz at June 30, 2015 12:53 PM (UzPAd)

294 So basically, the F-86 Sabre my dad flew in Korea at a cost of $219K per unit was a better aircraft?
Posted by: Cheri


Chuck Yeager said it was about the best plane he ever flew, and that includes some pretty hot later models.  But Chuck liked to bullshit people too.

Posted by: Bossy Conservative....outlaw in America at June 30, 2015 12:54 PM (RFeQD)

295 What is the F-35 doing to improve muslim self-esteem?

Posted by: Prez'nit Shit Midas at June 30, 2015 12:54 PM (8ZskC)

296 Speaking of British engines, stupid Limeys basically gave the Soviet Union their jet engine technology for nothing. Cost a lot of lives in Korea.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 30, 2015 12:54 PM (Q4pU/)

297 With ever more sophisticated and in comparison, cheap drones and cruise missiles do piloted aircraft make sense?
Okay, maybe remotely piloted.

Posted by: kraki at June 30, 2015 12:54 PM (TNa9O)

298 30 Ace, why do you hate the military so much? Don't you know that it is unpatriotic to question military spending...EVER??!?!? Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 30, 2015 05:05 PM (0LHZx) Fuck off you dishonest pathetic shit. You've been rightly trashed for your celebration of cutting the pay and benefits of our military personnel. And now you're creating another of your strawmen. Get bent you lying jackass.

Posted by: Buzzion at June 30, 2015 12:54 PM (azFPh)

299 F-22 F-22 F-22 F-22 Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at June 30, 2015 05:33 PM (LWWrf) I'll never understand why the F-35 was needed and yes, the Jarheads would be ecstatic to fly a navalized F-22. If you want V/STOL, up grade the AV-8 platform. 260 I want to throat-punch Juan Williams. Isn't that the stated goal of every man, woman and child either, not ghey or (D)Marxist (BIRM)?

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at June 30, 2015 12:54 PM (CFcIt)

300 The best part of the whole F-35 debacle is that we tricked the Chinese into stealing its plans and cloning it.

Posted by: @PeeteySDee at June 30, 2015 12:54 PM (DjII2)

301 Not to mention those Eagle drivers scoffing at 'dogfightin' ??  

The Eagle can turn and burn with the best of them.  It can't handle a 9G turn like a Viper, but then again, neither can a Viper,  for long.  The Eagle can turn ENOUGH to do the job.  Training, not hardware is the key.  PLUS, the teeny tiny detail that all the missile fucking wonks forget is that ROE sets the tone of most if not all engagements. Look up fucking Vietnam in case anyone needs a refresher history course.    If you have some political cocksucker,  EG  ,  UGABE ,  telling you that you have to VID anything before you shoot?  Guess what.  That means closing to dogfight range.  And if you can't do it? You are fucked.  Welcome to 1962 again, girls

Posted by: KenH at June 30, 2015 12:55 PM (67f1X)

302 It's all a ruse. We have an anti-gravity device at Area 49.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:55 PM (St6BJ)

303 Wow, that was one vicious flame of a report by the test pilot. Yeah, it's everything CPT Charles said was wrong with the project, a device supposed to do everything well, and thus nothing well. This report is truly damning though. The Osprey is an aerial pig, that is OK, it is a flying truck. The F-35 is a flying pig, and that is NOT alright, since it is a combat aircraft, and "combat" ultimately means "fighting other enemy aircraft". If the F-35 loses a zig-zag dogfight to a F-16, what is going to happen against a MiG-29 or one of the new generation PRC fighters? Feh, we have few enough combat planes to go around, and they want to give all three services this turkey?

One other problem, if the F-35 is such a pig in dogfighting, what does that say about its chances against SAMs of all sizes and radar-guided flack guns when it is doing CAS runs? (Stealth doesn't work in CAS since the nature of the mission prevents a "stealthy" approach.) That is even worse, since due to a lack of numbers our boots on the ground depend on air support for offense and defense. If we get into a pissing match with Iran or PRC somewhere and the F-35s are getting reamed by SAMs and conventional fighters alike, what is going to happen to our ground troops who have to face superior quantity of enemy ground units without the aerial lifeline? In 2015 we can't afford a Chosin Reservoir situation.

 

Posted by: exdem13 at June 30, 2015 12:55 PM (ry4ab)

304 drones are remotely piloted

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 12:55 PM (zOTsN)

305 Don't forget Climate Change is the biggest worry the military has

#FiveYears

Posted by: Robert Deadford at June 30, 2015 12:55 PM (Dwehj)

306 300 The best part of the whole F-35 debacle is that we tricked the Chinese into stealing its plans and cloning it. Posted by: @PeeteySDee at June 30, 2015 05:54 PM (DjII2) **Chinese Nelson Muntz laugh**

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:55 PM (St6BJ)

307 I think that she is too old even for Nevergiveup's dreams.


Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 12:55 PM (baR5c)

308

My worry about unmanned aircraft is the electronic warfare capability of our enemies.  Remote piloted planes are great, when you don't have to worry about someone screwing with your communications...

Posted by: Colorado Alex at June 30, 2015 12:56 PM (OiH3z)

309

What David Axe and Tyler Rogoway have failed to mention is that the test report stemming from the event between the F-16 and the F-35A is specious; the test took place in the January/February timeframe, under which the Lightning II was under an engine output restriction that stemmed from an incidental fire in October of last year.

Axe/Rogoway and other authors who have read the document in question refuse to state whether said output requirement was waived for the test. In fact, it was pulling teeth to clarify whether the test took place during that restricted timeframe. This, in combination with the old, restricted CLAWS logic (flight control software) render their evaluation specious at best, fundamental fraud at worst. And given that Mr. Axe has previously complained that the F-35 doesn't use "area rule"- a method of design that was bypassed fifty years ago with more advanced techniques, his article is unadulterated.

Ace's commentary stems from what is quite likely fraud, and should instead challenge what has been provided from clearly less than reputable sources- at least as far as the evidence they're willing to provide is concerned.

Posted by: Fringe at June 30, 2015 12:56 PM (+GIZJ)

310 Get bent you lying jackass. Show respect. Moo Moo spends more on aerosol cheese in a week than you make in a whole year.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at June 30, 2015 12:56 PM (8ZskC)

311 Speaking of British engines, stupid Limeys basically gave the Soviet Union their jet engine technology for nothing. Cost a lot of lives in Korea. Posted by: Cruzinator at June 30, 2015 05:54 PM (Q4pU/) ---- Of course the first US turbojets were based mainly on British technology as well.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 12:56 PM (NUqwG)

312 But the F-15 pilots laughed. They said, basically, this: "We lost because we were under the artificial conditions where we had to dogfight. Kill ratio. Best ever. Even better than the F6F, which was awesome. Next question.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at June 30, 2015 12:56 PM (CFcIt)

313 "Has there been a new breakthrough technology...?"

The Divotslicer-in-Chief's puppetmaster is a nasty little Iranian woman who's still hoping for DARPA to provider her with sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads.  That's the next breakthrough military technology we're going to see out of this Administration.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at June 30, 2015 12:57 PM (iIzG7)

314 The best part of the whole F-35 debacle is that we tricked the Chinese into stealing its plans and cloning it.

I'm a genius.

Posted by: Ready For Hillary!!11!! at June 30, 2015 12:57 PM (Dwehj)

315 when they were handing out planes.....they thought they said trains.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl, i was born a rebel at June 30, 2015 12:57 PM (0O7c5)

316 296 Speaking of British engines, stupid Limeys basically gave the Soviet Union their jet engine technology for nothing. Cost a lot of lives in Korea. Posted by: Cruzinator at June 30, 2015 05:54 PM (Q4pU/) That one is a head-scratcher, considering Winston Churchill's deep mistrust of Stalin even before May of '45. Iron Curtain speech and all. Hmm.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:57 PM (St6BJ)

317 285-A military crank who almost single handedly came up with the concept and design of the A-10-then proceeded to force it down an ignorant Pentagon bureaucracy. You know, the one jet that has really made a difference in the last 15 years of our nation being at war. You must have big balls throwing insults like that-or no brains.

Posted by: Danny Donkey at June 30, 2015 12:57 PM (U/MG/)

318 Kind of like Grace Kelly.

It's great to see the old pictures.  But if you could see her now.


Body rotting in the grave.



Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 12:57 PM (baR5c)

319 Remember when we could make revolutionary planes on short notice that were truly groundbreaking?

That was before Microsoft Project, wasn't it?

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 30, 2015 12:57 PM (ZKzrr)

320 The advocates of JSF projects are like communists. They are all vain enough to think it has never worked in the past, but we are the ones smart enough to make it work this time. Vanity, it's all vanity. With side orders of graft and power.

Posted by: delurk ergo sum at June 30, 2015 12:58 PM (xSej6)

321 Not planes, sorta related.
https://neil.fraser.name/writing/tank/

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 30, 2015 12:58 PM (ZKzrr)

322 In many ways, this is the story of Obama.

Posted by: Null at June 30, 2015 12:58 PM (xjpRj)

323 "What is the F-35 doing to improve muslim self-esteem?"

I don't know, but the A-10's been introducing a lot of them to Allah personally.  That's gotta count for something.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at June 30, 2015 12:58 PM (iIzG7)

324 Training, not hardware is the key. *ding! ding! ding!*

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at June 30, 2015 12:58 PM (CFcIt)

325 307 I think that she is too old even for Nevergiveup's dreams. Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 05:55 PM (baR5c) NGU is almost as old as Vic. Except he has the secret Dick Clark/Dinah Shore juju formula.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 12:59 PM (St6BJ)

326 >>>ace, these video ads in the comments are driving me nuts. Even with ad block, they're lagging up the page. oh, and they keep pulling me up to the ad. I don't know what kind of Pixy magic is at play, but it scrolls me up the page. anyone else experiencing this? ... is anyone else experiencing this? I can move the ads to the bottom of the page; that won't solve all issues, but will reduce one. but I don't hear this from anyone else.

Posted by: ace at June 30, 2015 12:59 PM (bhepQ)

327 My worry is about un-married aircraft

Posted by: Mike Fuckaby at June 30, 2015 12:59 PM (baR5c)

328 I want to throat-punch Juan Williams.

That's why they gave him that fat pig Beckel's spot.

Posted by: tu3031 at June 30, 2015 12:59 PM (YFFpo)

329 16 Who are we going to dogfight in the next 100 years, nobody. Is my expert military opinion. The enemy is usually 100% grounded first.
-----------
The problem with that viewpoint JD is that the enemy sometimes doesn't play along with the first strike option. Sometimes they even strike first, or strike while our pilots are still waiting to have the White House give permission for them to do the obvious thing.

Plus the report suggests that even if 10%-20% of the enemy air assets survive the initial attack, they can still get airborne and run up a tally of F-35 kills in low-medium altitude dogfights, exactly how some of our guys got wasted by NVA MiGs in the 'Nam. Our rep is huge, so every F-35 shot down is hype for them and downer for us. And thanks to the shrunken military, new replacement F-35s will be hard to come by, which means a shot-up squadron has to be replaced by another squadron holding the line somewhere else.

Posted by: exdem13 at June 30, 2015 01:00 PM (ry4ab)

330 304 >> drones are remotely piloted
 
Until they are autonomously piloted. See Google self-driving cars for further details.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 30, 2015 01:01 PM (TAd/T)

331

Before this report I had read somewhere that in order to make the frame switchable to STOVL, they significantly compromised it's agility.

Looks like that claim was true.

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at June 30, 2015 01:01 PM (LWWrf)

332 ohhhhh Jimmy Carter "Obamas success on the world stage has been minimal" meow

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 01:01 PM (zOTsN)

333 A military crank [Spey] who almost single handedly came up with the concept and design of the A-10-then proceeded to force it down an ignorant Pentagon bureaucracy. ------ Certainly in his own mind.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 01:02 PM (NUqwG)

334 If you want V/STOL, up grade the AV-8 platform.

Nah, just lease more Super Tucano's from Brazil.  A  lot less paperwork that way.

Posted by: Jean at June 30, 2015 01:02 PM (ztOda)

335 "Jimmy Carter "Obamas success on the world stage has been minimal" "

Praytell, what success is he referring to?

Posted by: Keith Arnold at June 30, 2015 01:02 PM (iIzG7)

336 I have a simple solution to the Juan Williams idiocy problem.  When his stupid head appears, I either change the channel or turn off the TV.   It is amazing that such a fucking retard can make so much money as a talking head.


Posted by: Mike Fuckaby at June 30, 2015 01:02 PM (baR5c)

337 For decades, I have been surprised to find highly critical shafts, cogs, levers, etc., retained by e-clips or c-clips. The engineers always have high confidence in their design, and I don't know of any displacing or crawling out of their grooves, but still..., they give me pause. What matters is how much force is applied to the direction of exit assembly/capture in the event of failure. All the rotating thingys I designed were fairly small and light. Fortunately, not much of a concern. Still, defense work does make you think, "If this part I'm designing fails, who will die?" That is sobering.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t [/i][/s][/b][/u] at June 30, 2015 01:02 PM (eEb+d)

338 That one is a head-scratcher, considering Winston Churchill's deep mistrust of Stalin even before May of '45. Iron Curtain speech and all. Hmm. Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 05:57 PM (St6BJ) What..... that surprises you?

Posted by: Clement Atlee at June 30, 2015 01:03 PM (CFcIt)

339 "But the F-15 pilots laughed. ..." From having been a semi-insider, some time ago, and even interviewing an F-15 pilot (who was my boss) about such things, all this sounds right. At the time (and it's undoubtedly still true) it was about who "saw" who first, so they could position themselves for advantage to shoot the other guy. I put "saw" in scare quotes because even back then it had gotten to the point that the engagement started (and maybe even ended) beyond visual range. There were concerns, actually, about how you make sure you know who you're really shooting at. It should also be mentioned that F-15s had a thrust-yo-weight greater than one, which is an incredible thing. It means it can accelerate while flying STRAIGHT UP. I think it was the first to break the sound barrier while doing so. Also, to more convincingly back up what the F-15 guys said, note that the F-15 is UNDEFEATED in combat, which it has seen plenty of, which is a simply astounding record.

Posted by: Optimizer at June 30, 2015 01:03 PM (/q6+P)

340 332

ohhhhh

Jimmy Carter "Obamas success on the world stage has been minimal"


meow

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 06:01 PM (zOTsN)



Wait until the JEF is out of office.  He'll make Jimmuh look like your kindly old uncle in the nursing home.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 01:03 PM (FsuaD)

341 326 >>>ace, these video ads in the comments are driving me nuts. Even with ad block, they're lagging up the page. oh, and they keep pulling me up to the ad. I don't know what kind of Pixy magic is at play, but it scrolls me up the page. anyone else experiencing this? ... is anyone else experiencing this? I can move the ads to the bottom of the page; that won't solve all issues, but will reduce one. but I don't hear this from anyone else. Posted by: ace at June 30, 2015 05:59 PM (bhepQ) I don't have that problem. But they've always caused some lag on my computers. Even when they were just on the main page. I don't know if it's the software the blog runs on or the ad service itself. But it doesn't really bother me because it. You do have to make money. My annoyance is that on the main page on my iphone it will on occasion cause the App Store to open on some random app.

Posted by: Buzzion at June 30, 2015 01:03 PM (azFPh)

342 Too many boilermakers to gracefully go in and out of socks.


Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 01:03 PM (baR5c)

343 27 Also, it is amusing that they set up the test "rigged", probable to show that the new plane was superior to the older model.

Yet, even with the "aeronautical disadvantage" on the older model the new one flopped.

Top. Men. (just ask them)
-----------------------
It was a fair test, simulating a F-35 that had just unloaded on a target coming up against an an enemy single-engine interceptor with a combat load who hadn't ditched the drop tank yet. Our wonder weapon with only cannon rounds failed Top Gun against an older fighter with greater displacement at Sidewinder/cannon range, where the Russkis and Chicoms prefer to engage.

Top. Men.

Posted by: exdem13 at June 30, 2015 01:04 PM (ry4ab)

344 I'm redeemed!

Posted by: The Fairey Battle at June 30, 2015 01:04 PM (sE4m0)

345 That's like making one vehicle to haul groceries, coal, butter, the family, be a 4 wheel drive, do freeway driving (nimbly) and also pull a tractor trailer rig as a tow truck. Ford F-350.

Posted by: rickb223 [/s][/b][/i] at June 30, 2015 01:05 PM (XVWwL)

346 Nuke the Krauts!

Posted by: logprof USA! at June 30, 2015 01:05 PM (JVgzo)

347 Ace, since you're here, you might want to recommend that folks that haven't seen it watch "The Pentagon Wars," starring Dr. Frasier Crane and the Dread Pirate Roberts. https://youtu.be/5jLlzDZJmeU

Posted by: Country Singer at June 30, 2015 01:05 PM (nL0sw)

348 g'early evenin', 'rons

Posted by: AltonJackson at June 30, 2015 01:05 PM (KCxzN)

349 Looks like we picked up a LockMart PR flak, that internet monitoring software is getting scary.

Posted by: Jean at June 30, 2015 01:05 PM (ztOda)

350 is anyone else experiencing this?


Yes

Posted by: pep at June 30, 2015 01:05 PM (LAe3v)

351 The Block 40 F-16 is not even the fastest model. The Block 50, which was developed for the SEAD mission has an even more powerful GE engine and in a clean configuration will fly at Mach speed. The Block 52 is equipped with a Pratt and Whitney engine with similar capabilities

Posted by: Bill R. at June 30, 2015 01:06 PM (93Ako)

352 Show respect. Moo Moo spends more on aerosol cheese in a week than you make in a whole year. In that case his laxative expenditures must be similarly extraordinary.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, by the Pale Moon light at June 30, 2015 01:06 PM (m9V0o)

353 What the hell is an 'aeronautical disadvantage' anyway?

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 01:06 PM (NUqwG)

354 340 Wait until the JEF is out of office. He'll make Jimmuh look like your kindly old uncle in the nursing home. Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 06:03 PM (FsuaD) He'll only be 56 when he theoretically leaves office. If America survives he will have 25-30 odd years to be in front of the cameras leading the charge if anyone tampers with his "legacy." He'll shutup when he's dead and not before.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 01:06 PM (St6BJ)

355 330 304 >> drones are remotely piloted Until they are autonomously piloted. See Google self-driving cars for further details. Posted by: GnuBreed at June 30, 2015 06:01 PM (TAd/T) SOON.

Posted by: Skynet at June 30, 2015 01:06 PM (EHU9F)

356 ha I'm getting an ad for Boeing and the C 17

Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 01:06 PM (zOTsN)

357 Also, to more convincingly back up what the F-15 guys said, note that the F-15 is UNDEFEATED in combat, which it has seen plenty of, which is a simply astounding record. Posted by: Optimizer at June 30, 2015 06:03 PM (/q6+P) Well, we had to deal with carrier traps and such......

Posted by: LTJG Alex Vraciu at June 30, 2015 01:07 PM (CFcIt)

358 Stealth is king, not speed. If you can't see me, doesn't matter how fast either of us are going.

Posted by: knob at June 30, 2015 01:08 PM (mQUCm)

359 354 340 Wait until the JEF is out of office. He'll make Jimmuh look like your kindly old uncle in the nursing home. Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 06:03 PM (FsuaD) He'll only be 56 when he theoretically leaves office. If America survives he will have 25-30 odd years to be in front of the cameras leading the charge if anyone tampers with his "legacy." He'll shutup when he's dead and not before. Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 30, 2015 06:06 PM (St6BJ) With his lifestyle choices I can still see it as a possibility that carter lives longer than Obama.

Posted by: Buzzion at June 30, 2015 01:08 PM (azFPh)

360 America will survive.  The Republic didn't.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 01:08 PM (baR5c)

361 oh, and they keep pulling me up to the ad. I don't know what kind of Pixy magic is at play, but it scrolls me up the page. I hear this little bit of sourcery is making the rounds elsewhere too. Look...I know ads are an economic driver...but crap like this, combined with malware being pushed out by adservers because nobody vets the crap...well, it's why I block the living hell out of everything. Yeah, I know, hitting the tip jar. Just mentioning an ugly truth.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, by the Pale Moon light at June 30, 2015 01:09 PM (m9V0o)

362 Did they save the receipts?  Should have bought them at Wal-Mart ... they are good at returns.  At the least we should get a 20% discount on the next trillion, and free rainbow metallic.

Maybe the money really went into ultrasonic UAVs and hypersonic missiles, and the F-35 are just cheap decoys for the spies.  How about a 200 upgraded A-10s?

Posted by: Illiniwek at June 30, 2015 01:09 PM (eNP7U)

363 I'm getting an ad for Boeing and the C 17 Posted by: ThunderB at June 30, 2015 06:06 PM (zOTsN) ------ If you want a C-17 better buy it quickly. They are about out. (They may be already - Qatar may have just signed for more).

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 01:09 PM (NUqwG)

364 344 I'm redeemed! Posted by: The Fairey Battle at June 30, 2015 06:04 PM (sE4m0) Now that, is fucking funny..............

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at June 30, 2015 01:09 PM (CFcIt)

365 337 ... 'Still, defense work does make you think, "If this part I'm designing fails, who will die?" That is sobering.' A similar thing I was lectured on was the importance of being positively paranoid about foreign objects getting in there where they don't belong. i guess there had been a case where some bolt or screw that was laying around ended up inside a fighter, and during a maneuver flew into a spot that jammed something critical, and it crashed. I guess you could say "We ain't exactly baking cookies!"

Posted by: Optimizer at June 30, 2015 01:10 PM (/q6+P)

366 I think I'll go along with Red Dish's hubby on this.  I also recall a lot of howling about what a lemon the F-16 was back in the 1970s.  Likewise the V-22 Osprey more recently.  Both started out not so hot, but are excellent platforms now. 

Probably the biggest difference between the weapons systems of the past 30 years, and the stuff built prior to that is the electronics and computer control (fly-by-wire) that the newer stuff has.  Invariably, particularly on the fly-by-wire side of it, a LOT of code tweaking will be required.  I suspect that is the case here. 

They had the same problem with the F-22.  At first, nothing but problems, and it took years to sort them out.  But once they did get the bugs worked out of the code (and the inevitable hardware modifications to the airframe and other systems), it is now a fine fighter, albeit expensive (about $135M a pop).

Also, don't forget that stealth requires a lot of aerodynamic compromises.  Makes just about all stealth planes nearly unflyable without a computer,  the F-117A especially so. 

This Pierre Spey guy has been badmouthing the F-35 since day one.  Love to know who is paying him. 

Thing is, after this much money, it is unlikely the project will be cancelled.  In fact, production has already started, or so I've heard.  Bottom line is that it may not turn out to be the pig that the media has been saying it is.  Could be the usual teething problems all complex weapons systems have these days.

Posted by: The Oort Cloud - Source of all SMODs at June 30, 2015 01:10 PM (AYY6Y)

367 329 And thanks to the shrunken military, new replacement F-35s will be hard to come by, which means a shot-up squadron has to be replaced by another squadron holding the line somewhere else. Posted by: exdem13 at June 30, 2015 06:00 PM (ry4ab) Put me in, coach! I'm ready!

Posted by: a chopped-up, gutted F-14 in the boneyard on concrete blocks at June 30, 2015 01:10 PM (EHU9F)

368 The trillion dollars cited by Ace represents 5.4% of our national debt.

Posted by: boniface ballers at June 30, 2015 01:10 PM (m/Gc2)

369 "The mills of God grind slowly.  But they grind exceedingly fine"

The longer Obama is around the more he will be grinded away.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 01:11 PM (baR5c)

370
Aardvark II
Posted by: Jean





F19A Ghostrider: Now More Than Ever

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 30, 2015 01:11 PM (kdS6q)

371 353 What the hell is an 'aeronautical disadvantage' anyway? Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 06:06 PM (NUqwG) Two engine flame-out on an F-4.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at June 30, 2015 01:11 PM (CFcIt)

372 I wonder if manned fight is going to be a very niche role in the very near future. Just because we're making expensive drones doesn't mean someone else isn't testing cheaper ones they can flood the skies with. I don't hate the F-35, and I do admire the impulse to make a jet that can be used by both Air Force and Navy but it costs too much. It doesn't work. And it's not worth 100 A-10's.

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at June 30, 2015 01:11 PM (pWzW/)

373 Not getting any ads in comments Old kindle fire

Posted by: President Hillary at June 30, 2015 01:12 PM (+dxMm)

374 @353 With wing tanks on the F-16, the jet cannot pull as many G's as with a clean configuration. Fewer G's means a larger turn radius and a quicker bleed off of airspeed. Speed us life. Stealth helps but is not a cure all.

Posted by: Bill R. at June 30, 2015 01:12 PM (93Ako)

375 autonomous profile driven pilot-less drones are the future. They can be made cheaper since they don't have to have the bionics required to keep the pilot alive. That makes the entire airframe, smaller, lighter. Freed from the limitations of biology the craft can be sculpted to 3x the G's of opposing craft.

Time to move on. 

Posted by: Drdog09 at June 30, 2015 01:12 PM (ZVUS/)

376 Looks like this is the second coming of the F-111 ("Aardvark"). Robert McNamara decided in 1961 that having one plane for all the services would save a ton of money; instead, the Aardvark did nothing particularly well, and wound up wasting a shitload of money to no good purpose.

In McNamara's defense, at least his stupid idea was original. Obama's insisting on *repeating* an idea that been proved to be stupid. Just like a socialist, of course.

Posted by: Brown Line at June 30, 2015 01:12 PM (zcbZo)

377 oh, and they keep pulling me up to the ad. I don't know what kind of Pixy magic is at play, but it scrolls me up the page.

It was doing it earlier for the Comcast ad but not any more. "Where will you be when the first woman pitches in the major leagues?"

I'll either be 200 years old. Or a long time dead.

Posted by: tu3031 at June 30, 2015 01:13 PM (YFFpo)

378 Speed IS life, not us life. Damn autocorrect.

Posted by: Bill R. at June 30, 2015 01:13 PM (93Ako)

379 @353 With wing tanks on the F-16, the jet cannot pull as many G's as with a clean configuration. Fewer G's means a larger turn radius and a quicker bleed off of airspeed. Speed us life. Stealth helps but is not a cure all. Posted by: Bill R. at June 30, 2015 06:12 PM (93Ako) ------- 'Aerodynamics' maybe?

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 01:14 PM (NUqwG)

380 I don't hate the F-35, and I do admire the impulse to make a jet that can be used by both Air Force and Navy but it costs too much. It doesn't work. And it's not worth 100 A-10's. Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards at June 30, 2015 06:11 PM (pWzW/) Well, my figures say different. Pilots? Who cares....

Posted by: Robert McNamara at June 30, 2015 01:14 PM (CFcIt)

381 @336 "I have a simple solution to the Juan Williams idiocy problem. When his stupid head appears, I either change the channel or turn off the TV. It is amazing that such a fucking retard can make so much money as a talking head." What's amazing is that sometimes he actually has something reasonable to say. But, yes, it's not unusual for there to be times where you just gotta figure that FOX must be paying him enough for somebody to dress him in the morning, because he wouldn't have the brainpower to pull that off himself.

Posted by: Optimizer at June 30, 2015 01:14 PM (/q6+P)

382 Off, yeasty cankle sock!

Posted by: @votermom at June 30, 2015 01:14 PM (riFTv)

383 273 Quantity has its own quality -- Someone mentioned that above, and it is in large part why we beat both the Germans and the Japs. We simply outproduced them once we geared up production. We pumped out fully outfitted carriers in months. Now it takes a year for us to settle just on the name.

Looking around briefly on the web, the F-35 is going to cost somewhere around $150 million per copy. Even in ObamaBucks, that's some serious per copy scratch.
-----------
You got it GnuBreed, and at that cost the plane should be able to blast everything in sight without a scratch and get the pilot back home for lunch break before his afternoon bomb delivery mission. We shouldn't spend all that cash on an overloaded pig that loses turn-and-burn exercises to a 40 year-old machine. And like I said earlier, the high cost lowers production runs and those few machine get handed out to all 3 fixed-wing services, who in a real emergency will all be screaming for priority of replacements.

Posted by: exdem13 at June 30, 2015 01:14 PM (ry4ab)

384 My dear old Dad predicted "push button warfare."  He obviously heard it from someone else.

But imagine an F14 being overwhelmed by hundreds of armed drones.


Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at June 30, 2015 01:14 PM (baR5c)

385 The F-35 as it now exists is nothing like the F-35 at the start of the program. That is not the fault of manufacturers; lets see if we can figure out who kept changing the requirements and specifications which resulted in that trillion dollar boondoggle.

Was the F-35 a bad idea from day one? You bet. You aren't going to be able to build one plane for all requirements for all the same reasons that combining an aircraft carrier and a pogo stick is never going to work; the conflicting requirements mean internal contradictions will necessarily keep the final device from working.

By the way Ace, the Russians have the fastest fighter out there. And the Czar Bomba was the biggest H-bomb ever built. Biggest, or fastest doesn't mean best.
 

Posted by: [/i] [/u] [/s] [/b]An Observation at June 30, 2015 01:14 PM (l+DYq)

386 Been covering this for a while. Ace is actually pretty close re: percentage of the future fighter force. And basically, the F-35 is the 2nd coming of the A-7 Corsair II, plus stealth. But:

1. DAS Plane. The F-35's DAS system lets the pilot "see" in a 360 degree bubble around the plane. Modern AIM-9X Block II missiles can be launched at any target in that sphere within visual range, ditto AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided missiles. Angle of launch will of course affect max. range, but this is a unique system where the sensors are built into the plane all around. It isn't something other planes can easily add. That will be a big advantage some in dogfights - but the plane itself is still a grape (easily squished) if the tech can't save it. And carry just 2 internal aerial missiles is problematic.

2. Other American Options. We do have an F-15 upgrade ready to go: the "Silent Eagle" greatly improves frontal stealth, and can swap on special conformal fuel tanks that can carry 1 AMRAAM air-to-air missile and 1 JDAM smart bomb internally. That lets the plane keep whatever stealth its design has. Once you start hanging weapons on pylons... not so much. But if you want to hang stuff on the pylons, anything you can use on F-15Es will fit fine.

F-15SEs will cost about $110-120 million per plane. Maybe down to $90-100 million if produced in bulk. In other words, about same as an F-35. F-35 has much better stealth and much better sensors, can carry a much wider range of weapons internally because its bay is bigger, and has Navy/ USMC variants. F-15SE is much more competitive in an aerial fight, but still arguably behind the Eurofighter Typhoon, or well-flown thrust-vectoring planes like Russia's newest Sukhois.

There is also a proposed F/A-18 Super Hornet International that adds conformal tanks, a lower radar profile (still not F-35 territory) and a centerline pod for weapons that's shaped to create minimal drag/ RCS. That could handle the Navy role, but the Super Hornet is a mediocre dogfighter that depends on "nose authority" to point and on good low-speed maneuverability. Acceleration and agility are so-so to poor.

2. F-22 Raptors have an important problem. The hardware and software it was built to run on is Vax/ Ada, because UNIX wasn't rock stable at the beginning of the 1990s. Upgrades for America's small fleet are going to cost $5+ billion. the F-22 remains unbelievable in the air, and can help some on the ground, but its weapon bays aren't configured to carry a lot of attack weapons (and can't carry many kinds of attack weapons at all), and it doesn't have the same ground senors as the F-35 or even older F-16/F-15s. Not sure the $3+ billion to restart that production line is the best idea.

This would be about America's best semi-realistic "change course" option, while sticking to American equipment...

* F-35Bs bought for USMC, letting them keep the forward emergency basing that's a big part of the USMC's future strategy against "anti-access" missile threats. Britain also has to have them for its new carriers - which weren't built with catapults. Can't cancel now.

* USAF cuts F-35A order by 65% to about 612, switches other half of planned buys to about 875 F-15SEs (fewer orders raises F-35 cost per). Keeps upgrade program for present 170+ F-22As.

* USN switches entirely to F/A-18 Super Hornet Plus instead of F-35C, and buys jamming equipment with the money saved. They may buy the kind that can be used to add many more EA-18Gs among the new F/A-18s, or they may want to explore other options. But the USAF and Navy will both be needing more tactical jamming now.

Result:

- Allies Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, Australia, Italy are all pissed because they've signed contracts for F-35As that will become more expensive. Oh, well.

- Stealth strike downgraded to a niche role that will improve if services can field full UCAVs (vid. Northrop's X-47B, Boeing's X-45 Phantom Ray), or place greater emphasis on stealthy cruise missiles like JASSM as opposed to stealthy airplanes. Note that both of those options place less decision-making intelligence on target as a result.

- Jamming becomes a much bigger deal within the US military.

- Reliance on aerial networking and high-speed data exchange is also set back, but could be fixed via separate but doable upgrades to AESA radars and on-board black boxes.

- US Navy still has a looming problem, in that widely available export fighters from 2020 on are going to be significantly better in the air than the fighters on US carriers. Off course, they have this problem with or without the F-35C. But it's really important, and can't be forgotten about.

- Overall cut somewhat in USN strike power. Hornets have less range than F-35C, and more jamming aircraft = fewer strike aircraft. It may be time to start contemplating fewer carriers and more submarines...

Posted by: Joe Katzman at June 30, 2015 01:15 PM (X4NE3)

387 Two engine flame-out on an F-4. Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at June 30, 2015 06:11 PM (CFcIt) -------- Seat testing opportunity.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 01:15 PM (NUqwG)

388 "Where will you be when the first woman pitches in the major leagues?"

Dead, and the game they'll be playing will be called Blernsball.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at June 30, 2015 01:15 PM (iIzG7)

389 I don't know as the F35 is as awful as some people say. They seem to have a personal interest in it failing and being bad. And a lot of platforms that are now great were turds at first. But... they do seem to have gone too far with the eggs in one basket electronics can work miracles approach. And I think that a lot, a LOT of people got rich off this without much worry about whether what they were getting rich from worked or not. Its like a building constructed by the mob. So it falls down? I got my nut.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 30, 2015 01:16 PM (39g3+)

390 OT, Just checking in and reading some news in Cotton Plant, Arkansas. Flat as a pancake here.

Posted by: Jinx the Cat at June 30, 2015 01:16 PM (rXkis)

391
Thing is, after this much money, it is unlikely the project will be cancelled. In fact, production has already started
Posted by: The Oort Cloud



Currently in one of those stupid ramp production while you're still in development plans that the Pentagon keeps doing to lock a program in the budget.

And this is the most dangerous time for potential program cancellation. Instead of the powerpoint presentations, you have real world cost and performance numbers and the knives come out.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 30, 2015 01:16 PM (kdS6q)

392 There is something to ponder. What if we can't build more F15's? It won't be the first time that we have ditched a platform and at the same time scrapped the tooling as well, never to be replaced. And we have a history of this -- NASA has admitted they could not duplicate the Saturn first stage booster today.

Posted by: Drdog09 at June 30, 2015 01:17 PM (ZVUS/)

393 Flat as a pancake here.

Corrie County?

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 30, 2015 01:17 PM (ZKzrr)

394 170 Those of you who keep saying we will not have to dogfight must answer one question. What will pilots have to do with a plane that can not dog fight if the COC gives then ROE that says they must visually ID any aircraft before taking hostile action against it.

Don't say that will never happen. It already has.
-------------------------------
Many times. Hell, it happened in the freaking Top Gun MOVIE for Chrissake! That's why Iceman's wingman got shot down, the aggressors got that close. The Tomcats flown by Iceman and Maverick then went and got 3 in short-range dogfights.

Posted by: exdem13 at June 30, 2015 01:18 PM (ry4ab)

395 Posted by: Drdog09 at June 30, 2015 06:17 PM (ZVUS/) ----- Boeing is still building F-15's. It is the F-22 that is deader.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 01:19 PM (NUqwG)

396 That was before Microsoft Project, wasn't it? Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 30, 2015 05:57 PM (ZKzrr) And TS16949.

Posted by: bergerbilder at June 30, 2015 01:19 PM (+jijM)

397 By the way Ace, the Russians have the fastest fighter out there. And the Czar Bomba was the biggest H-bomb ever built. Biggest, or fastest doesn't mean best. *sniff* I tried..... But, I had you all fooled for while, didn't I? Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Posted by: MIG-25 at June 30, 2015 01:19 PM (CFcIt)

398 Corrie County? Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier Woodruff

Posted by: Jinx the Cat at June 30, 2015 01:20 PM (rXkis)

399 There is something to ponder. What if we can't build more F15's? It won't be the first time that we have ditched a platform and at the same time scrapped the tooling as well, never to be replaced. And we have a history of this -- NASA has admitted they could not duplicate the Saturn first stage booster today. PROGRESS! I have it on good authority that the clock never goes backward. Cause feels.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at June 30, 2015 01:20 PM (0NdlF)

400 It was doing it earlier for the Comcast ad but not any more. "Where will you be when the first woman pitches in the major leagues?" On my couch watching her burn out after one season. Women can pitch. They can pitch really, really well. I could see a woman pitcher in the major leagues. Temporarily. The problem is it takes a freakishly healthy male with all that upper body strength and endurance to survive a single season without destroying themselves. Maybe 1 in 1,000,000 guys can do it. Fewer even. 162 games, with rarely a day off, is a pretty rough schedule, even for pitchers who will at most pitch 3 out of 5 days as a reliever. I could see a girl closer, maybe. If she was a freak of nature combining both physical skills, endurance, and that killer instinct. But after a year, maybe 2, her arm would be wrecked. Its really okay for a sport to not have chicks. Honest. Its really okay for a sport to not have guys.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 30, 2015 01:20 PM (39g3+)

401 @353 With wing tanks on the F-16, the jet cannot pull as many G's as with a clean configuration. Fewer G's means a larger turn radius and a quicker bleed off of airspeed. Speed us life. Stealth helps but is not a cure all. Posted by: Bill R. at June 30, 2015 06:12 PM (93Ako) ------- 'Aerodynamics' maybe? Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 06:14 PM (NUqwG) ---- The original article does have 'aerodynamic'. Merely a transcription error above...

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 01:20 PM (NUqwG)

402 Book club suggestions welcome in the new thread.

Posted by: FireHorse at June 30, 2015 01:21 PM (yckiS)

403 @379 My guess is they also started out the fighting with the F-16 at a distinct disadvantage when the fights began. Scenarios may start with neither jet having an advantage or one or the other. I'm guessing these fights occurred over a period of several days so the F-16s famous lack of gas problem didn't come into play. Also, the wing tanks give the Viper an extra 740 gallons of fuel.

Posted by: Bill R. at June 30, 2015 01:21 PM (93Ako)

404 Jeebus.  On the local news, a couple across the river in SC have had 40 cats and kittens removed from their home.

Forty.  And they're all sick.  Reporterette said the couple, "Really loved them, but won't be getting any back."

Sorry for the O/T, but I think I can smell their house from here.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2015 01:22 PM (FsuaD)

405 Upon reviewing the (2003?) PBS series "Battle of the X-Planes" it looks like choosing Boeing would have resulted in a deployed F-32 ... 10+ years ago. The warning sign was there: Lockheed was about 100% over budget, before anything flew. ... and yes, an updated version of the F-15SE seems like the best plan, along with major electronics updates, and maybe a variable intake and upgrade to -XL configuration, for the F-16.

Posted by: Arbalest at June 30, 2015 01:23 PM (FlRtG)

406 326 Ghostery, Adblock Plus, ScriptBlock, NoScript... depending on the browser. For Chrome Adblock Plus and Ghostery == no ads.

Posted by: gzulux at June 30, 2015 01:23 PM (2pOTb)

407 There is something to ponder. What if we can't build more F15's? Nobody is getting rich off of 30 year old tech. That's the main reason they want the A-10 gone (well that and the Air Force hates helping the troops on the ground). Those old contracts and existing tech, nobody on an appropriations committee is going to get a fat no-work job with that kind of plane.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 30, 2015 01:23 PM (39g3+)

408 There was a valid reason why the F-16XL was never produced but I can't remember what it was.

Posted by: Bill R. at June 30, 2015 01:26 PM (93Ako)

409 Several of the competitor's planes looked a lot better than the F35 to me, but they didn't bribe, intimidate, and play the crony game as well so they lost out.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 30, 2015 01:26 PM (39g3+)

410 @214 "Wasn't the F-4 sort of a pig too?" Heh. When I worked at McDonnell Douglas, where they had been built, the engineers used to refer to it as "proof that if you gave it enough power, you could make a brick fly" I used to see Reserve F-4s take off once in a while. It was kind of dramatic. Large yellow flames shooting out the engines, making an incredibly loud grumbling noise. Kind of gratifyingly primitive. The F-15s and F-18s would have almost a sort of glow coming out the engines, and made more of a loud whirring sound - more Sci-Fi like and sophisticated.

Posted by: Optimizer at June 30, 2015 01:26 PM (/q6+P)

411
Posted by: Joe Katzman


I'd say, keep the F-35a and up the numbers. More or less a wash at this point with buying something else, when you factor in start-up costs.

Cancel the F-35b and F-35c.  The Marines don't have to be VSTOL, so just fly whatever the Navy gets off carriers and, if need be, what the Air Force gets from land bases.

Limeys get BTFO.  Wouldn't be the first time we hosed an ally by cancelling a program. Hellooooo Skybolt!

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 30, 2015 01:27 PM (kdS6q)

412 Time to call up Northrop and start hammering out the contract proposals for a crash program to produce a modernized YF-23.

It's not going to do all of the stuff the F-35 was claimed to be able to do. Nothing can. That was an impossible design spec.

But, it would fill in well for the fast long-legged deep strike and interceptor roles that the slow, pudgy F-35 demonstrably can't do.

Plus: the YF-23 is one of the most beautiful things ever to fly under its own power.

Posted by: torquewrench at June 30, 2015 01:27 PM (noWW6)

413 360 Comments and not one moron remembers that the $1 Trillion figure is an estimate of the cost over the full lifetime of the F-35.  It was made by a Navy group that wanted to scuttle the program so naturally was done on the high side.

That figure includes the purchase and support for 50 count em 50 years of service for at least 2000 planes if not 3000 and was adjusted to include inflation.

Posted by: Willie at June 30, 2015 01:28 PM (F26eZ)

414 Is anyone else experiencing this... I run my os and software to protect my location and identity as much as possible. But the bastids know damn well who I am, where I live, where I like to vacation, etc. There's not much you can do from your side. When I make a comment here about the best cup of coffee I've ever had -- without naming the hotel or location -- and the very next day I"m being served ads for the hotel in the country I was referring to, I don't have to be a raving conspiracy theorist to know what is going on. I wrote about a lot of code over a lot of years to enrich myself. No surprise that others do the same. I was good at it, others are going to be better than me.

Posted by: se pa moron [/I] at June 30, 2015 01:29 PM (xQX/f)

415 To be fair, $100B was to patch a ACA webpage into it and another $100B was getting its Windows 8 OS to work with a stick.

Posted by: Burnt Toast at June 30, 2015 01:30 PM (NaeCR)

416 @405 "... and yes, an updated version of the F-15SE seems like the best plan, along with major electronics updates, and maybe a variable intake and upgrade to -XL configuration, for the F-16." I suppose it's petty of me, but I love that kind of talk because I always thought that the F-15 just LOOKS much cooler than all the other fighters. I'm so shallow...

Posted by: Optimizer at June 30, 2015 01:30 PM (/q6+P)

417 I have always loved how the YF-23 looked. It looks futuristic and powerful, it looks stealthy and dangerous. Its like a starship. And from what I've read, was a better plane in the competition.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 30, 2015 01:30 PM (39g3+)

418 NOVA did a 2 hour special on the JSF bidding process 12 years ago:

Battle of the X Planes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf-AyGsShII

Posted by: zmdavid at June 30, 2015 01:30 PM (ipFOB)

419 although aware of the controversies surrounding the F35, I never heard of Sprey until today. After watching that interview, I read this equally entertaining and illuminating counter-argument: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665

Posted by: MikeD at June 30, 2015 01:31 PM (uKJIC)

420 "There was a valid reason why the F-16XL was never produced but I can't remember what it was."

Multiple reasons, some of which came down to industrial policy and industrial politics.

After it became clear that McDonnell Douglas was epically screwing the pooch on the A-12 program (which Dick Cheney eventually canned as SECDEF), procurement boffins in the Pentagon got worried that the A-12 disaster might cause MacDac to fold.

Certain members of Clowngress, with MDD plants to worry about in their home districts, came to share that concern.

Buying F-15E to do the F-16XL mission (at a much higher price point) was a way to keep McAir in business for a few more years.

Posted by: torquewrench at June 30, 2015 01:32 PM (noWW6)

421 Heck even the goofy looking F-32 Boeing put out with that silly grinning chin intake supposedly was a better performer than the F35, but it never had a chance. It just didn't look cool enough.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 30, 2015 01:32 PM (39g3+)

422 The problem they're having with the F-15 now is that they're getting old. The fuselage is cracking at a bulkhead just aft of the cockpit and several have come apart in flight. I think thy eyre keeping an eye on it but a good repair would cost billions as well.

Posted by: Bill R. at June 30, 2015 01:33 PM (93Ako)

423 The F-16XL lost out to the F-15 Strike Eagle in the design competition.

Posted by: The Oort Cloud - Source of all SMODs at June 30, 2015 01:34 PM (AYY6Y)

424 It just didn't look cool enough. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 30, 2015 06:32 PM (39g3+) ------- The drawings on the carrier deck didn't make it look so bad. But on land - like a duck out of water, so to speak.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 01:34 PM (NUqwG)

425 Posted by: Joe Katzman at June 30, 2015 06:15 PM (X4NE3)
 
A very thoughtful post, by someone who obviously knows a buttload more than I about the trade-offs involved.
 
Still, advances in missile tech, GPS jamming, lasers, and smarter UAVs leaves the whole manned program in question imho.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 30, 2015 01:35 PM (TAd/T)

426 As long as part of it is built in my state I don't care how much it costs.

Posted by: Senator 'bring home the pork' at June 30, 2015 01:36 PM (wkuqO)

427 Still, advances in missile tech, GPS jamming, lasers, and smarter UAVs leaves the whole manned program in question imho. Posted by: GnuBreed at June 30, 2015 06:35 PM (TAd/T) Actually, one of the things that holds UAVs back is GPS jamming, along with the vulnerabilities of the control signals.

Posted by: Country Singer at June 30, 2015 01:37 PM (nL0sw)

428 The F-35 has serious flaws (especially the fact that the A and C variants are constrained by having a fuselage common with the B variant, which is shaped to accommodate the lift fan), but a few points: -David Axe and the rest of the idiots at War is Boring don't know jack shit. My opinion of Business Insider is the same. These are leftist hacks who write clickbait for people who know nothing of military affairs or aeronautical engineering. -Pierre Sprey is a fraud. Saying he "co-designed" the F-16 is like saying the guy who made coffee for Paul Fucking Anka co-wrote "My Way". He was a bean-counter who crunched numbers for the designers. He has no insights beyond that on airframe design or air combat. -The F-35 wasn't designed to dogfight. It's meant for BVR air combat, SEAD, and tactical bombing. -What production aircraft will beat an F-16 in a dogfight? I suspect the list is short. It probably is a piece of shit and a waste of taxpayer money, but nothing you cited is very good evidence of that.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at June 30, 2015 01:38 PM (ClMFn)

429 We're a long, long way away from replacing pilots with UAVs, no matter how attractive it might seem. They're a good device for certain roles but there's no replacing a human being in a seat in the location.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 30, 2015 01:38 PM (39g3+)

430 As long as part of it is built in my state I don't care how much it costs. Posted by: Senator 'bring home the pork' at June 30, 2015 06:36 PM (wkuqO) And not built in Florida

Posted by: Unions at June 30, 2015 01:39 PM (+jijM)

431 Also, I love the Falcon and it plays a vital role, but the F-15 is still to this day the best, baddest most proven-by-the numbers capable combat aircraft in the game. Never a single Eagle lost in combat anywhere in the world and over 100 career USAF dogfight wins.

Posted by: MikeD at June 30, 2015 01:43 PM (uKJIC)

432 Advances in high-power radar arrays by the Israelis are basically nullifying any advantage stealth technology used to possess. Time to build a fighter not tied to stealth, one purely based on performance requirements. The idea for a next gen F-15 is pretty sound actually, and its relative inexpensiveness means organizations like the Corps won't need to shed actual combat assets like tanks and APCs to find more room in the budget for this boondoggle.

Posted by: KoshNaranek at June 30, 2015 01:44 PM (ABCH+)

433 LM cannot make a mass produce plane to save their lives. F-22 had a boat load of problems with it too, but just as we were getting them sort of figured out we killed it and refused to sell it to any of our allies (remember Japan wanted to pay top dollar for some). But we will happily sell all of our allies, not to mention use it ourselves....F-35..."Phantom Menace: Part II"!

Posted by: William Eaton at June 30, 2015 01:44 PM (q52Ma)

434 Is McNamara still alive?  Or his ghost maybe?  Reminds me of the "commonality" approach to weapons procurement of the '60s: the TFX (F-111A, F-111B, et al) and the F4/F-110 Phantom being joint-serviced (someone's joint got serviced during these procurements).  Everything old Sprey spoke about in the video is history repeating.  Very similar to the current LCS (Little Crappy Ship) and the old McNamara Boats (single-screw DE/FF's and Iwo Jima-Class LPH's)...I'll whine about them another time.

Posted by: Bullnuke at June 30, 2015 01:44 PM (8lP3Q)

435

YF-22 vs YF-22

http://preview.tinyurl.com/pehm5gr

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at June 30, 2015 01:45 PM (LWWrf)

436 Part of what is being written about the F-35 is coming from the Air Force - which no matter how good the plane is - is going to bad mouth it. Why? The Air Force never wanted that plane in the first place.

Among the missions the F-35 is designed to do is close ground support - it can fly as slowly as - IIRC - 35 knots; meaning it is a superior ground support fighter. The Air Force doesn't want to do close ground support. Dog fighting is not really the mission the plane is designed for. It is meant to A. Provide short take off and landing B. Achieve super cruise (The ability to go and sustain supersonic speeds without resorting to after burner.) C. Be far more difficult for enemy radar to detect. It is much better than an F-16 in all of those things.

The Marine F-35B is the only plane in the world which can take off vertically - like a Harrier - and then go supersonic. Its ability to hover means that its close support ability is just what the Marines want. The F-35C (The navy version ) is the Navy's first and only stealth plane. Neither Navy or Marine planes have ever been that great as dog fighters, the extra weight and strength necessary for carrier landings insures that.

Posted by: [/i] [/u] [/s] [/b]An Observation at June 30, 2015 01:47 PM (l+DYq)

437 This reminds me of that piece of shit MBT-70. Thank god that catastrophe got cancelled.

Posted by: Witchfinder at June 30, 2015 01:50 PM (E1Cat)

438

Interesting discussion all, thanks.  There was a time I'd be right on top of this.  Alas, not any more.

 

However, one bit of high-quality hearsay data for the stew.  I've related this a few times before, but here we area, an actual F-35 thread!

 

Current USMC F-18 pilot I talked with quite a bit at a rifle event a year ago - and who had, to me, an amazing grasp of budget and program info, for a driver - gave a general thumbs-down on the F-35 from his perspective.

 

* he said new ordnance/stores system for the F-18 is very good and has raised current love of that aircraft, already high in the USMC, even more

 

* he said there was a distinct and amazing lack of interest among pilots in the transition program to be among the first to fly the F-35 for the Corps

 

* he said he and his colleagues had noted their intermittent intel/threat briefings had yet to identify a real-world scenario for them in which the F-35 would be any advantage over the F-18

 

* he decried the lack of F-18 improvements and especially production, noting that they are now taking old airframes out of storage and "re-barreling" them to at least provide some more numbers/longevity - but that the current USMC F-18 force was all "trapped out" and could no longer do carrier deployments (think he said entire USMC, not just his squadron)

 

Separately, an Australian F-18 pilot explained that his country's force had been maintained very meticulously, not used nearly as much, and still had some time on it, and there was a lot of unhappiness over the F-35, due to its cost and the fact that most of its whiz-bang features weren't particularly relevant to the Australian mission.  A Canadian who follows things closely told me that the F-35 was a very bad fit for the Canadian mission of continental air defense - much of the stealth had to be sacrificed for the extra fuel tanks typically used.

 

Posted by: rhomboid at June 30, 2015 01:50 PM (QDnY+)

439 I'll go with Old Dirty on this one. A lot of "analysts" [not to mention our current President} don't know jack squat; Upgrading F-15s? Didn't these guys notice that some of the F-15s are now so old that they are breaking up in mid-air? The Missouri Air National Guard knows about that problem. An "updated" F-15 would probably have to be a new build off the line. F-16 superiority in a dog fight? The F-16 was originally designed to be an agile light weight dog fighter. It could probably whip the snot out of the F-4, the F-15, the F-22, the Navy Tomcat F-14 etc--in a dog fight. But the Tomcat, the F-15 and the F-35 are designed to kill from a distance.

Posted by: Comanche Voter at June 30, 2015 01:53 PM (Sda6L)

440 Co-designer of the F-16? Was this guy one of the people who didn't want the F-16 to have radar? Back when the F-16 was conceived, radar were big and heavy, and made fighters carrying it big and heavy. So to build a light fighter, the Fighter Mafia wanted no radar, not realizing how important and useful radar is. The solution was not a F-16 without radar, but a lighter radar for the F-16. A lot of slagging of the F-35 came from the same people who slagged the F-22 and the F-15 because they weren't light fighters designed for dogfighting. Sorry, dogfighting is a nice thing to have but being able to kill the other guy before he sees you is better.

Posted by: TKYC at June 30, 2015 01:56 PM (TgPx2)

441 I remember reading about the initial announcement of the F-35 program.  Someone asked the Talking Head "are you going to repeat the F-111 debacle by trying to build one airframe that everyone can use?"  The answer: "Oh, no!  The only thing common among the airframes will be components such as engines, avionics, laminate materials, etc.  The Sevices will have airframes tailored to their needs."

Yeah, right.  But admittedly, this thing's forte' isn't dogfighting, it's air-to-ground.  The F-22 will handle the air-to-air mission.

BTW: if you go to the bottom of that War is Boring article, you'll find another link to another F-35 story that tells how the Marines' demand for a VSTOL aircraft derailed the entire program and resulted in a compromised airframe and drove costs through the ceiling.  The program was moving along fine until they decided it was time to start development of the Marines' solution.


Posted by: A. B. Normal at June 30, 2015 01:58 PM (v5uOx)

442 Too bad they killed it. Fly a few prototypes and make up the numbers. Chinese already have the plans let them build it.

Posted by: Senator 'bring home the pork' at June 30, 2015 02:00 PM (wkuqO)

443 @386 That's a great report (an update for me)! Thanks! * Yes, I've heard a LOT about DAS. * "F-15SE is much more competitive [than F-35] in an aerial fight, but still arguably behind the Eurofighter Typhoon, or well-flown thrust-vectoring planes like Russia's newest Sukhois." I'm a little surprised about the Typhoon. Last I looked (a long time ago) I was checking out it's capabilities, expecting it to be the latest and greatest, and it kinda seemed like it sucked. I don't remember the particulars. I don't know much about thrust-vectoring aircraft, aside from the AV8. * "F-22 remains unbelievable in the air..." That's great to hear! That makes it the worthy successor to F-15. Aren't all those other shortfalls attack roles? These are intended for air superiority. If it takes $5B to upgrade the software, that's chump change. Can you even call it a "major problem"? And air superiority is the most important role, isn't it? With that, the other aircraft don't HAVE to worry about dogfighting so much...

Posted by: Optimizer at June 30, 2015 02:00 PM (/q6+P)

444 OT: Trish Regan on TWICE in one day (on FBN)? My heart be still ...

Posted by: Optimizer at June 30, 2015 02:01 PM (/q6+P)

445 Ahh, the F-35, the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle for the new century.

Posted by: West at June 30, 2015 02:03 PM (b0Fva)

446 #440 TKYC at June 30, 2015 06:56 PM

You're partly correct.  The F-16 was developed as a low-end, "daytime" fighter because Congress back then was appalled at the cost of the F-15 program.  Thus, the F-16 was the low-end complement to the F-15 high-end.

And yes, air-to-air is best handled at a distance.  You should only wind up dogfighting if the BVR engagement fails.

The f-35 isn't specifically designed to kill from a distance, although it can carry air-to-air missiles.  It's designed for the air-to-ground fight.

Posted by: A. B. Normal at June 30, 2015 02:04 PM (v5uOx)

447 They still have planes with pilots in them? How quaint. Trillions spent on the most sophisticated war machines in history... and we can't beat pirates in dirty nightshirts living in caves. It's hopeless. We have nukes. Let's use them and win wars. Either that or just stop having wars. We never bother to win them, so why do we have them?

Posted by: RKae at June 30, 2015 02:05 PM (Bv6fd)

448 The beauty of a twin-engined jet fighter, I am told, is when one engine fails, the second engine allows the aircraft to fly to the crash site.

Posted by: West at June 30, 2015 02:06 PM (b0Fva)

449 I hereby recommend boyd the fighter pilot who changed the art of war by Robert coram. Pierre sprey the man in the Video figures prominently. Sprey was a designer of the a 10. Very interesting book.

Posted by: simplemind at June 30, 2015 02:09 PM (R6S14)

450 Sprey was a designer of the a 10. ----- Spey was responsible for the original design specifications for the A-X program. These were later modified for the detailed RFP. They designs were then created by the industry.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 02:14 PM (NUqwG)

451 #447 RKae at June 30, 2015 07:05 PM: "<i>They still have planes with pilots in them?</i>"

Yes.  Everyone whines about the possibility of a "Pearl Harbor in cyberspace," and our long-range drones require satellite links to operate over the horizon.  Take out/jam the links or kill the satellites, and what's your Plan B for airpower?

For the foreseeable future, a man in the cockpit will remain a reasonable investment against technological surprise.

Posted by: A. B. Normal at June 30, 2015 02:14 PM (v5uOx)

452 The F-4 was designed to kill at a distance...until elderly MIG-17s made that distance pretty close.  Cunningham and Driscoll, while skilled and ballsy, were also pretty damn lucky.

Posted by: Bullnuke at June 30, 2015 02:15 PM (8lP3Q)

453 There is NO reason we couldn't have built a "stretch" version of the F-22, which meets its performance goals, to execute the ordnance package missions the -35 is being touted for,  for FAR less money than this disastrous lead sled.

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at June 30, 2015 02:17 PM (Kucy5)

454 Of course it's a lesser fighter. Few care to remember it was originally intended to be a fighter with an exportable level of stealth for our international partners to buy in large numbers and for US to buy in lesser numbers to supplement large numbers of F-22s and future follow-on F-Xs/unmanned fighters. Along the way the F-22 buys were cut and the F-35 numbers were increased because the magic helmet,fully integrated sensors and data links made visibility and maneuverability unnecessary - the experts said. So we ended up with an aircraft that's more F-105/F-111 than F-16. Not bad - just not what the US really needs in the near future. Maybe someday we'll see the unknown system(s) that will explain what appears to be today's bad decisions.

Posted by: crazy at June 30, 2015 02:20 PM (4VSNx)

455 Meh, there were many saying this several years ago. One in particular was Cmdr Lex and one of his friends who were fighter pilots, men that knew their way around a jet fighter rather that a bean counting imaginer with an unrealistic vision. What's with all the boxes and why does Pale Moon no longer display a comment box? #twoweeks

Posted by: Gmac - Gmac- Pulling in feelers in preparation... at June 30, 2015 02:27 PM (4CRfK)

456 Barry the Brave: No need for war planes. The whole world loves us because of me and only me. Except for you racists, sexists, and homophobes.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 30, 2015 02:30 PM (DiZBp)

457 Yes. Everyone whines about the possibility of a "Pearl Harbor in cyberspace," and our long-range drones require satellite links to operate over the horizon. Take out/jam the links or kill the satellites, and what's your Plan B for airpower?

For the foreseeable future, a man in the cockpit will remain a reasonable investment against technological surprise.


A KC-135 (or two) loitering 100km back with 15+ "pilots" in back controlling 6-10 drones each in mix of configurations.  Not every drone needs 100% attention from a meatbag.   Gonna need the refueling capacity regardless, maybe 15 more "pilots" in a radar/EW support aircraft as well.  CAP from a couple of F-22s -- just in case.  

No datalink to home for operations, only direct hops.  Save the SATCOM for powerpoint charts to the building.  Think I could put that ATD together for less than $1T?  

Posted by: Jean at June 30, 2015 02:38 PM (ztOda)

458 Here's an idea: Amend the constitution to have a CIC independent of the president, elected by the people, to serve a single term of 6-10 years. Congress still declares war, and no undeclared wars of any size.

Posted by: bergerbilder at June 30, 2015 02:38 PM (+jijM)

459 Here's an idea: Amend the constitution to have a CIC independent of the president, elected by the people, to serve a single term of 6-10 years. Congress still declares war, and no undeclared wars of any size.

Posted by: bergerbilder at June 30, 2015 02:38 PM (+jijM)

460 _India wanted a dogfighter.  India wanted to buy the F-22 from us.  Obama said no, I'll sell  you the F-35.  India said F-22 or no. Obama said no.
India's buying an F-22 knockoff from Pootie.

Talking about killing the F-22; talk about good relationship with friends, heeeer's Obama.



Posted by: Ralph at June 30, 2015 02:48 PM (/BXzQ)

461 Plus: the YF-23 is one of the most beautiful things ever to fly under its own power.

One wonders what could have been ...

Posted by: Jean at June 30, 2015 02:50 PM (ztOda)

462 Think I could put that ATD together for less than $1T? Posted by: Jean at June 30, 2015 07:38 PM (ztOda) ------- Possibly. But no ACM or manned-aircraft-type attack-capable drone has ever been built. I suspect the cost for a good ACM or attack drone will approach manned aircraft costs. Might be able to beat the F-35 program costs but that program, right or wrong, was not really structured for low cost. Also China is developing a stealth, manned aircraft that is believed by many to be designed specifically to target loitering control aircraft.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 02:51 PM (NUqwG)

463 New Hillary Graft post up

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 02:55 PM (NUqwG)

464 when the block 3F software is ready in 2019(promised date but who knows) the F35 will be finally be able to fire its cannon

Posted by: righter at June 30, 2015 02:59 PM (r6HrP)

465 A-10 Super Warthog.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 30, 2015 03:03 PM (n3Sbm)

466 when the block 3F software is ready in 2019(promised date but who knows) the F35 will be finally be able to fire its cannon Posted by: righter at June 30, 2015 07:59 PM (r6HrP) ------- Unfortunately, I must ask: Are you joking or are you serious? (I thought 3F was mostly electronic warfare-related.)

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 03:05 PM (NUqwG)

467 Did everyone forget about the f-22? It was superior to the f-15 & 16 & 18! it costs are eqivilanto the 35 now.

Posted by: F22 at June 30, 2015 03:20 PM (1L0g1)

468 and I can't believe no one quibbled about the low speed ability of the guy who said 35kts Did he mean 350???

Posted by: righter at June 30, 2015 03:21 PM (r6HrP)

469 and I can't believe no one quibbled about the low speed ability of the guy who said 35kts Did he mean 350??? Posted by: righter at June 30, 2015 08:21 PM (r6HrP) -------- The 35B in hover? Otherwise it must have some super super super duper wing flaps. The Ronco expanding folding models.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 03:30 PM (NUqwG)

470 All this talk of manned alternatives to the F-35 (Super Hornets, F15SEs, etc.) is kind of ridiculous. It reminds me of the arguments about which biplane was the best fighter before WW2. The reason the Navy has been experimenting with UCAVs is that they know the F-35 isn't going to cut it. The only reason that UAVs still need pilots flying them is that the fighter mafia that runs the USAF has starved them of funding to make the UAVs fly autonomously. They are deathly afraid that soon the USAF won't need them anymore and the thousands of pilots with stars on their shoulders parking their rumps in the Pentagon will have to find new jobs. Ask anybody who works with the UAV community...

Posted by: Pluskat's Dog at June 30, 2015 03:33 PM (Y6qC4)

471 Late to the party to weigh in on something I know about, but here's my take: The wing loading is extremely high (on the order of 135 lbs/sq ft), meaning it bleeds energy fast due to induced drag, making it a somewhat less than wonderful at maneuvering. Dogfighting is all about maintaining and increasing energy to maneuver, and this plane is indeed a dog. However, the designers have basically flipped the bird at critics, saying that the helmet mounted sight makes it possible to look and shoot behind you. You no longer have to line up the fuselage with the kill vector, a la Richtoffen and every fighter since (even missile-age aircrafy had a limited cone and the aircraft basically had to be pointing at the target. But what do you do inside missile range? No answer from Lockheed. A more serious issue is the short legs of the aircraft. Limited range means the carriers can never get close enough to China to launch the Navy version without getting shwacked with ASMs and ASBMs. The genius who thought that wasn't important probably got promoted.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at June 30, 2015 03:35 PM (laMCB)

472 Drones are not going to work for air combat unless the controllers are relatively close. The lag will get them shot out of the sky. With regards to autonomous aircraft you are looking at jamming, failure to recognize friends/neutrals/enemies, takeovers by the enemy, and general loss of control. Also, name a computer game where the computer can, without cheating, beat a decent human opponent? I can just see it now, the enemy applies the performance specs of the enemy drones to a game and then lets every pre-teen and teen boy loose on beating it. They'll find flaws inside of a week.

Posted by: Not Loved Time to be Feared at June 30, 2015 03:38 PM (nRvEn)

473 And stealth against a decent opponent is a fantasy and drones are going to make it impossible. Float enough sensor drones out there searching at multiple angles and feeding data back to command and no one is sneaking in. Wasting time on stealth would be better spent on performance. You can do basic stuff but in general it isn't going to work anymore.

Posted by: Not Loved Time to be Feared at June 30, 2015 03:40 PM (nRvEn)

474 feeding data back to command -------- Distributed jamming sources?

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 03:53 PM (NUqwG)

475 "The Air Force doesn't want to do close ground support." I am so cfuking tired of hearing this. It's just not true. There's a whole career path for airmen and officers built around CAS. It's one of many USAF missions. Strategic bombing. Strategic and tactical airlift. Recce. Space ops. Cyber ops. And it's close air support in the Air Force.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at June 30, 2015 03:59 PM (laMCB)

476 I have no expertise in this area, but not everyone agrees with Pierre Sprey's assessment -

http://tinyurl.com/m5gufh9

Posted by: dissent555 at June 30, 2015 04:10 PM (yR6A1)

477 I have no expertise in this area, but not everyone agrees with Pierre Sprey's assessment - http://tinyurl.com/m5gufh9 Posted by: dissent555 at June 30, 2015 09:10 PM (yR6A1) ----- Why are all these people referring to Spey as co-designer of the F-16? He was not.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 04:16 PM (NUqwG)

478 now you know why the First Traitor ordered the F-22, which had finally gotten most of the bugs w*rked out, killed to pay for this POS, and why they are trying to kill the A-10.

hell, that could be fun: lets put Hogs up against the JSF in ACM, and see who eats who.

Posted by: redc1c4 at June 30, 2015 04:17 PM (vIjYi)

479 UCAVs, drones, etc. ... All of these systems require a satellite (or other wireless) link. There is a recent news article about satellite jamming systems, and comments to the effect that drones are now severely endangered. This was the subject of a debate on Strategy Page back in 2004-2005. Search for counter posts to the commenter "Darth America" (SP's "Most Feared Commenter(c)(r)TM") The idea that drones can be programmed to fly a mission ... Yes and no. Flying a pattern and collecting data is approximately V-1 level technology (substitute the bomb for a camera, and program a return). Performing recon AND being able to defend ... and detect and identify the threat ... requires a lot of system sophistication, approximately that of a human pilot. Now add jamming, spoofing and attempts to burn through the shielding ... Autonomous combat drones are still more than a few years away ... The idea that BVR will replace dogfighting is much like the 1957 pontification; clearly wrong. Add in extra jamming and spoofing, perhaps 20x what is currently speculated to be the maximum. A pilot with guns will likely be the only reliable operational system.

Posted by: Arbalest at June 30, 2015 04:17 PM (FlRtG)

480 9 years ago, Sprey was calling the F-22 a 'turkey'. At least he is consistent and persistent.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 30, 2015 04:22 PM (NUqwG)

481 "However, the designers have basically flipped the bird at critics, saying that the helmet mounted sight makes it possible to look and shoot behind you. You no longer have to line up the fuselage with the kill vector, a la Richtoffen and every fighter since (even missile-age aircrafy had a limited cone and the aircraft basically had to be pointing at the target. But what do you do inside missile range? No answer from Lockheed."

Somebody should have told Lockheed not to rebuilt the Bolton Paul Defiant.

http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/0009.html

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at June 30, 2015 04:43 PM (Kucy5)

482 "Somebody should have told Lockheed not to rebuilt the Bolton Paul Defiant." Perhaps you mean the Fairey Battle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Battle The BPD turned out to be a useful night fighter.

Posted by: Arbalest at June 30, 2015 04:54 PM (FlRtG)

483 Yep. It's a sh*twagon. All very hush-hush and ultra-high-security-clearance to even be in the same hangar with the stupid things (we do some of the maintenance on them, I'm one of those "overpaid and underworked federal employees") and all because nobody wants word to get out that the whole program was a colossal waste of money, designed to keep the lobbyists in D.C. fat, dumb, and happy.

Posted by: antisocialist at June 30, 2015 05:05 PM (eGr8Z)

484 Tyler Rogoway writes about military stuff, and he has a few comments about that Pierre Sprey video.

http://bit.ly/1BW72fc

And here is his own writeup of this dogfighting story.

http://bit.ly/1GJREP3

He's not a fan of the plane.  But my understanding is he thinks that the STOVL variant is the one good thing to come out of the F-35 program, and as long as we have spent all this money on the program we ought to build a bunch of those for the Marines.

Posted by: mr_jack at June 30, 2015 05:35 PM (M59SC)

485 Here's Tyler Rogoway's article on the 7 things the Marines should do to make the F35-B worth its huge cost.  They make sense to me (but I'm not an expert).

http://bit.ly/1rDDUDD

Posted by: mr_jack at June 30, 2015 05:41 PM (M59SC)

486 What a bunch of whiny babies....geesh. First there is no fighter plane in the inventory today that can stay on a battlefield for longer than 20 minutes due to the lack of fuel. Not the 15, the 16 nor the 18. The F-18 EF range is 330 nautical miles.....you have to tank the damn bitch when it gets off the deck. They all have to have belly tanks to get where they are going and they sure as hell will not stay very long. Only the A-10, A6 or the F14 had the staying power. Second....stealth what bullshit. If you have enough power and a low noise floor you can see what ever is out there, get a target lock and shoot the bastards down way before they get close to you. In the early 90s the F14 was getting target locks on stealth planes....power - low noise...you see everything. There are problems with F35s, but it is a better ground support aircraft with good range (better than any fighter now flying). It's not supposed to dogfight. If Im in the shit...I want somebody on station above me that is going to be there for awhile....instead of dropping bombs and running back to get coffee.

Posted by: Budahmon at June 30, 2015 06:37 PM (vcSri)

487 The problem is this: the F-35 fails in the combat persistence test, because it has to carry its missiles internally. Also, its large cross-section thanks to the lift fan and the weapons bay means it's very draggy, especially in the transonic flight regimes. The sensor fusion you cite isn't without its issues and probably won't work anyhow. As for stealth, it isn't quite the gamechanger that people think it is. It's the nature of war that there will be a technology that will defeat and where will that leave the F-35? Dead. Also, we made the same assumptions about sensor fusion and BVR missiles before Vietnam and heavy, missile-only F-4 Phantoms had to dogfight because of the rules of engagement, something they were ill-suited to do. The AIM-120 is aging rapidly and pales in comparison to newer Russian missiles. The Slammer was great in its day, but Su-30s will have the benefits of more speed, thus they can press or deny an engagement; better missiles; and more maneuverability if they choose to merge to close range. The F-35 is a gigantic waste of taxpayer dollars and will get good men killed if we ever have to take it to war. We should buy instead improved versions of the legacy fighers we have now (F-18 Super Hornet, F-16 and F-15E), develop our stealthy UAV capability and start anew with a new aircraft that engage in a turning fight and is real improvement over our aging birds.We also work on some new BVR missiles that don't date from the hair band era.

Posted by: Disgruntled Southerner at June 30, 2015 06:40 PM (5bWE2)

488 "474 feeding data back to command
--------
Distributed jamming sources?"

Then you can plot the Jammers

Posted by: Lord of B-1s at June 30, 2015 06:58 PM (RSBhX)

489 Nearly 500 comments in. I was an integral part of The design team on F-35, and F-117, and F-22, and X-47 since then. It is amazing to me, the amount of expert opinion on the Internet these days. I had commented during X-35, that we would have to prove the technology of doing a program in the era of e-mail. Today, it's social media. Somebody up thread correctly stated the $1 Trillion number is for total program life cycle costs, for 50 years of operation, with big inflation adjustments downstream. No program has ever been quoted to a 50 year span, though many now have been in service for longer (B-52, KC-135, C-130, 1911 handgun to name a few). Also F-35 is providing 3 services of fleet size. The numbers are gonna be big. Actually, to date, about $40B has been spent. Not small change, either, but that's a 100+ aircraft down the production line plus all the R&D. I laugh when people bash the designers against the F-16. It was the same design team, people! Most of our design team just came off the UAE Block 60 F-16, plus had also been key people on the F-22. Many of us had been long time Skunks, too. We do know a few things about fighters, stealth, maneuvering flight, and weapon systems. For dogfighting, I ask everyone to go find the YouTube video of an AIM-9X launch, and ask yourself if that might change tactics a bit. When was the last air-to-air gun kill? I love the A-10, but it doesn't have the sensor suite to survive and fight at the survivable altitude of 15K ft. That's where Gen Swartzkopff kicked them up to after a couple days of Desert Storm, and several A-10s had been lost down low. 80% of A-10 CAS kills have been with Mavericks. Stand off and higher up to survive. As to UAV's and the wonder of 'no G limits, cause we got the pilot out of it!' - try telling that to Pratt & Whitney, what kind of G limit do you think that rotating dumbbell of a 15,000 Rpm turbo machine can handle? The clearances are very tight these days, as shown by the first F-35 fire. UAV's have their mission niche, but we're a long way from decent air combat situation awareness, when you're looking through soda straws. Stealth design brings a lot of things to the table, but in aircraft design, we have to accommodate it all in the bird, in one integral package, right out of the gate. Let's see an F-16 loaded up with same unrefueled radius of action fuel load, a decent optics sensor pod, plus air to ground weapons, and air defense missiles (yep, the M-61 cannon is there too) and an electronic warfare suite (more pods). We are providing all that and more. As to range, for the Navy, the F-35C has a longer radius of action unrefueled than any tactical jet in their fleet. And, no, there Never was a 2 engine Navy JSF design. Actually the Navy attempt at trying to do an NATF (navalized F-22) fell flat because a twin engine bird was too big and heavy, so it had to fly slower to stay under the arresting system energy limits, so, swing wings, like F-14, and there goes any commonality. While I'm at it, the F-23 had no weapons bay (rotary launchers aren't a good match for Air-to Air), the maneuverability was gonna suck with those V tails, and the flat platty exhausts were coming apart even after the short demo flight test period. There's a pretty insightful 2 part article on The Infamous F-35 Sustained G Spec Change at www.elementsofpower.blogspot.com. It is pretty darn well done.

Posted by: Jimmy Doolittle at June 30, 2015 07:19 PM (RIOMp)

490 Before we go all in on BVR combat, the Russians are developing jamming technology so advanced that the USAF is moving towards IR sensors and away from radar sensors. If you want to know more, look up Digital Frequency Radio Memory jamming. That makes the AIM-120 far more questionable and long-range radar shots much more difficult. On the other hand, the Russians (and Europeans) have continually plinked away at proper long-range IRST, unlike the DAS system which is more of a self-defense system. There technology may be equivalent / superior to the US, allowing them to attack F-35 without relying upon radar. Jimmy Doolittle - ironically, the F-22 is going to spend most of its time flying like the F-23, high speed, high altitude, stealth shots. As for the F-35 and CAS, the problems are cost per flight hour and turnover rate. F-35 with it's highly advanced systems cannot sustain a high sortie rate, compared to a simpler aircraft. Furthermore, as the F-35 is a technological wonder, why would the USAF waste it on the least effective mission set? F-35 will spend its time hunting TELs, command posts, etc. Not killing two tanks before returning to re-arm.

Posted by: Arkady at June 30, 2015 07:33 PM (ET/v4)

491 Good points Arkady. F-22 vs F-23. F-22 did a much better job of meeting all the requirements. Therefore, we won. F-22 also has a much bigger radar than F-23 would have been able. True on the likely life up high and fast. The air show maneuvers are just that. Shows. When we (F-35 design team) asked the warfighters if they wanted thrust vectoring on the F-35 (A,B, OR C), they said what does it weigh and what does it cost? - no, thanks, give us that in sensors and weapons. I tried to get DAS booted many times, but it is integral to the Millville warning function, so like you said, defensive. EOTS on the other hand is something F-22 would like to have. As for complexity, it goes down to requirements generated by the government. They only get to do one of these projects every 20 years, so it is hard to get anything kicked off. Look at any procurement, they are all like that.

Posted by: Jimmy Doolittle at June 30, 2015 07:57 PM (RIOMp)

492 This is a crock. There are no dogfights in the classic sense of WWII anymore. The speed of aircraft make dogfights most unusual, and radar makes most fights a case of dry glunching people with inferior aviationics. Then we get the BS of a trillion dollar spent. Really based on what? Do you realize how many 80,000 ton aircraft carriers you can build for a trillion dollars. I am not sure if you are a Havard English major or a CCNY accounting major but I'd sure like to know where you got a trillion dollar figure. Maybe if you added the defense budget together for the past 15 years?

Posted by: Veritas at June 30, 2015 08:22 PM (AV5BN)

493 Damn autocorrect. What the hell is Millville? I typed missile.

Posted by: Jimmy Doolittle at June 30, 2015 09:17 PM (RIOMp)

494 Fire up the f-22 production line again.. everything that's needed for it, including all the tooling and everything is sitting in container storage. Never should have been scaled back or canceled in the first place. Let the navy and the brits have their f-35 vtol version etc and call it a day.

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at July 01, 2015 03:00 AM (MbrzC)

495 43 Yeah, what exactly was wrong with the F-22. Wasn't it the price? --- Yes it kept going up mainly because they kept cutting the number of planes they were going to build, starting out at like 700 down to ~150. Surprise! Congress thinking the f-35 would be cheaper shifted the numbers there.... guess what turns out it's not going to be much cheaper per plane, especially cause as costs have gone up for f-35...once again number of planes to build has gone down. Stupid repeated cycle.

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at July 01, 2015 03:03 AM (MbrzC)

496 If I never see that stupid War is Boring article on the F-35 again, it will be too soon. It's a disingenuous, "not even wrong" piece of idiocy, like pretty much everything else on that site. It especially hurts to find myself having to defend the F-35, an aircraft I share many of your reservations about. Here's a decent overview of the issues: http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/ What even they don't mention is the fact that the F-35 is *not* supposed to be an air superiority fighter. It's a strike aircraft, first and foremost, designed with enough air-to-air capability to get out safely when everything goes to hell in a hurry. As I've seen it put elsewhere, it's designed to do the job that the F-16 and F-18 actually ended up doing, as opposed to what they were designed to do. What air-to-air capability it does have is focused on the ability to bag enemy aircraft before they get into knife-fighting range. It plays to our technological strengths vs. those of out potential opponents. There are a thousand and one problems with the JSF and how it's been acquired, but that doesn't mean that every bit of click-bait half-arsed "journalism" that criticizes it is justified.

Posted by: Scipio Americanus at July 01, 2015 05:29 AM (T9pqj)

497 @486 "... Second....stealth what bullshit. If you have enough power and a low noise floor you can see what ever is out there, get a target lock and shoot the bastards down way before they get close to you. In the early 90s the F14 was getting target locks on stealth planes....power - low noise...you see everything" Um... The F-14 was to only US fighter with an infrared (IR) sensor called IRST for finding targets, so all this talk about power is irrelevant, unless you can say it was tracked via radar. In the infrared, radar stealth is rendered meaningless. Also, you make it sound like you can easily add as much power, and as low a noise power as you want, which is silly. It's also worth pointing out that your radar acts as a beacon that tells your enemy where you are, and the more powerful yours is, the more useful it is for that purpose. IR is passive, and therefore stealthy.

Posted by: Optimizer at July 01, 2015 08:37 AM (/q6+P)

498

IIRC....the FB-111 ws suppose to be  major worthless flop when it first came out...now it wins every bombing compitition it enters....

 

the M-1 tank was suppose to be a death trap and too advanced for our tankers to be able to effectively hit targets with...now it is the world standard MBT...

 

the ov-22 ospery had major problems..and critics..now the marines won't part with it....

same with the A-10 warthog...

the Bradley Fighting Vehical was suppose to be the greatest advance in infantry trasnportation since the horse...the infantry hate it, and it's an electrical nightmare(full disclosure, i worked on them during my tour in the army)

 

there are many other examples of the arm chair experts being wrong, but you will find very few willing to admit their error.

 

 

 

 

Posted by: xtron at July 01, 2015 11:47 AM (velJa)

499 I am a former navigator/weapons systems officer in F-4E Phantom fighters in the USAF. Here is my take. It is surprising. The F-35 should effortlessly outmaneuver the F-16. When we flew F-4s against F-16s, a 1950s jet against a 1970s jet, we were pretty much dead if the F-16 pilot saw us. He didn't have to be a good pilot because his jet was so much more maneuverable than ours. Our strategy was centered on not allowing him to see us, which was mostly about staying close to the turf. Since F-16 radar is automatically run in a raster scan, the pilot did not know how to pluck out bandits in mountains. He could only see jets on radar in the clear air mass. Likewise, against F-15s, it was hopeless. Once we set up on an F-15 off the coast of Carolina in a canned set up, with us 3000 feet in trail, looking up his burners. You can't get a sweeter heater missile shot than that. When the call came, fight's on, that F-15 cranked his nose up and dialed it left, then motored out of our missile envelope before we could lock on. Then he turned within our circle to the left while we just sat there waiting to be shot. My pilot said, you got any ideas. Nope. If an F-15 sees an F-4, it's dead. It should be the same thing, an F-15 or -16 against an F-35. You can tell just by looking at it that an F-35 has a better dogfighting shape. Generally, interceptors look more like darts and dogfighters look more like frisbees. An F-16 still has a lot of interceptor planform, the F-15 less so. The test pilot kept talking about energy state, which was a concept developed by John Boyd, which is a part of his Energy-Maneuverability strategy, which held that the fighter which could maintain its energy state during a fight is the most likely to win. Energy state is a combination of kinetic energy, commonly called smash in the fighter biz, and potential energy. A bowling ball rolling down the street has high kinetic energy but low potential energy, or stored energy. A bowling ball perched on top of a cliff has low kinetic energy, because it is not moving, but high potential or stored energy because it can translate its altitude into kinetic energy. Likewise, a fighter flying fast close to the turf has high kinetic energy but low potential energy. A fighter flying slow and high has low kinetic energy but high potential energy. They may both have equal energy states when you combine their kinetic and potential energy into what's called P sub S. Dogfighting involves driving down the bandit's energy state, which is done by forcing it to maneuver. You bleed energy in a turn, lowering your energy state. One strategy is to fire a missile for effect at a bandit, forcing him to turn to dodge it, driving down his energy state and his maneuverability until he is an easy target. That's what this test pilot is talking about when he says the F-35 does not maintain its energy state in reaction to moves by the F-16. The F-35 has a better aerodynamic design than the F-16, so it should hold its energy better in a turn, but doesn't. The F-35 should be able to turn inside the F-16 while maintaining its energy state. So, my uninformed opinion is that the problem is the engine, which is not powerful enough for the jet. This happened with the P-51 in WWII, which was first fitted with a weak engine and did not impress anyone. Later, when they slapped a more powerful Rolls-Royce engine in it, it became a world beater. Whatever the problem is, I guarantee the Air Force will fix it. Pierre Sprey is not likely to be much help. He has made a career out of criticism of everything the military does. Sometimes he is right, sometimes he is wrong. Something to remember is that there has never been a successful fighter that has not suffered wild criticism in its development. There is no fighter ever built that enjoyed praise from its development through its deployment.

Posted by: Tantor at July 01, 2015 06:02 PM (o6/Lu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment




What colour is a green orange?




338kb generated in CPU 0.83, elapsed 2.4006 seconds.
64 queries taking 1.9062 seconds, 737 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.