F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Abraham Gubler]

As to your post, why not actually state what you stated...

Because unlike you I'm a normal person and I don't think responding to your ranting is so important to actually click onto my PM database to find out exactly what my response was I simply referred to my memory…

But to make you happy and so everyone else can have a good laugh at your expense here is my word perfect reply to your ranting PM:

Let me respond with a few words: you're freaking crazy, get lost.

I don't suffer from teenage rants.

I don’t think you’ve made a very convincing argument to this effect…

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Because unlike you I'm a normal person and I don't think responding to your ranting is so important to actually click onto my PM database to find out exactly what my response was I simply referred to my memory…

But to make you happy and so everyone else can have a good laugh at your expense here is my word perfect reply to your ranting PM:

I don’t think you’ve made a very convincing argument to this effect…

Let me respond with a few words: you're freaking crazy, get lost.

I'll leave it to the rest to determine which is the teenage rant or in your words "mouth frothing personal attack"

I rest my case. Have a nice day!

 

[Aussie Digger]

There is no F-1117 but the F-117A did have JDAMS. It didn't fire JDAMs in desert storm because there weren't any JDAMs in 1991. JDAMs were developed as a result of desert storm and was integrated only in 1997. The JDAM was integrated on board the F-117A in 2004 and used in Iraqi freedom.

Very mature...

And YOU are wrong and trying to change your "argument" to suit. We were talking about the F-117 shoot down which occurred in Bosnia (NOT - ODS) in 1999. JDAM wasn't integrated onto F-117 until 2005...

A JDAM fired from mid-altitude isn't going to put an aircraft in low altitide SAM harm's way regardless of stealth or not.

A LGB fired at low altitude got a stealth F-117A shot down.

Did it? Do you even know what egress means? Because that is what the F-117 shot down over Bosnia was doing at the time it was hit, but nevermind about facts, Weasel, there are only about 1 million websites that discuss the shootdown...

The operational success of the F-117A in terms of operational A2G experience is not just credited to LO but tactical use.

What you fail to understand is that in desert storm, the F-117A only contributed to a very small % of actual A2G missions. In desert storm, the F111F, and B-52s didn't have a single aircraft shot down and averaged not only more sorties but tonnage dropped. Did they have stealth?


In fact, if one considered sortie rate of the F-16 to loss rates, it would be very close the the F-117A in both campaigns.

If I take your standard as a comparison, the F-15E is better than stealth because it did not lose a single one during kosovo ops as well. That would indeed be meaningless to accept.

Stealth provides a greater margin of safety but it does not make a fighter invulnerable esp with bad tactics, weapons etc. If you use a F-35 with unguided bombs at low level, stealth won't give it that much safety. If you use a F-15E with a JASSM-ER, it will have a safer flight profile than a F-117A penetrating hostile airspace.

If you think that is meaningless, then too bad.

Whatever. Continue with your fantasies, deliberate mis-interpretation of a discussion, Ad Hominem attacks and off-topic rubbish. I've more than had enough of you. Keep it up though and you won't be posting on Defencetalk for much longer.

Consider yourself warned.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

And YOU are wrong and trying to change your "argument" to suit. We were talking about the F-117 shoot down which occurred in Bosnia (NOT - ODS) in 1999. JDAM wasn't integrated onto F-117 until 2005...

Its a very simple proof.

You can call it wrong or whatever. Kindly advise where Bosnia was first mentioned?

Did it? Do you even know what egress means? Because that is what the F-117 shot down over Bosnia was doing at the time it was hit, but nevermind about facts, Weasel, there are only about 1 million websites that discuss the shootdown...

Never disagreed with the shoot down.

Whatever. Continue with your fantasies, deliberate mis-interpretation of a discussion, Ad Hominem attacks and off-topic rubbish. I've more than had enough of you. Keep it up though and you won't be posting on Defencetalk for much longer.

Consider yourself warned.

Warning about what? Are you claiming you never said this?

Am I misreading or am I wrong to correct the following?

was talking about air to ground weapons, given it never USED any other type operationally...

F-1117 never had JDAM nor any other guided weapon beyond laser guided weapons...

Sorry, but if you insist on claiming you never stated this. Just don't expect me to agree.

Even if you were talking about Bosnia, the above is still inaccurate in my books.

Thanks & Best Regards.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Kindly advise where Bosnia was first mentioned?

Remember that whole "stealth shootdown" thing dingyibvs and I were actually discussing, before you joined in and mis-directed the entire discussion?

Where was the ONLY "stealth" aircraft shot down again?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Remember that whole "stealth shootdown" thing dingyibvs and I were actually discussing, before you joined in and mis-directed the entire discussion?

Where was the ONLY "stealth" aircraft shot down again?

Dingyibvs' sole post in #800 did not mention Bosnia.

Your post in #801 talked about the 1 shoot down which did happen and I agree.

However, my post in #802 were directed at your 10,000 "successful engagement" figure not your 1 figure which I have addressed both from an A2A angle and an A2G angle in #802 because as explained I wasn't sure which you were talking about. I still don't see how Bosnia comes into the picture.

AG jumped in on the A2A in #803 which I addressed and you brought it back to A2G in #810.

AG then launched his accusation of personal attack in #814 which I disagreed and things went downhill from there as usual.

If you think my posts to you as personal attacks on you, I would apologise but I re-read my posts and do not see any personal attack on you nor was it intended as such. As to his rationale for assuming it was a personal attack, I don't hold my breath for an explanation.

My explanation for why the 10,000 is not a reflective of stealth safety is explained in my previous posts and supported in the same manner by the GAO report. I do not expect you to agree but I don't think I have violated any forum rules in stating my views.

P.S. The F117 missed 40% of its targets in ODS but that's the weapons + tactics issue not the stealth issue which is again my point in equating stealth to A2G effectiveness.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

AG then launched his accusation of personal attack in #814 which I disagreed and things went downhill from there as usual.

If you think my posts to you as personal attacks on you, I would apologise but I re-read my posts and do not see any personal attack on you nor was it intended as such. As to his rationale for assuming it was a personal attack, I don't hold my breath for an explanation

It’s pretty, bloody obvious…

There is no F-1117 but the F-117A did have JDAMS.

SNIP

What you fail to understand is that in desert storm

SNIP

If I take your standard as a comparison, the F-15E is better than stealth because it did not lose a single one during kosovo ops as well. That would indeed be meaningless to accept.

SNIP

If you think that is meaningless, then too bad.

Four comments there that are quite personal. I responded again pointing out some more mistakes in your argument and saying in response to your “What you fail to understand” comment:

How do you know what he understands or not? Were you talking about this very issue? Nope. You’ve just made this discussion a personal attack.

You went rapidly downhill from there, no one else. You are the one who constantly injects venom and vitriol against anyone who questions your opinion. The rest of us respond with facts and further explanation of our interpretations. That you further edit such events in your mind to transfer all blame onto others, like your infamous claim that I was sending you multiple abusive PMs, is a further worry.

I’ve noticed a strong association between the strength in counter arguments against your statements and your vitriol in response. If you would try not to take valid criticism of such statements so personally then you wouldn’t be such a cause and lightning rod of discussion destruction.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

That's why I said, only you can read it as a personal attack.

What you fail to understand is that in desert storm

Since when is failing to understand something a personal attack. Are you claiming you know everything that a failure to understand affects your ego that much?

AD did not take into account desert storm and the GAO report when posting the 10,000 figure. That's factual.

Seriously, if I said I fail to understand what the **** are you talking about? Am I insulting myself? Only you would think so...

If I take your standard as a comparison, the F-15E is better than stealth because it did not lose a single one during kosovo ops as well. That would indeed be meaningless to accept.

That is a correct statement. It would be meaningless to accept that F-15E is better than stealth. How is that an insult or a personal attack?

If you think that is meaningless, then too bad.

Wow, just because I can't change views and accept it = personal attack. That's new english to me. You'd probably read that as a personal attack too!

I'm starting to realise your definition of personal attack = anything that disagrees with you.

As to your other assertions about me, *wind blows*

lol.

 

[Aussie Digger]

That's enough guys. It's time to move on and talk about F-35 or let the thread lie dormant. Any further posts on this rubbish will be deleted and further action may be taken against individual posters.

There are TOO many personal attacks on the threads these days. The Mod team is in overall agreement on this.

Move on to new topics and discuss in a mature, adult fashion as per the rules. There won't be any further warnings.

AD.

 

[Aussie Digger]

To get the thread going again, here's some news about AF-3... Of note, we can now see what an F-35 that is "fully LO compliant" looks like...

F-35A AF-3 Takes Off


F-35A AF-3 takes off on its seventh flight on 2 December 2010 with Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti at the controls. The aircraft is the first fully low-observable compliant F-35.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/news/2010_AF3_wheels_up_1269967624_6511.jpg

And AF-3 landing at Edwards...

 

[localhost127]

To get the thread going again, here's some news about AF-3... Of note, we can now see what an F-35 that is "fully LO compliant" looks like...

F-35A AF-3 Takes Off


F-35A AF-3 takes off on its seventh flight on 2 December 2010 with Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti at the controls. The aircraft is the first fully low-observable compliant F-35.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/news/2010_AF3_wheels_up_1269967624_6511.jpg

And AF-3 landing at Edwards...

on the f35 ground/taxi photo -- is that one of those 'blocks' just in front of the vert-tails that were installed on the f18 to break up the vortices from the LERX - causing turbulence/structural damage to the vert tails??

a la - http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0176.shtml

it's hard to gauge the horizontal placement of that on the f35 photo...i suppose if it was an issue it would be placed further to the front of the aircraft (near the leading edge extensions, vs being placed so close to the tail itself)

 

[SpudmanWP]

Please post a photo with an arrow pointing to what you are speaking of.

 

[localhost127]

Please post a photo with an arrow pointing to what you are speaking of.

see attached:

 

[Aussie Digger]

on the f35 ground/taxi photo -- is that one of those 'blocks' just in front of the vert-tails that were installed on the f18 to break up the vortices from the LERX - causing turbulence/structural damage to the vert tails??

a la - Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - F-18 Leading Edge Extension Fences

it's hard to gauge the horizontal placement of that on the f35 photo...i suppose if it was an issue it would be placed further to the front of the aircraft (near the leading edge extensions, vs being placed so close to the tail itself)

Disregard my earlier. That covering, whatever it is, is part of the mission system. AF-3 and BF-4 are the only platforms to have them yet. They of course are the only "mission systems" equipped platforms in the program at this stage. They are on the upper and lower sides of the aircraft as seen here:

BF-4

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/2010_F10_37924PR_1267828237_5375.jpg

and

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/2010_BF4_F10_41442PR_SM_1267828237_2351.jpg

AF-3

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/RF10_77669_SM_1267828237_1506.jpg

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/20100712_AF3_Flt02_CR_1267828237_4862.jpg

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/2010_AF03_FF_02SM_1267828237_9106.jpg

 

[localhost127]

Disregard my earlier. That covering, whatever it is, is part of the mission system. AF-3 and BF-4 are the only platforms to have them yet. They of course are the only "mission systems" equipped platforms in the program at this stage. They are on the upper and lower sides of the aircraft as seen here:

BF-4

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/2010_F10_37924PR_1267828237_5375.jpg

and

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/2010_BF4_F10_41442PR_SM_1267828237_2351.jpg

AF-3

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/RF10_77669_SM_1267828237_1506.jpg

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/20100712_AF3_Flt02_CR_1267828237_4862.jpg

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/2010_AF03_FF_02SM_1267828237_9106.jpg

thanks -

it's wonderful to see almost 'live' development of the platforms to the public. has such ever happened in history before?

 

[Aussie Digger]

thanks -

it's wonderful to see almost 'live' development of the platforms to the public. has such ever happened in history before?

Certainly not with the ease of access that the F-35 has. That is part of the almost unique level of criticism of the platform, I think.

The program is required to release such a mass of data in this day and age (particularly given the oversight of the program means that L-M needs to publicly show it's successes) that inevitably will contain some very minor errors.

These are then seized upon by detractors as evidence of some sort of conspiracy etc, but in reality don't even show the true capabilities of the aircraft.

It is a very peculiar scenario and as I commented once on another forum, I'd HATE to be the next Western fighter manufacturer for this issue, because the oversight is going to be even MORE intense...

 

[Bonza]

Certainly not with the ease of access that the F-35 has. That is part of the almost unique level of criticism of the platform, I think.

The program is required to release such a mass of data in this day and age (particularly given the oversight of the program means that L-M needs to publicly show it's successes) that inevitably will contain some very minor errors.

These are then seized upon by detractors as evidence of some sort of conspiracy etc, but in reality don't even show the true capabilities of the aircraft.

It is a very peculiar scenario and as I commented once on another forum, I'd HATE to be the next Western fighter manufacturer for this issue, because the oversight is going to be even MORE intense...

It's interesting witnessing this situation after reading the book "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich, where he talks about the level of oversight and process involved in getting something like the SR-71 approved for development/production, or even earlier than that, when Kelly Johnson would go and have lunch with a USAF general, make an unsolicited proposal, they'd visit a couple of higher ups in the afternoon and by the end of the day they had a contract.... there's actually a chapter where Rich goes into the importance of Skunk Works' way of doing business and how too much oversight and bureaucracy can stifle a project and inflate the cost enormously.

Not saying there shouldn't be ANY oversight but it's interesting to compare how business was done back then to the way it is now, and the book's a good read for anyone interested...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Not saying there shouldn't be ANY oversight but it's interesting to compare how business was done back then to the way it is now, and the book's a good read for anyone interested...

There is a time and place for public oversight - and I have no problem with it as a check and balance issue

thank goodness though that not all progs get to be visible - its entirely inapprop IMO for all programs to be aired. eg there are a few in australia which should and must continue to "stay outside" public awareness. (as do most countries)

 

[B3LA]

Reading the latest project update:

Lockheed F-35 Program Faces $1 Billion Cut in U.S. Senate Spending Measure - Bloomberg

Two things strikes me.

WHY is the price without propulsion ?
Is it because that some customers will supply their own engine ? - No.
Is it because there are options to choose from ? - Not at this time and probably never.

It's like buying a house without a roof...
Is there a reason for this annoying LM behavior, other than reaching a total price that is too high ?

How come the troubled STOVL version is lower or equal in price to its other siblings ?
Will the price difference show up with the propulsion ?

Cheers,

 

[Grand Danois]

Boeing also quote their $46m URF Super Hornet without engines. Depends on what the costings are made for - some include engines, e.g. the USAF/NAVY budget estimates, iirc.

My guess is that the STOVL URF is cheaper due to numbers built will be larger - the real difference is the engine and lift fan for the STOVL, which costs way more than for the A and C.

Haven't looked it up, but numbers built of each variant plus engine costs could explain this.

I bet ya SpudmanWP has the numbers just at hand. :devil