The F-35. A controversial project with many detractors.
But when you have one story but two different takes on the same facts it should give pause. We have in one corner Bjørnar Bolsøy of F-16.net and in the other we have Graham Warrick of Aviation Week....
First Bjørnar's take...
As the third F-35A test jet joins the test fleet at Edwards AFB, the F-35 program has logged its 400th test flight this year - still with two weeks to go before year's end. The program had planned for 394 flights, a goal acheived on December 9.
Some 300 flights have been flown since June. This is despite a fleet wide grounding in October due to a software issue with the jets fuel boost pumps as well as challenges with the F-35B STOVL jet, which has slowed the type's flight test progress. Overall the program has logged 531 flights to date.
And now Graham's...
Lockheed Martin, meanwhile, says it passed its 394-flight test target for 2010 on Dec. 6, taking the program total to 531 flights since the F-35 first flew on Dec. 15, 2006. Two F-35As, four F-35Bs and one F-35C logged 60 flights in November against a plan of 51.If these two differing views of the same information doesn't give you pause then nothing in the world of procurement ever will.
That sounds like progress, and it is, but it's worth remembering that, in September last year, the JSF program office leadership was pojecting that 12 aircraft would be flying by now, each logging 12 test sorties a month. That goal is unlikely to be achieved until well in 2011.
It appears that we've reached a point in the development of this airplane where either you're a supporter or a detractor....that my friends is a shame.
Yeah but Ares and DTI have got to "sell copy" Sol.
ReplyDeleteNot many press organisations see many sales in "good news"...
Fact is that the only real whingers are the ones who don't matter. The F-35 customers are ecstatic about it's capability, are reasonably happy with it's schedule and price (especially in relation to possible competitors in the marketplace) and despite what the naysayers might throw up, no ordered F-35 aircraft has been cancelled. Production orders now sit at a confirmed 81 aircraft.
It is meeting it's test points now without any great issues, small issues with door hinges etc are normal in a flight test program. There hasn't been a single "show stopper".
The naysayers are starting to get increasingly desperate and irrational with their complaints, witness Eric Palmer's quite recent rubbish about it being obsolete before it even enters service and the closer we get to seeing operational F-35 aircraft, the more I expect them to go "over the top".
Of course USAF/RAAF etc know better and are seemingly quite happy for these people to publicly make fools of themselves.
So am I, when it comes down to it...
:)
i'm glad to hear that.
ReplyDeletei got caught up in a little inter service squabble over this subject.
embarrassing.
the over the top behavior on a respected publication is distressful...even if they're selling copy. it irks me to no end.
All writing will contain some element of bias. I'm relatively neutral on the issue, I think it looks like an exciting piece of kit, although I think there certainly are issues with it.
ReplyDeleteThe F-35 looks like it is going to be a very capable aircraft, although I don't think anyone would argue against the fact that it has been beset by delay and spiralling costs.
There are two issues that make me pause for thought however; and these are ones which are rarely adressed by either detractors or supporters of the F-35.
Firstly, whether the concept of unifying different air roles into one airframe is in itself a sound one. The phrase 'jack of all trades, master of none' is often used; although I'd say it's unfair. The F-35 will likely be master of some roles and in others it will perform acceptably. The particular area of concern for me is close air support, where the dedicated A-10 has proven invaluable in all recent conflicts from the 1st Gulf to Afghanistan yet will be retired for sake of the F-35. Whilst the A-10 may be an old airframe, its replacement with the F-35 cannot be seen in any other respect than a reduction of US close air support capabilities.
Secondly, whether certain international partners actually need (let alone can afford) an aircraft with offensive hostile airspace penetration capabilities. Typically neutral Norway is a particularly good example of this.
delarrn. I think the A-10 it will have a place for many years to come. Still every conflict is different. There will probably be some situations where the F-35's long range sensors, survivability and quick reaction are better suited.
ReplyDeleteAs for Norway (which is a NATO member), the F-35 is needed precisely because of cost. The F-35's ability to operate more autonomously than current fighters is vital to the country's future defence. Even though Norway is in a better financial position than most countries these days, the defence budget is still pressed. There are fewer combat assets, fewer people to operate them and so there is a strong emphasis on multi role and netops. To quote the former Defence Chief at a presentation two years ago: "We are NOT getting a new fighter simply to shoot other fighters out of the sky".
Solomon, did you catch this one?
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?gallery_id=91
B. Bolsøy
Oslo