Click here and the link will take you to an article written by Sweetman about the F-35.
From the start the conversation was contentious, with a commenter named JackJack being double and triple teamed...all because he supports the program.
What surprised me even more was the fact that even Sweetman (whos come out in the past against outing commenter s because it could deny a link to the inside story on these program) goes so far as to insist that JackJack come out and identify himself by name.
All of the above is neither here nor there...the question is this...Why do conversations about the F-35 become so contentious.
I'm really surprised Bill Sweetman let himself get baited into that ridiculous discussion. Usually he voices his opinion and some facts and that's that. Calling JackJack out like that really isn't like him.
ReplyDeleteSad affair really.
Like you said, it's really weird the JSF gets so emotional. You don't get this drama over FCS or Zumwalt...
Just an opinion: hierarchic systems tend to create a certain "unity of thought" and a very strong reaction against "mavericks". Catholic church, USSR, politics, martial arts... and military. Often not as much in the core of those systems (which have their own checks and balances, upto and including killing dissenters), but in the surrounding crowd, people who get a sense of belonging to their ideal of that group.
ReplyDeleteI think F35 is both similar enough and different enough to threaten some people's worldview. As with any such discussion, balanced comparison --what you have, what you get, what you don't and what you need-- goes straight out of the window.
For example, all that discussion about the B variant... why all that comparison with the F18 and so little against the Harrier? The lack of Harrier replacement has long been a blind spot, IMO. The fact you can land that cutie over almost anything --a Briton emergency landed his Harrier on a Spanish cargo ship, once upon-- is somehow lost in the wind. Nor is any alternative proposed.
There's another example in Weber's Honorverse, but I might spoil a couple of books for you, and I think I recall you'd recently started them. ;)
Take care.
Marcase,
ReplyDeletei'm so with you. i'm a reactionary guy and you know its bad when i'm calling for restraint!
shugyosha,
your idea has merit but this seems so much more personal. i mean i'm a proud American but if someone talks smack about the good ole USA, i just consider it to be jealousy and move on (as any person of any nation should feel if stuff is talked about their homeland)...but like i said earlier....this seems almost tribal.
It's easy to figure out why Bill likes to stir the $hit. He's terrified that the success of the F-35 would mean the end of European fighter development, so he takes every opportunity to spew venom over on Ares. To him, the success of the F-35 would be almost as crushing as it will be to Carlo. Quite frankly, I'm surprised the parent company hasn't booted him. Maybe they're just giving him enough rope to hang himself. Time will tell.
ReplyDeleteya know i remember him saying that before...but my issue is this...
ReplyDeleteit wouldn't be the end...not by a long shot. tech advances and bill knows it. my guess is that advanced radar will render stealth as we currently knkow it obsolete....so a new generation of fighters will arrive....
one more thing. i do fear a bit for Bill. i never met him but while i disagree with him on this i do like the guy...i just hope that he isn't setting himself up to be considered a crackpot because of his single minded obsession ... even now its to the point that the other stories he reports on don't even get attention.
I think people get emotional when they see billions and billions and billions of dollars going into what they view as a turkey. The F-35 is a HUGE gamble. If it doesn't do everything lockheed says it does for the price it says it'll be then we're screwed. Add to that the fact that there have been DOZENS of gold-plated do-it-all platforms in the past that both cost their weight in gold and didn't provide the capability they promised. Take, for instance, the F-105, F-111, A-12, FCS, CG-(x), DD-(x), the list goes on. There are basically two camps in the aviation field: Those who believe that a platfom should be able to do everything o.k, and those who believe they should do one or two missions really really well. Bill is in the later camp, and it probably kills him to see a fighter being designed that falls into the former camp.
ReplyDeletenot hopeful Patrick.
ReplyDeletein my opinion the F-35 is NOT a huge gamble.
Bill has reported on other issues that waste money without the seemingly emotional attachment that comes with the F-35.
should have been...not helpful
ReplyDelete"Almost tribal", "personal".
ReplyDeletePrecisely. If it was, say, graft, the attack would'tbe as personal.
Those same "people who get a sense of belonging to their ideal of that group" will do things for the group that they'd never consider doing for themselves. Think about gangbangers on a spree. This is just a lower risk version of it, for both sides.
Take care.
While I feel that there is little doubt the technical issues of F-35 will eventually be worked out and it will come into service, the real question is how much it will cost. Cost is more of an issue with the economic woes in the US and the JSF partner nations. While the JSF program lauded afforability as one of its key benefits, hopefully, it can still deliver on that promise to some extent.
ReplyDeleteWith one aircraft replacing many types in many countries, the enormous size of the program makes it a bigger risk than other programs. Because of this risk, this program definitely deserves more scrutiny. The recent Ares discussions bear a lot more emotion than content, and part of that is the risk inherent in the program.
As far as the attention that the F-35 gets, the public is much more keyed in to fighter aircraft than FCS or DDG-1000. Maybe because fighters are just sexier to the average joe?
I agree that some people posting on Ares is not exactly behaving mature and that it lowers the discussion quality...some. Quite a bit actually. And I feel sorry for Bill for loosing his temper, but I can't really blame him. It is pointless to discuss "who started it" but there is a lot of people throwing garbage at him and he has swallowed so far. I think I understand his point about Anonymity on the blog, it is for people who wants to share their inside on things and don't risk their jobs, but to use anonyminity to miscredit other people is mis use of that privilige, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteMy 5 cent.
Best Regards
/RAF
I think a number of otherwise rational people have an emotional reaction to the F-35 for a few reasons:
ReplyDelete1. Technical - worries about the lack of "true" all aspects stealth, high wing loading and low T/Wt (compared to other designs), risky & complex STOVL design, continuously missing flight testing goals (which will inevitably lead to a higher program price), weight reductions that could lead to shorter airframe lives, problematic STOVL characteristics on amphibs, and so on
2. Financial - It's going to cost A LOT. The program seems grow by $50 billion or more per year while planned numbers shrink. With the impending budget contractions, it could suck up most available aviation funding for long time. If we shrink numbers much more, the unit price will skyrocket. "Cheaper to fly than an F-16" is dead.
3. Suitability - It's neither fish nor fowl. It doesn't have the range or all-aspects stealth to deal with the Chinese IADS, and it's major overkill for brushfire wars.
Now all that being said, if the it can overcome its technical hurdles and stabilize costs, it can still be a valuable addition.
Ultimately I think it's just another case of the Pentagon and defense industry promising complete fantasies. I sympathize with those who get worked up over it.
Marcase,
You should go peruse the archives at TankNet and Information Dissemination to see the vitriol thrown at the FCS and Zumwalt programs.
Sol,
The F-35B is my least favorite of the bunch. Marine STOVL air is a luxury. We have CVBGs and USAF air to back them up, if need be. Forward basing F-35Bs at austere strips is logistical fantasy, IMHO.
BTW, the FCS is largely dead. The UAV and network systems have spun off into separate programs and most (if not all) the ground vehicles have been cancelled.
ReplyDeleteThe GCV program is the vehicular replacement for the FCS. We'll see how far it gets.
The Zumwalt is only a little better off, with the buy truncated at 3 ships.