On Ares, the commenter Horde, asks the question...am I posting under another name (in particular his current nemesis "JackJack").
I can assure you I don't --- and I won't.
Why is the discussion so contentious about the F-35? In my opinion ---especially after this latest episode---is because we're all operating in a vacuum and some would rather state opinions as facts instead of acknowledging the lack of information that we all suffer from.
I think that vacuum is largely a result of the programs delays. There is so much worry that the next "problem" will be the last, so there is very little transparency and little motivation by the authorities to discuss the unfolding developements.
ReplyDeleteNo idea Sol. You've had your heated disagreements with Bill et al, but you never got down to this downright childish level.
ReplyDeleteReally sucks one of my favourite blogs (after this one of course!) is turning into such a name-calling contest...
I'm not sure, but didn't it really start to go downhill since Horde and JackJack showed up?
Marcase, I totally agree about the drop in the level of the discussion over there. And I believe it was just around when those two users started to post regularly.
ReplyDeleteI'm a supporter of facts and oppinions, and I think one should allow oneself some headroom and passion in discussions. But there is no need for unfounded personal remarks whatever your oppinion is.
ReplyDeleteB. Bolsøy
Oslo
Contentious? The reasons are simple:
ReplyDelete1. It's an insanely expensive program: fiscal allocation to JSF is larger than that for some domestic programs.
2. Too much is at stake: the combat aircraft devision of ALL US service depends on the success or failure of the JSF program
3. The program and risk management of JSF is, at best, mediocre.
insanely expensive?
ReplyDeleteif you were to try and replace all the aircraft the F-35 is to replace in the US inventory with separate airframes then the costs would be even more. reason number one is false.
combat aircraft of all us services depend on one airplane? if the programs were divided then the risks would be the same. reason number two is false.
the program has been restructured, the risk and management is up to snuff. its cutting edge what do you really expect. besides name one major weapons program that is brand new and hasn't run into difficulties? there isn't one. reason number three is false.
Sweetman's JSF discussions are one big circle jerk.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how Ares can let him post some of the garbage he does on JSF...oh wait, they hate it too.
what gets me about Bill's postings are that they're becoming repetitive ... he keeps saying the same thing in slightly different ways.
ReplyDeleterepeats information thats already well known...but what really kills me is Horde!
i get his position but he tends to spin enemy aircraft as golden and everything in the west with the exception of the F-22 as a piece of shit.
@ Sol
ReplyDeleteYeah, you read it right: insanely expensive.
For nearly $500 BILLION all we will get is a jet that can only address a very narrow spectrum of the projected threat.
Will it be worth the cost? You be the judge.
i dispute your claim that the jet will operate across only a narrow spectrum.
ReplyDeleteAESA, electo-optical systems etc...should and i believe will revolutionize aerial combat.
AESA, electo-optical systems ALREADY revolutionize aerial combat, with or without JSF.
ReplyDeleteAgain, keep in mind the number "$500 BILLION" and try to justify that with the spectrum of threat that JSF is designed to counter.
JSF is the sole aircraft? Hmm. Boeing might dispute that with 629 Super Hornet/Growlers (assuming no further orders), 220 F-15E Strike Eagles and 178 "Golden Eagle" F-15C's in-service or planned and Lockheed might complain too with the 184 planned F-22A's staying in-service until 2030 at least...
ReplyDeleteFor the calculator challenged amongst us that equals 1211 tactical fighter aircraft across 2 different services that are NOT being replaced by the F-35.
Even if the US only ends up acquiring half of it's currently planned JSF force (ie: approximately 1220x fighters - half of current planed 2443 fighters) the USA will still be able to field nearly 2500x manned tactical fighter systems, over 1350 of which are advanced low observable designs.
Clearly the United States is truly in desperate peril with it's Tac Air. We'll be down to 2500x fighter jets, plus bombers, plus UAV/UCAV's and other combat aviation assets!
Oh NO! The world is ending...
great point and well said Aussie Digger. additionally Anonymous, let me add the AESA, electro-optical systems and other systems are being fused together in a way never before thought possible all in a stealth fighter.
ReplyDeleteconsidering its capabilities it will be an exceptional airplane. oh and another point. i checked out the chart provided by Horde over at ARES and its still an apples and oranges comparison. 50% fuel for an F-35 is almost a full fuel load for the other airplanes on the list. you'd have to compare acceleration if the F-35 were down to 1/4 tanks
WTF is this "$500 BILLION" nonsense? How 'bout you ease up on the irrational hysterics and maybe someone will take you seriously.
ReplyDelete-sferrin
@ sferrin
ReplyDeleteCan't swallow up the number now, can you? Pity.
$500 BILLION is just the tip of the iceberg.
Hope that you will enjoy being further in debt for years to come.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-11-1448230031_x.htm
Bet that you can't even say aloud the
ReplyDeleteprojected total cost
of the JSF program. With further delay and cost overrun, the bill rounds up to: $XX0,000,000,000.
No wonder US domestic programs are perpetually anemic.
F-35 is said to have maneuverability similar to that of F-16.
ReplyDeleteNow, imagine getting your >$110 million JSF on cross hair. i for one surely hope that LMT knows what the fuck they are doing/selling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miUJZpBqFqE
even the F-22 doesn't have super maneuverability...its similar to that of the F-16 too.
ReplyDeleteJEEZ!
you refuse to let this go huh? oh and just for comparison...the F-15K cost more than 110 million dollars as does the Typhoon. get over the silliness!
oh and that silly little video that you sent that shows a RAFALE getting a kill shot on a HORNET is null and void.
ReplyDeleteHelmet mounted cuing of weapons renders that whole thing obsolete.
Now, isn't it awe-inspiring how some try to "justify"/support F-35 at all cost?
ReplyDeleteby distorting reality and drawing unlikely parallels.
F-35's maneuverability, cost and lack of WVR engagement weapon are well-established concerns among critics and supporters alike.
Checkmate, Solomon of USMC.
Horde, you're obsessed man. you and your boys can't let this go can you.
ReplyDeletethings are already in motion. you can't help it, you can't stop it.
Sweetman and the boys at PPruNe might be all about what you're talking about but no body else is.
you need help Cowboy...this ain't healthy.
Another lame justification:
ReplyDelete"It's already in motion; you can't stop it."
[Translation: The lame duck program is cancellation-proofed.]
actually the operative statement was...you're obsessed.
ReplyDeleteyou really do need help.
have you noticed that if someone doesn't agree with you on this issue you go high and to the right? or maybe its left. either way this thing has you by the balls.
you've checkmated yourself.
Next thread of "justification":
ReplyDeleteCheck the sanity of the critics.
SURELY there must be something wrong with them if they voice concerns over my favorite toy and all.
Keep going; it's getting entertaining.
not really (entertaining that is)...its really boring...old...tired (you keep giving the same old arguments and keeps spinning facts that many, myself included are picking up on) yet you seem energized by it.
ReplyDeletealot of your followers are obsessed by it too.
sadly, the internet is populated by the negative ones...especially those blogs that deal with any issue...want to get popular real quick? come out as a critic...you'll zoom to the top and many will read your work but the point is this....
you can keep beating the drum but you've reached the height of your popularity and life has moved on...its all downhill from here.
Points taken.
ReplyDelete----------
Let's do a summery at the end of the show; hope that it will help answer your question:
"Why is the discussion of the F-35 so contentious?"
Anon, perhaps you should check the Block 3 weapons certification chart again. I see AIM-9X and ASRAAM on the most recent chart. That enough "WVR engagement capability" for you?
ReplyDeleteAs for maneuverability, well let's see how the thing tests, eh? Everyone likes to point out how little testing it has done, but then feel equally competent about telling everyone what it can't do.
It would nice if YOU could recognise the "logical fallacy" of such a ridiculous position... No-one knows what it can and can't do, until it is completely developed and demonstrated through a proper flight test program.
So far, all we know publicly is that the airframe is cleared to 39,000 feet, M1.3 and 7.5G maneuvering. Not bad after less than 10% overall flight testing, IMHO...
Your "super secret" APA analysis tools utilised on home PC's notwithstanding of course...
39,000 feet, M1.3 and 7.5G is classic Hornet spec. Try to match that to even the baseline Falcon.
ReplyDeleteElectronics on aircraft tend to improved overtime; rarely so for aerodynamics or RCS. If you think F-35 will be able to comfortably match a 4G in BVR, then that's likely your logical fallacy.
Aussie Digger is simply and logically stating that we should wait to see what the flight testing reveals.
ReplyDeleteHe also points out that with just 10% of it completed, that the above milestones have been achieved...
wow, you're ate up Anonymous.
@ Sol
ReplyDeleteDon't forget your pompom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pom-pon
@Horde or his follower.
ReplyDeleteone word for ya! Monomania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomania
Interesting. Another JSF justification:
ReplyDeletethe better-tomorrow mentality.
Historically few fighter aircraft live out to designers' expectation.
the F-15, 16, 18, AV-8B, CH-53, CH-46 and MV-22 have...the list goes on...P-51, A-7D, F-4, F-111 all those aircraft met or are meeting expectations...
ReplyDeletethe people that will be disappointed with the F-35 are those that are looking for another F-22 (but with better range...i'm amazed that the short legged F-22 isn't constantly slammed for that one weakness alone...kinda renders supercruise moot)...but for the rest of us that are looking for a STOVL, supersonic, stealthy swing role fighter...we're all happy with what we see.
@ Sol
ReplyDeleteYou omit ALL the sour points.
"...distorting reality and drawing unlikely parallels."
Moreover, in terms of management, engineering and manufacturing talents, USA is arguably nowhere like it was 2 decades ago, thanks to 2 decades of outsourcing.
you've fallen prey to excessive pesimissivim. you laud developments in the East and doubt the capability of the West to reverse business events.
ReplyDeletei don't agree with your assessment. besides we're talking about the defense industry. that my friend hasn't been outsourced.
Defense has not?
ReplyDeleteOpen your eye, Sol.
open my eye? if anything, lockheed martin and the DoD have formed a joint venture to keep advanced fighter production in the US only (China and Russia don't count)....Sweetman's fears aren't unfounded.
ReplyDeleteso yeah, we tossed a few bones to a few companies in partner nations but the win stays with the allies. they gain manufacturing creds on a high tech project and we keep the bulk of the tech in the US...win win.
Joint ventures aside,
ReplyDeleteKey words: Chinese chips
This would be a far worse security threat in time of war or peace.
What a fucking idiot....
and there you have it.
ReplyDeleteargument lost and you revert to name calling. typical.