As aircraft become more complex, in fact will start resembling a supercomputers with airframes and engines rather than airframe with an engine and a supercomputer - this will become a norm.
If you think 6th gen development and production will be as smooth as F-16s - oh boy - you are in for a disappointment.
we're not talking about a super computer. we're talking about a freaking desk top if you want to do real comparisons. additionally its not just the avionics. it includes the jacked up engine and a messed up airframe that has issues....we're not even going to discuss a too small bombbay.
stop making excuses for this flying piece of shit and accept reality. if we were honest and had a single shred of moral courage this thing would have been canceled. instead we're acting like sci-fi's version of human Ferengi's and selling our soul for a few bits of gold.
The sensor suite isn't so sweet. Breaking Defense: PENTAGON: The F-35‘s highly sensitive sensors suffer a basic problem right now: They often aren’t sure what they are detecting. That results in a high rate of false alarms. The key to fixing this lies in building highly complex data files — what we can colloquially call the threat library — and integrating them with the Joint Strike Fighter‘s software.
“I think the probably the biggest concern is with these mission data files [threat library],” Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian told me in his first interview since being named at the end of January to coordinate procurement and integration of the F-35A into the Air Force. “With any detection systems, it’s always a chore to work through what the sensor is actually seeing.”
Considering everything USN needs to buy, I'm sure they would prefer to save some money and buy the cheaper SH and some more Growlers instead of the F35C......
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. --Mark Twain http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.10news.com/photo/2014/09/11/smedley_mcrd_fb_photo_1410464515779_7953299_ver1.0_640_480.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.10news.com/news/mcrd-mascot-smedley-butler-becomes-a-marine-091114&h=480&w=640&tbnid=2grrTbTdrmgq8M:&zoom=1&docid=wnracADk6arwRM&ei=nGwCVY2oJNWxogTq8IHQDg&tbm=isch&ved=0CFgQMygxMDE
In answer to your questions and speaking as a former USS Newport crewmember, it depends on whether you WANT to send Marines in large numbers ashore in landing craft? (instead of flying over the beachhead) I think FLC work fine for COLT and raids etc. I think that FLC in davits could be relatively easily retrofitted to current amphibs. High speed landing what? Ship to me is big. You talking LSV, LCU200, or old Textron LCU(R)? Or something smaller like L-CAT? In the end the tactical equipment and supplies WILL go ashore mostly by larger landing craft and lighterage. The Tyranny of Tonnage law applies.
that makes no sense. the LST is perfectly designed to do what many LCAC's and LCU's can't. put a large amount of equipment on the beach quickly. you might say that its too big and that we're putting all our eggs in one package but what is easier to protect...one prehistoric bull or a herd of smaller cows?
well you have the perfect vessel to ask any question you have....so instead of name calling how about you give me something that you want an answer to?
F22 was outdates two to three years after the choice of cray computer. Any computer take two to three years to ne comptletly outdated, and supercomputer only half a year. But there is nothing That need supercomputer, and i doubt seriously That there is even decent computer in f35, since it was chosen long time ago.
Think leesea means that sometimes, that is too much equipment. An LST probably won't have much problems landing a company on the beach, but what happens when you only need a platoon here, a platoon there and another somewhere else? He's just pointing out a bit of overkill, which I have no problem with.
Personally, I'll land the LST and ask them to walk/ride.
The Fast Landing Craft does make an interesting question though. Not the LCU-F monstrosity, but simple planing boats like the ones ST Marine used to make. Google up "Brave" class FCU. They should have no problems carrying a Stryker to shore. Ask him what he thinks of a FCU/Stryker combo.
Really? Are you not aware that each successive generation of fighter aircraft has had a geometric progression in development times as they've become more complex and the integrated technologies more numerous?
>F-86: 14 months >F-104: 24 months >F-5: 32 months >F-14: 50 months >F-18E/F: 52 months, and for an airframe similar to one already in service >F-22: 88 months >F-35: 102 months, with an additional 24 months to bring in all three variants simultaneously developed (a feat unequaled in the jet age, with the most sophisticated fighter the world has yet seen)
Increased complexity means increased lead time. It also, if history is any indicator, means increased capability.
Don - exactly what I`m talking about. Your comments prove that none of you have ever got close to high-tech systems, be they avionics or robotics or something else - building a new architecture for system like F-35 is harder than just sticking IRST pod and L-band radars all over the place like Russians do.
The software is a complex issue and as it has been the case for the last 5 years, all major systems who have highly integrated onboard computing systems get delays - see Zumwalts recent delay by 6 months.
As for aerodynamic problems - I dont see why it should have an impressive agility. Pulling off Pugachevs Cobra isnt needed at all - its nice to impress civilians and make bombastic headlines but people are yet to find a proper application for it.
I dont know why Marines wanted their B variant so much - the airframe is indeed compromised but its very capable and contrary to fraud and opportunist Spreys claims - its got better aerodynamic capability with a load than F-16 without payload. Its up there with F-18s performance in that regard.
Well I`m not an American so its not my taxes that go funding this so I`m pretty detached to the while hysteria.
I`ll just sit back and patiently wait till the end of this decade, only to delight the moment when F-35 will become the same fail-success story that F-16 was.
Show me one single other jet age fighter development project that simultaneously developed a conventional, naval and STOVL variant while designing in the most advanced sensor fusion, sensors, comms, FC, integrated detection/targeting/terminal handoff and avionics in the world, all to the specifications of a dozen countries.
Now if they really think that a twenty-year development program can provide realistic capability than I question that conclusion, given Moore's law etc. So -- wait for what? Eighties technology in an expensive obsolete air vehicle?
The big problem I have with the program is that they are manufacturing an excessive number of useless pre-production prototypes at high cost and giving them to service units. That makes no sense at all, given all the reported shortcomings including a bum engine.
LST1179 have specific limitations on WHICH beaches they can land on. I can not tell you how many times an LST was stuck on the bottom of a landing beach not close enough to discharge. The 5200 ton LST only had 1500 tons of cargo capacity. Sure it could go fast UNTIL it got close to a beach only to put a relatively small load ashore. And here is the kicker, the Newport class LST could NOT fire any weapons forward. Their 3/50s were blocked from about 20 degrees off the bow. Would YOU want to be driving off a LST while under fire and NO way to fire back? We did lose the ability to sideload pontoons when those Ts went away.
right you are Owl, but I would not buy an LCU-F since it is another techno-toy. At least the one I saw in USNI Proceedings and USMC powerpoints. I will go look at ST Marine which does have some nice ships & boats. If you want to a good and existing FLC look to Europe. Texron had a large planning LSU(R) a long time ago, the USN dropped the rqmt.
He has some many faulty ideas about vessels, I gave up counting them. Only heard him once, but have seen his writings ever since. Marine GOs like his dreams.
LockMart's hobby horse.
ReplyDeletehttp://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff495/jkred1983/Harper-f-35-Gif.gif
Not surprised by this at all.
ReplyDeleteAs aircraft become more complex, in fact will start resembling a supercomputers with airframes and engines rather than airframe with an engine and a supercomputer - this will become a norm.
If you think 6th gen development and production will be as smooth as F-16s - oh boy - you are in for a disappointment.
we're not talking about a super computer. we're talking about a freaking desk top if you want to do real comparisons. additionally its not just the avionics. it includes the jacked up engine and a messed up airframe that has issues....we're not even going to discuss a too small bombbay.
ReplyDeletestop making excuses for this flying piece of shit and accept reality. if we were honest and had a single shred of moral courage this thing would have been canceled. instead we're acting like sci-fi's version of human Ferengi's and selling our soul for a few bits of gold.
F-22 is a desktop - that bitch relies on 90s era Cray supercomputers who were oudated by the time first Duo core CPUs came out.
ReplyDeletePlus it doesnt have sensor suite and coding on scale of F-35.
This is different.
SO YOU'RE STICKING TO THE FICTION THAT THE F-35 IS A FLYING SUPER COMPUTER?
ReplyDeleteare you really that fucking stupid?
The sensor suite isn't so sweet.
ReplyDeleteBreaking Defense:
PENTAGON: The F-35‘s highly sensitive sensors suffer a basic problem right now: They often aren’t sure what they are detecting. That results in a high rate of false alarms. The key to fixing this lies in building highly complex data files — what we can colloquially call the threat library — and integrating them with the Joint Strike Fighter‘s software.
“I think the probably the biggest concern is with these mission data files [threat library],” Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian told me in his first interview since being named at the end of January to coordinate procurement and integration of the F-35A into the Air Force. “With any detection systems, it’s always a chore to work through what the sensor is actually seeing.”
It's okay with you because you're not surprised by it?
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised.
Considering everything USN needs to buy, I'm sure they would prefer to save some money and buy the cheaper SH and some more Growlers instead of the F35C......
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/study-show-more-boeing-electronic-attack-jets-u-023619405--finance.html
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. --Mark Twain
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.10news.com/photo/2014/09/11/smedley_mcrd_fb_photo_1410464515779_7953299_ver1.0_640_480.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.10news.com/news/mcrd-mascot-smedley-butler-becomes-a-marine-091114&h=480&w=640&tbnid=2grrTbTdrmgq8M:&zoom=1&docid=wnracADk6arwRM&ei=nGwCVY2oJNWxogTq8IHQDg&tbm=isch&ved=0CFgQMygxMDE
the man who dreams up Exquisite Expensive Ships and Billion Dollar Babies~
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your questions and speaking as a former USS Newport crewmember, it depends on whether you WANT to send Marines in large numbers ashore in landing craft? (instead of flying over the beachhead)
ReplyDeleteI think FLC work fine for COLT and raids etc. I think that FLC in davits could be relatively easily retrofitted to current amphibs.
High speed landing what? Ship to me is big. You talking LSV, LCU200, or old Textron LCU(R)? Or something smaller like L-CAT?
In the end the tactical equipment and supplies WILL go ashore mostly by larger landing craft and lighterage. The Tyranny of Tonnage law applies.
that makes no sense. the LST is perfectly designed to do what many LCAC's and LCU's can't. put a large amount of equipment on the beach quickly. you might say that its too big and that we're putting all our eggs in one package but what is easier to protect...one prehistoric bull or a herd of smaller cows?
ReplyDeletewell you have the perfect vessel to ask any question you have....so instead of name calling how about you give me something that you want an answer to?
ReplyDeleteF22 was outdates two to three years after the choice of cray computer.
ReplyDeleteAny computer take two to three years to ne comptletly outdated, and supercomputer only half a year.
But there is nothing That need supercomputer, and i doubt seriously That there is even decent computer in f35, since it was chosen long time ago.
Think leesea means that sometimes, that is too much equipment. An LST probably won't have much problems landing a company on the beach, but what happens when you only need a platoon here, a platoon there and another somewhere else? He's just pointing out a bit of overkill, which I have no problem with.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'll land the LST and ask them to walk/ride.
The Fast Landing Craft does make an interesting question though. Not the LCU-F monstrosity, but simple planing boats like the ones ST Marine used to make. Google up "Brave" class FCU. They should have no problems carrying a Stryker to shore. Ask him what he thinks of a FCU/Stryker combo.
Your hysteria shows.
ReplyDeleteReally? Are you not
aware that each successive generation of fighter aircraft has had a
geometric progression in development times as they've become more
complex and the integrated technologies more numerous?
>F-86:
14 months
>F-104: 24 months
>F-5: 32 months
>F-14:
50 months
>F-18E/F: 52 months, and for an airframe similar to
one already in service
>F-22: 88 months
>F-35: 102
months, with an additional 24 months to bring in all three variants
simultaneously developed (a feat unequaled in the jet age, with the
most sophisticated fighter the world has yet seen)
Increased
complexity means increased lead time. It also, if history is any
indicator, means increased capability.
Don - exactly what I`m talking about. Your comments prove that none of you have ever got close to high-tech systems, be they avionics or robotics or something else - building a new architecture for system like F-35 is harder than just sticking IRST pod and L-band radars all over the place like Russians do.
The software is a complex issue and as it has been the case for the last 5 years, all major systems who have highly integrated onboard computing systems get delays - see Zumwalts recent delay by 6 months.
As for aerodynamic problems - I dont see why it should have an impressive agility.
Pulling off Pugachevs Cobra isnt needed at all - its nice to impress civilians and make bombastic headlines but people are yet to find a proper application for it.
I dont know why Marines wanted their B variant so much - the airframe is indeed compromised but its very capable and contrary to fraud and opportunist Spreys claims - its got better aerodynamic capability with a load than F-16 without payload. Its up there with F-18s performance in that regard.
Well I`m not an American so its not my taxes that go funding this so I`m pretty detached to the while hysteria.
I`ll just sit back and patiently wait till the end of this decade, only to delight the moment when F-35 will become the same fail-success story that F-16 was.
Show me one single other jet age fighter development project that simultaneously developed a conventional, naval and STOVL variant while designing in the most advanced sensor fusion, sensors, comms, FC, integrated
detection/targeting/terminal handoff and avionics in the world, all
to the specifications of a dozen countries.
I'll wait.
To be fair. Looks like they did good work with the ground collision avoidance system. Not sure what Block that will be in.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2015/03/12/navy-carriers-aircraft-fighters-strike-fighters-f-18-fa-18-super-hornet-boeing-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-jsf/70243170/
ReplyDelete126 months for F-35 development?
ReplyDeleteNo Way, José
If they make schedule, which they probably won't because they never have, considering that the Eglin engine failure has caused a significant slowdown in testing, even if they make schedule it would be 210 months Nov 2001-Apri 2019.
Now if they really think that a twenty-year development program can provide realistic capability than I question that conclusion, given Moore's law etc. So -- wait for what? Eighties technology in an expensive obsolete air vehicle?
The big problem I have with the program is that they are manufacturing an excessive number of useless pre-production prototypes at high cost and giving them to service units. That makes no sense at all, given all the reported shortcomings including a bum engine.
LST1179 have specific limitations on WHICH beaches they can land on. I can not tell you how many times an LST was stuck on the bottom of a landing beach not close enough to discharge. The 5200 ton LST only had 1500 tons of cargo capacity. Sure it could go fast UNTIL it got close to a beach only to put a relatively small load ashore.
ReplyDeleteAnd here is the kicker, the Newport class LST could NOT fire any weapons forward. Their 3/50s were blocked from about 20 degrees off the bow. Would YOU want to be driving off a LST while under fire and NO way to fire back?
We did lose the ability to sideload pontoons when those Ts went away.
right you are Owl, but I would not buy an LCU-F since it is another techno-toy. At least the one I saw in USNI Proceedings and USMC powerpoints. I will go look at ST Marine which does have some nice ships & boats. If you want to a good and existing FLC look to Europe. Texron had a large planning LSU(R) a long time ago, the USN dropped the rqmt.
ReplyDeleteHe has some many faulty ideas about vessels, I gave up counting them. Only heard him once, but have seen his writings ever since. Marine GOs like his dreams.
ReplyDeleteI did check it up, it could have done the job as well, just that people seem to love deferring what can be done today for a few decades down the road.
ReplyDeleteGOs?
ReplyDelete