So What about the F-35?

[Dave]

 

There's a lot wrong with the F-35. There's a lot wrong with the way the project has been handled as well. However, people in general -- especially those writing the articles that everyone keeps linking to -- should approach this subject with some humility. You know why?

 

Because they don't know the whole picture. They don't even know a fraction of it.

I guess you aren't referring to the articles I linked to.

[GP*]

From the website you linked to:

 

"The Air Power Australia website was launched in 2004 with the intention of providing a platform for public, professional and media education, using open source materials."

 

To be fair, it is a very nice website...just limited in the resources it has available to it. I'm enjoying reading it.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Prefontaine

[Brano]

They could still purchase downgraded export version of PAK-FA (Su T-50) from Russians if they got into desperate situation Oh, this neverending arms race....

[AirDnD]

Pierre Sprey (f16 designer) is probably the most vocal critic of the F-35.

 

Here is a rebuttal.

[Emgy]

US fighter procurement, always much drama.

F-16A didn't get AIM-7 capability (technically wouldn't have been a problem for GD/LM to implement this) because the USAF were worried congress would question the need for the F-15. Or, so go the theories. 

 

Super Hornet, funny story about how the USN + McD-D developed a whole new aircraft, camouflaged it as a Hornet upgrade so they could fast-track procurement without congress asking too many questions.

 

Dick Cheney and the F-14D. YF-22 vs YF-23. The show will go on.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Calvamos

[Sternjaeger]

Super Hornet, funny story about how the USN + McD-D developed a whole new aircraft, camouflaged it as a Hornet upgrade so they could fast-track procurement without congress asking too many questions.

 

wow, they must submit these "fake upgrades" to real idiots, or show them tiny pictures... the Hornet and Super Hornet are VERY different!

[Emgy]

Most people can't, at a glance, tell an F-15 from a MiG-29.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Calvamos

[GP*]

Most people can't, at a glance, tell an F-15 from a MiG-29.

 

Indeed. My wife still can't tell an F-16 from an F-15 (well, she just mixes the names up actually) even though she's sat in a Viper a few times.

And to be fair, I hardly know anything about civilian aviation...

[361fundahl]

So I'm enjoying this thread but still haven't been able to decide if the F-35 is good or not... Lol

 

Does anyone have specs or data for the variants?

 

How does it compare to F-22 besides having vertical takeoff? Can it also come to a stop mid-air and land?

[Dave]

From the website you linked to:

 

"The Air Power Australia website was launched in 2004 with the intention of providing a platform for public, professional and media education, using open source materials."

 

To be fair, it is a very nice website...just limited in the resources it has available to it. I'm enjoying reading it.

Might want to check their sources. I worked with a few of them and they aren't made up.

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/support.html

[GP*]

Might want to check their sources. I worked with a few of them and they aren't made up.

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/support.html

Where did I say they were made up?

 

I said -- actually, their own website says -- all their information is derived from open source material. This fact should be obvious, because it's readily available for any Joe with an Internet connection to peruse. There's nothing inherently wrong with using open source, it just has limitations. On a weapons system such as an F-35 (a new, highly classified one) that has pretty enormous limitations.

 

If you've worked with them, then I'd imagine you have some familiarity with the defense (defence) industry. I'm sure, then, what I said above makes perfect sense, and shouldn't really require any further clarification.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Prefontaine

[150GCT_Veltro]

Stealth

 

F-117: "sorry we didn't know it was invisible", dismissed

B-1: USAF still prefers B-52

B-2: It's so secret that USAF doesn't fly it

F-22 ..........it's so expensive that...

 

I only hope they are not forcing us to buy the F-35 just to cover their financial failure.

 

Typhoon is just testing the strategic missile Storm Shadow and new radar technology.

 

We should have to accept F-35 only for the tactical carriers, version B.......if it will never works.

 

Personally before Italy would accept the F-35 as it is now, i would like to see a combat mission between F-35 and Typhoon: radar warning (first of all, also with AWACS), scramble, intercept, and dogfight, day and night. The same for Rafale. After this test, we could talk about F-35 for the Italian Air Force. Actually we have the next Typhoon generation WIP.

Edited January 8, 2015 by 150GCT_Veltro

[Dave]

Where did I say they were made up?

 

I said -- actually, their own website says -- all their information is derived from open source material. This fact should be obvious, because it's readily available for any Joe with an Internet connection to peruse. There's nothing inherently wrong with using open source, it just has limitations. On a weapons system such as an F-35 (a new, highly classified one) that has pretty enormous limitations.

 

If you've worked with them, then I'd imagine you have some familiarity with the defense (defence) industry. I'm sure, then, what I said above makes perfect sense, and shouldn't really require any further clarification.

Where did I say you said they were made up?

 

Their website doesn't say all their information is derived from open source material at all. It states that was their founding aim. Since then the vast majority of contributors have been serving and retired Air Force personnel - most fighter pilots and aeronautical engineers - many test pilots - more than one chief test pilot of the RAAF. 

 

Yes - being a former RAAF pilot I have some familiarity with defence. What you said was loaded with assumptions.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Dave

[GP*]

Where did I say you said they were made up?

 

Their website doesn't say all their information is derived from open source material at all. It states that was their founding aim. Since then the vast majority of contributors have been serving and retired Air Force personnel - most fighter pilots and aeronautical engineers - many test pilots - more than one chief test pilot of the RAAF.

 

Yes - being a former RAAF pilot I have some familiarity with defence. What you said was loaded with assumptions.

Apologies for the delay in getting back to this topic, I am currently on assignment away from home.

 

Anyway, if you weren't attempting to imply that I was suggesting that their sources or information was made up, I'm not sure why you'd say "it's not made up" in the post that I quoted.

 

Your reply to my post makes me question whether you truly understand what open source means. No offense is meant by that, it's simply a fact. Open source does not refer to who contributes to their website. Open source is a level of classification. It means this information is readily available to everyone. I'll say it again another way -- open source is literally the lowest level of classification, falling below many levels of unclassified information (and yes, to everyone reading this, there are various levels of unclassified, and just because something is unclass doesn't mean the public can read it).

 

So I don't care if Australia's leading ace is commenting on the F-35 -- every shred of supporting evidence on that site is open source. By law, it has to be. Are we on the same page now? And let me be clear: this does NOT mean that anyone's opinion, based on what evidence they have access to, is not valid. If you notice, I've hardly spent any energy trying to defend the F-35. It's a pig in many regards; my point of contention lays with know-it-all sources who, in reality, don't have access to all the information needed to make many of the grand proclamations that they do. And finally, my issue was mostly with the dude saying the F-35 doesn't even need a gun. If there's anything that totally invalidates that article, it's that.

 

If being a military pilot somehow grants you more authority on this matter, then we're even there.

 

I'd suggest you flow cold for a minute and rebuild your SA before trying to tell me that anything I'm saying is loaded with assumptions.

[Volkoff]

For me, the F-35 represents money that should have went into roads, bridges, tunnels, career training programs,  job creation, pensions, healthcare, higher education, and the like. The nation that could afford to build rival planes for the F-35 in large numbers can train millions of professional soldiers, has over 650 million persons fit for military service, and an economy that could potentially be larger than that of the USA and EU economies, put together, one day. I suggest not picking that fight, cause F-35's aren't winning that ground war.    

 

  MJ

Edited January 14, 2015 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[SOLIDKREATE]

Most people can't, at a glance, tell an F-15 from a MiG-29.

 

 

LMAO! My wife always say when were at the museum that she is bored and all the planes look the same LOL!!!

[Emgy]

To be fair, I can't tell a thousand dollar handbag from a fifty dollar handbag...

[361fundahl]

I don't see how it could take so long to program gun software.... Sound like bullshit to me.

[LizLemon]

I don't see how it could take so long to program gun software.... Sound like bullshit to me.

Because it is.

 

The gun was always intended to be fitted from block 3 on. There has been no delay of the gun due to software.

 

However the gun will be fitted to at least one airframe this year for testing.

 

Of course the truth isn't as sensational as "lol software what a boondoggle" which will get you more clicks and thus more advertising revenue.

[DD_Arthur]

For me, the F-35 represents money that should have went into roads, bridges, tunnels, career training programs,  job creation, pensions, healthcare, higher education, and the like. The nation that could afford to build rival planes for the F-35 in large numbers can train millions of professional soldiers, has over 650 million persons fit for military service, and an economy that could potentially be larger than that of the USA and EU economies, put together, one day. I suggest not picking that fight, cause F-35's aren't winning that ground war.    

 

  MJ

 

This.  The best value for money option at the present time is to spend those defence dollars on infrastructure.  Better infrastructure = enabling a more competitive/capable economy = increased tax dollar revenue = less deficit = less proportion of the national debt owned by the Peoples Republic = healthier country = more capability for rational defence spending.

Edited January 14, 2015 by arthursmedley

[t4trouble]

 

 

For me, the F-35 represents money that should have went into roads, bridges, tunnels, career training programs,  job creation, pensions, healthcare, higher education, and the like. The nation that could afford to build rival planes for the F-35 in large numbers can train millions of professional soldiers, has over 650 million persons fit for military service, and an economy that could potentially be larger than that of the USA and EU economies, put together, one day. I suggest not picking that fight, cause F-35's aren't winning that ground war.    

 

 

 

This.  The best value for money option at the present time is to spend those defence dollars on infrastructure.  Better infrastructure = enabling a more competitive/capable economy = increased tax dollar revenue = less deficit = less proportion of the national debt owned by the Peoples Republic = healthier country = more capability for rational defence spending.

 

 

Well said guys. 

[GP*]

Because it is.

 

The gun was always intended to be fitted from block 3 on. There has been no delay of the gun due to software.

 

However the gun will be fitted to at least one airframe this year for testing.

 

Of course the truth isn't as sensational as "lol software what a boondoggle" which will get you more clicks and thus more advertising revenue.

Well said.

 

And this, everyone, is why you need to be so careful with all the articles you read on the Internet, no matter whether it's about the F-35, or anything else really.

 

About spending F-35 money in other ways -- very true, but you can make this argument about just about any government program (to include outside the defense industry). The F-35 is just a very easy target, especially at this moment in history.