And a BIG THANKS to all the spineless Flag and General Officers who continued to perpetrate this MESS by nit standing on principle to the politicians who shoved it down the throats of the Pentagon...\

F-35

Welcome to the last era of Rome.

that is discouraging.

They dropped my company's contract with them about 2 months ago.

Instead of Thunderbolt II they should have named it Mirage. Because it's a shiny vision, out of reach, and isn't real.

They were hoping Reagan's new super-duper weapons would be available by now to equip them with...

Star-Wars, not yet!

Phil

A product designed to do everything well, usually ends up doing nothing well. Design and engineering don't exist in a vacuum.

I remember watching a documentary about the competition between Boeing and Lockheed and they didn't really say that the Boeing design was better but that the Lockheed design was going to be very, very complicated - and it really looked like they were retrofitting an existing jet fighter design to fit the requirements of the contract versus Boeing coming in with a more from the ground up futuristic design

again - not saying Boeing was better, just that Lockheed provided the most technically challenging and complex design.

I was in a class with some Boeing people when the announcement was made. 2 of them picked up their stuff and left. They knew they didn't have a job at the end of the day.

Didn't they have this STOL fighter figured out 60 years ago?





The Marines have always been given hand-me-downs, give em F-18s or F-22s and tell em to figure it out.

What a goat-fugg! Interesting read.

The Marine Corps has a pretty extensive history of the "just build the fugging thing" philosophy. The Scarrier, the Osprey, and now this apparent hunk of schit.



Travis

Jorge, What do you think of the F22?

Ed

What a fiasco. We designed a faster and better jet for China, and saddled the US with a less capable aircraft for the next 50 years. Just foolish to think one aircraft can do every role of all 3 services.

The worst part is, the pentagon is 110% committed to this aircraft. This is it, there is no alternative.

Lockheed played the US like a Wall Street banker.

I have always thought the "jump jet" idea was something that only paper generals could believe in. And I've never liked this one size fit's all idea...again, looks good on paper to accountants, but it just doesn't reflect the real world.

Meanwhile, there sits the poor US Army infantry soldier who just got screwed again. Because no one's even talking about a close air support aircraft...other than to phase out the one we have.

This is white collar crime at the highest levels.

on the other hand, I also thought the big advantage this plane had over the competition was the computer aided systems that took it past the human ability to fly?

The heads up display and what not was the advantage over the competition. Is that not the case?

I hope he doesn't respond in Spanish because I was going to ask the same question.


Travis

The F-16 did that 30 years ago... Without computers to keep it in the air, that plane is a lawn dart.

The HUD? A fuggin' Lexus has HUD.

You're gonna need a better "advantage" than that if trying to maintain air superiority in 2015.



Travis

This week, Lockheed Martin officially took delivery of a key part of the F-35 fighter’s combat functionality—the pilot’s helmet. The most expensive and complicated piece of headgear ever constructed, the F-35 Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) is one of the multipurpose fighter’s most critical systems, and it's essential to delivering a fully combat-ready version of the fighter to the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Air Force. But it almost didn’t make the cut because of software problems and side effects akin to those affecting some 3D virtual reality headsets.

Built by Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems International (a joint venture between Rockwell Collins and the Israeli defense company Elbit Systems), the HMDS goes way beyond previous augmented reality displays embedded in pilots’ helmets. In addition to providing the navigational and targeting information typically shown in a combat aircraft’s heads-up display, the HMDS also includes aspects of virtual reality, allowing a pilot to look through the plane. Using a collection of six high-definition video and infrared cameras on the fighter’s exterior called the Distributed Aperture System (DAS), the display extends vision a full 360 degrees around the aircraft from within the cockpit. The helmet is also equipped with night vision capabilities via an infrared sensor that projects imagery inside the facemask.

The helmet is an essential part of the aircraft’s cockpit. Some pilots have called the helmet's austere touchscreen Panoramic Cockpit Display “the most naked cockpit in history“ because of its lack of switches and other physical instrumentation. When combined with the cockpit’s built-in voice recognition capabilities, the helmet will allow the pilot to track everything in the aircraft’s sphere of visibility.


The helmet runs for about $600,000, which doesn't include software integration with the aircraft’s systems.

Look down shoot down isn't new either.

If, and I say IF all the "gee whiz" stuff works and all that, it will probably be a pretty good fighter eventually. The Aim 9x just needs to be pointed in the general direction of the enemy so maneuvering won't be that important. But as the war game scenario showed, what happens when we have a numerically superior enemy and we use up all the missiles? The F-35 is AT BEST merely equal to a 40 year old F-16 in close in fighting. There are many designs that surpass it in that respect. It would seem to me that the logical thing would have been to design a top rated airframe second to none and THEN add the "gee whiz" stuff instead of relying on so many brand new technologies. Without them or if they don't work, it is a dog.

And this approach might work if we considered the F-35 to be the high end of a high/low mix with current fighters. The F-35 works in conjunction with them and handles lots of the BVR stuff while they handle the close work. But it is absolutely stupid when you consider that the F-35 is supposed to be the low of the high/low mix to the F-22's high and all of our other aircraft are about to fall out of the sky because they have been used so hard and all the money is going to the F-35 program.

After reading that article, I wouldn't want to be one of the unfortunate souls to have to fly that nightmare of an aircraft.

That is the kind of schit I'm talking about. A two dollar circuit shorts out in that helmet and that plane is practically worthless.

I think I might have to bite the bullet so to speak and finally get an AK or SKS. It's good to have something that shoots the invading army's ammo...

I think that's a different version than the Lexus comes with.



Travis

No that's the same version as the Lexus, there was a gay couple from Texas passing thru driving one...helmet and all.

That is the trouble with politicians in charge instead of seasoned military commanders.

Spanish? I hope he doesn't answer in Cuban! We'd really be screwed!

Ed

All of the this is it and there is no other option is pure Lockheed propaganda. We can kill the turd today and order enough refits to get us a few years down the road while we design new aircraft. We do our best work under the gun and when the project isn't a corporate welfare program. When we were spooked by the Mig 25 we designed and built the F15 and F14 and got a related design effort spinoff in the F16. There is a metric chit ton of weapons technology and integration work done on this F35 project that can be reasonably quickly adapted to better airframes and allowed to blossom without the do everything weight to hold it down. The only thing that is keeping the F35 alive is politicians at the Pentagon , think tanks , and the Capitol. The A10 needs a technical lift probably because I don't see need for an entirely new design. It's a work horse job and the airframe will do what it needs to do. A bunch of new design dual role attack fighters like the F15E and some pure air superiority fighters like the the F22 but made less expensive. The Navy needs its own purpose designed aircraft. The Marines need to have their wings clipped for the most part and be restricted to whirly birds and maybe some ground attack fixed wing aircraft. There also needs to be a change in management and the first new order being no universal complex systems all services wide. Military purpose built not political purpose built. JMO

Who in their right mind let a marine spec out the design of anything, other than a latrine???

'Tis a sad day when people that have never served in combat think up the chitt destined to fight the next war.

Lessons learned in the past are too easily discarded.

Take Robert McNamara for example...

No thanks, I'd just as soon leave him in his grave, thank you.

Ed

One size fits all theory, and in the end fits none. Someone knows military procurement history.

Quote of the day.

Off subject, but its only a few more months before the prime and sub contractor is supposed to be chosen on the next big bomber project, B-3 or LRSB or what ever you want to call it. According to this last story;

Link

this could be Northrop Grumman's last big hurrah should it not win the contract!

But I'm kind of thinking that they might just be the winners in this. The others being tied up and having a fairly bad rap over the last couple years.

And, would just like to see Northrop Grumman stay in the business.

Phil

I'm not a huge fan of the F-35, but that article has some issues. The fan on the B model does not hurt the performance of the A or C model in any way. So all the overweight, slow, whatever does not apply to the Navy or USAF variants. It's not the fastest plane, but it will be much closer to the enemy than the specs indicate. Carrying weapons internally means it goes as fast loaded as empty. Add rails and missiles to any MiG and will not come anywhere close to what they advertise. And, the MiGs are not world beaters to begin with. The AMRAAMs and 9Xs certainly don't care about the relatively small difference. So it "only" turns as well as an F-16. Ummm, that's pretty damn good! And the 9X tied to the helmet really turns well. The F-35 doesn't have a traditional fixed HUD. It's part of the helmet. Whatever the assumptions were in that simulation are crap. I'd be surprised if 1 F-35 was lost to a Chinese built Sukoi. They're a bunch of GCI cripples and will fold in the fog of war. Let's see how they perform when getting jammed, have no comms, are dealing with deception and their AWACS is flaming debris falling from the sky. That's where US trained fighters shine. And I am certain the F-22 will decimate any enemy and make them think real hard about getting anywhere near US fighters (those few that are left). I may be a Navy guy, but the F-22 f'ing rocks!

F-35 is a debacle but I don't blame Lockheed. It is another artifact of the DoD acquisition system which is held hostage to the Congressional budget.

I have an elderly friend whom I met through my Grandfather who met him in 1947 when he taught him to fly T-6's in 1947. This gent went on to a career in ADC flying F-86D, F-94, F-89, F-102, F-106 and finally finishing as a Colonel in F-4's with the KY Air Guard. He said that as they evolved they expected all the new jets to be really flawed and that the next version would be better. At the time they were amazed that a jet cost $750K but readily accepted that it was an evolutionary process. He ejected from two with major (obviously) failures, an F-89 in Alaska and an F-102 in North Dakota. For campfire content he also has a letter from Jack O'Conner congratulating him on is superb Caribou and asking for details of his hunt.

The pursuit of perfection has resulted in an acquisition cycle that is so long that the initial requirements, matched against the technology cycle and then limited by Congressional budget limitations means an evolving requirement that always leads the ability of whatever you're building to meet what the services need. We've seen it with the F-35, V-22, the Seawolf, the CVN-78 and a myriad of smaller (or less media-centric programs).

Because failure is so career denhancing (new word!) the controls around what gets built get so extravagant that the costs skyrockets.

On the topic of the F-35, it's a mess. Other than the amphibs, the USMC has used the VTOL capability less times than can be counted on one hand. How much is that worth? Yes, there is the Royal Navy requirement to be assessed but still. The idea of a single engine jet at the boat makes my blood curl. Sure, one can accept that the F-135 motor is more reliable than any any tactical jet engine ever but when it fails in blue water ops it means I'm riding around in my LR-1 300 miles from 03-94-2L and hating life.

The services will make it work but IMO the F-35 is the new F7U "Gutless" Cutless

I don't like single engine off the boat, and the acquisition world is colossally screwed up. That I can agree with.

Edit: had we chosen to build Block 60 F-16s, updated F-15Es, and F/A-18s and use some of the savings on missile, radar and countermeasure technology we Could have retained an advantage and been more fiscally responsible.

Nothing even comes close to it in performance. That said, WAY too expensive to risk it on such menial tasks as CAS. I've always liked the cheaper and LOTS approach, especially since we are really the only Superpower left. Chinks can't really build anything we can't squash. What we SHOULD have done back in the 90s, was build the Tomcat 2000, A6-F, F-15Es and LOTS of F-16s and take our time with the super fancy stuff.

You'll have Kevin looking around for a butter knife to slit his wrists now. EVERYTHING in his world in Wall Street and the Corporate world's fault. Good post Pugs, as usual, spot on.

There was talk of the RN ditching the VSTOL version of the F35 and going with the standard carrier version..

It would have required our two new carries being equiped with Cats now rather than some point in thefurture as is currently planned..However the penny pinchers got involved and we are now stuck with the vstol version.

That said, it will still be a quantum leap foraward from the Harrier..

You know there is lots of talk about drones and all taking over the mission of manned aircraft, but I haven't really heard too many people talking about what the perfection of and the deployment of laser systems will do to aircraft and missiles as a whole. If/when those get workable anything in the sky that can be seen will die. Nothing is faster than light. They won't even need targeting systems that are all that complex relatively speaking as that there won't be any need to calculate leads or trajectories or anything like that. It won't be the complex problem of hitting a bullet with a bullet. It will be more like hitting an airplane with a laser pointer.

I think it is possible that we find ourselves in a position in the next 50 years or so where the top weapons systems are once again heavily armored ships armed with rail guns for ordnance delivery and lasers for protection.

Or they will give aircraft some sort of anti lazor coating? Perhaps like a mirror?

Gracias.



Dave

Okay, magnetic rail projectiles traveling at seven or eight times the speed of sound will do a number on those aircraft protected against lasers.

De nada... I'm such a cunninglinguist..

Pete: Here's what I think about all that BS Lazer futuristicshit:, from our Light Attack Brethren:

•The mission of the aircraft carrier is to put ordnance on target. Everything else such as Indian Country, unreps, the grid, SSC, and anything else starting with F- is simply support for the attack mission.

•You win the war by killing the enemy by the thousands, not one at a time at twenty thousand feet.

•In peacetime, DCM is something the attack pilot uses to rejoin off the range.
In wartime, DCM is something the attack pilot uses to turn and shoot some [bleep] in the face who's trying to stop the attack pilot before he destroys his high value target.

•There is no such thing as defensive DCM. I become offended when someone jumps me enroute to my target, and much offense is intended when I have to take the time to blow his ass off.

•Concerning the tally of Medal of Honor winners in southeast Asia, the score tells it all: Attack = 5, Fighter = 0.

•In wartime, our POW's were not released because the enemy sent representatives to sit smugly at peace talks. They were not released because domestic antiwar groups unwittingly played into the hands of the enemy, and tied the hands of their countrymen at arms. They were not released because the enemy lost five aircraft to a select few called aces. They were released because brave men took their bombers downtown and spoke personally to their captors in the only language the enemy understands:
Iron bombs raining down on their heads!

•These lessons have been forged in blood and steel by all those attack pilots and bombadiers who have gone before you; back when happiness was flying Spads; back when jets were hard-lighting and mean, and only quiche-eatin' airline pukes flew fans; back when Spads roamed valleys and spit death to those who would try to stop them; in an earlier time when the biggest cadillac in town was called "BUFF" and when men took pride in decorating their leather flight jackets with; "I've Been There" Patches, and the enemy hid every 1 + 45 because he knew the next cycle of the attack carrier was headed his way. Times change, technology changes, but the men in the cockpit must be the same brave warriors every age has counted upon in time of peril.

•Finally, and this is the bottom line! Real men fly attack because they understand the most fundamental law of wartime negotiations; you negotiate with the enemy with your knee in his chest and your knife at his throat.

I'm not sure I'd give Lockheed Martin a free pass on this.

government contractors make the real money on change orders.

The history of warfare is measure/counter measure. While some of the proposed weapons systems of the future are going be almost Starwars like, I suspect an equally capable counter will be developed..on either side of the issue, costs are likely to be the major stumbling block…

Except for when something totally changes things like the machine gun, the tank, or the torpedo carrying airplane and makes the wisdom of a hundred years useless overnight. Sometimes, the only counter is to completely change the way you do things and think about them.

Not saying you are wrong about the potential for future DE weapons, just that I am confident counters will also be found..

Well, DUH, but WHO makes the changes? THE GOVERNMENT and not necessarily the Services. I was in the A-12 program and THAT was a cluster of the first order. LM just likes to make money, just like we all do.

Yeah, but the guys in the government making the changes that guarantee LM more money, are then a year after retirement from working for said government, employed by LM for six figures.

I wonder if the guys who hold a hard line and try to maintain a sense of ethics and responsibility for taxpayer dollars are employed by LM a year after they retire.

I can tell you the companies that bid low and then plan on change order to make their profits get the contracts more times than anyone wants to admit. I'm sure like you said, they get their man (or men) on the inside, along with a few politicians to grease the skids.

Politicians yes, but it would be rare, and easily determined if a military officer pushed for a particular gizmo as a bribe and the intent to get picked up by said company upon leaving the service. Has it happened? I'm sure, but in the case of the F-35, this was just one cluster from the start and primarily driven by budgetary decisions and not operational ones. For example, the USAF NEVER wanted the B-2 and they go it rammed down their throats.
On the Navy side, the F-18 was just a stopgap replacement for the A-7 and F-4, thinking al the time we were going to get the Tomcat 2000 and A-6F and eventually the A-12. When the 12 blew up, the lines had been severed to the F-14 and A-6 so we were stuck with ONE airframe, the 18 which fundamentally changed Naval Aviation for the worse, much worse.

BWHAHAHAHA!

People with a sense of responsibility and ethics don't make it that high in the pecking order.

They're all back stabbing, deep throating pussies.

And if somebody is actually worth a fugg, they'll be so far outnumbered they'll never be able to make a difference.

Such is government during extended periods of peace.




Travis

The article did seem to casually forget all about the F-22, which will decimate anything in it's path.

And why should it? two different airplanes/mission. The F-22,at a cost of 200M/copy it's still just a glorified fighter and while it can carry ordnance, way to expensive to lose in a CAS role. Save it for the A-A stuff and just feed more cannon fodder to the front lines.

That's what it boils down to. Once again our leadership has failed the American fighting man, but the American fighting man always finds a way...mostly because his life, and the lives of his friends are at stake. But also because they're the smartest, best trained, highest motivated soldiers in the world.

I have no doubt that once it's been in the hands of our troops for a decent time, they will make it the pre-eminent air weapon in the world. Because they won't rest until they do.

At least we never had to test the Gutless is combat. The 35 is surely to get bloodied. AS long as we're not fighting Israelis, Brits or Germans, just about any airplane will work.

Obama still has about 18 months in office, so we might be facing the Israelis in the near future.

Thankfully, the 35 isn't anywhere near being IOC...

"Can't turn, can't fight, and can't run".

Just great. Hillary will love it because she hates the military.

The F-35 has probably suffered a lot from the near cancellation of the F-22. No, the F-22 was not cancelled but not nearly as many were procured as planned. That fact probably caused service planners and project managers to demand more from the F-35 than they originally intended as that it was going to carry more of the load than originally intended.

Like I said, the F-35 was originally supposed to be the "low" side of the high/low mix with the F-22. Now, it is going to be arguably as expensive if not more expensive per copy and not nearly as well suited as an actual fighter and too damned expensive to risk at CAS.

The Air Force should scale back on F-35s to a few hundred and build F-16s as cheap bomb trucks to take up the slack.