Forum: F-35 Lightning II

LowObservable wrote:

You just lost me completely, Conan...

"That's what P&W put into a brochure. Yet HOW can YOU say it does or does not, beyond what the company says?"

So the assumption is that P&W tells lies and deliberately disinforms not only the public, but anyone who is not read into the program?

You are putting words into my mouth. You assume the information released into the public domain is completely accurate. But I can state for a fact that it is not. Information about modern military capabilities IS sanitised whether you care for the idea or not. There are commercial in-confidence issues as WELL as genuine National Security concerns that make this the case.

Call it lies and un-democratic if that suits you. I'd prefer to call it a version of the truth. The F-135 DOES produce 43,000lbs on a test bench at sea level in reheat. It might also produce 48,000lbs of thrust on a test bench at sea level for all we know...

Quote:

"Your opinion is only relevant if it is based on FACT... Without being in the program, or appropriately cleared how exactly do you present fact?"

So nobody who is not cleared can have a relevant opinion? But if they are cleared, I'd remind you, their every public utterance is subject to approval by the JSF program leaders, on pain of PMITA jail time.

I gather that what you're saying is that there is no possible way to debate the merits of JSF and that you expect published material to be falsified. In short, the information practices surrounding the JSF program are congruent with those of the former Soviet Union. Or can you explain to me how they are different?

(Jeez, engaging in philosophical discussion around here is like hunting kittens with a suppressed Kalashnikov.)

No, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. It's relevance however is determined by how informed you are on the topic.

AS to the classified nature of information, are you serious? Working for a Government agency at ANY level, requires a security classification and information about Government projects at ALL levels is sanitised before release into the public arena.

So do contractors. Information about the F-35's exact internal fuel load, exact engine performance, radar frequencies and range performance etc, ARE classified figures. Using the published data about the platform as "evidence" in justifying your opinion means you can only be as "correct" as L-M and the USG decide to allow you to be.

If you find this abhorrent, I suggest you take it up with your local politicians.

Perhaps you can organise a referendum to have the US Constitution (Article 1 Section 5) amended and the Freedom of Information Act and the Internal Security Act of 1950 repealed...

F-16.net Sponsor

LowObservable wrote:

LockMart Reality Distortion Field OFF

Selected: OFF

"At this VERY late stage of development".

Just about 100 hours of flight test & mission systems testing freshly started on the flying test-bed. Historically with any recent new aircraft (F-22, Typhoon) this is 7-8 years or more ahead of the most basic IOC. And the argument "this is just validating what we know from the labs/sims/CFD" has been made before. And it has never worked out that way.

LockMart Reality Distortion Field ON

Selected: ON

The F-35 Forum will now return to normal programming.

Just one example of a moronic post bereft of facts.

The fact is that people like you and Eric haven't a clue as to what is going on. You chose to ignore the FACT that several air force's and independent auditing agencies have and continue to be involved in the testing and evaluation process and none (including the GAO) have identified any program changing issues.

The insinuation that there is some cover up taking place by LM is a slap in the face to the professional pilots, engineers, and auditors of the evaluating nations. Either come up with some verifiable facts to back up your assertions or stop slandering these people.

I gather that what you're saying is that there is no possible way to debate the merits of JSF and that you expect published material to be falsified. In short, the information practices surrounding the JSF program are congruent with those of the former Soviet Union. Or can you explain to me how they are different?

LowObservable wrote:

(Jeez, engaging in philosophical discussion around here is like hunting kittens with a suppressed Kalashnikov.)

The comments you and Eric have made are not philosophical, they are criticism with no basis in fact.

Philosophical discussions have nothing to do with building jets, so please pardon my lack of interest.

"Just about 100 hours of flight test & mission systems testing freshly started on the flying test-bed. Historically with any recent new aircraft (F-22, Typhoon) this is 7-8 years or more ahead of the most basic IOC. And the argument "this is just validating what we know from the labs/sims/CFD" has been made before. And it has never worked out that way."

Thumper - Which of these are not facts? And if you can't respond without using insults. don't bother.

LMAggie - The "philosophy" digression is in response to your assertion (echoed by Thumper and Conan) that people outside the program can't possibly understand it and that outside criticism is consequently irrelevant.

LowObservable wrote:

"Just about 100 hours of flight test & mission systems testing freshly started on the flying test-bed. Historically with any recent new aircraft (F-22, Typhoon) this is 7-8 years or more ahead of the most basic IOC. And the argument "this is just validating what we know from the labs/sims/CFD" has been made before. And it has never worked out that way."

Thumper - Which of these are not facts? And if you can't respond without using insults. don't bother.

LMAggie - The "philosophy" digression is in response to your assertion (echoed by Thumper and Conan) that people outside the program can't possibly understand it and that outside criticism is consequently irrelevant.

Accepting your 100 hour number.

It is also a fact that there will be more than 20 flying LRIP birds this year. Conservatively 20 X 100 = 2000 hours. We also know that this number will not be 100 but more like several hundred per airframe. That's just this year.

Now lets get back on topic because your assertion that there is something wrong just because about 100 hours have been flown to date is just flat out wrong and your "fact" does nothing to support your argument that there is a problem of any significance.

Criticize, yes! I am outside the program but at least I know about complex projects and their issues. People like you and Eric just don;t seem to understand the issues and you try to make a point where none probably exists. The fact is that there are literally thousands of hours of modeling hours, wind tunnel and systems testing done before AA-1 ever took flight. They know the parts work already.

Thumper.
1. You mean next year
2. No LRIPs are flying next year (2009), just SDDs
3. Even then you are off, almost by a factor of two. There will be 12 SDD aircraft flying at year end at most (assuming no delays, since three of them are due in the last two months of the year), and 11 if AA-1 does not resume tests.

For someone so hung up on "facts" you are not doing well.

And it appears improbable that there will be "several hundred hours per airframe" which would be a lofty goal even if all of them were flying all year.

I don't remember asserting that "something is wrong". But I have cited history, because the only recent historical precedent for such a slow start was Typhoon, and something was indeed wrong (flight control issues). The fact that something was wrong was kept under wraps, because it would very likely have killed the program. Whether that was justifiable is something we can debate.

And every problem in every recent program - the Typhoon's FCS, the B-2's stealth issues, VRS on the V-22, wing drop on the Super Hornet, 787 manufacture issues - was preceded by all the M&S you talk about. I'm not ignoring it - I'm simply applying experience and saying that it's not a guarantee against problems.

LowObservable wrote:

Thumper.
1. You mean next year
2. No LRIPs are flying next year (2009), just SDDs
3. Even then you are off, almost by a factor of two. There will be 12 SDD aircraft flying at year end at most (assuming no delays, since three of them are due in the last two months of the year), and 11 if AA-1 does not resume tests.

More of your pointless "points".

The fact is it's THIS year as in the next 365 days.

Whether you want to call them SDD or LRIP is again...irrelevant. They are production representative airframes and systems.

Finally wrong again. There are 17 airframes due to be complete by year end 2009.

So you see even your irrelevant facts are well wrong.

LowObservable wrote:

Thumper.
And it appears improbable that there will be "several hundred hours per airframe" which would be a lofty goal even if all of them were flying all year.

You are right. Some airframes will have more and some less. Again, irrelevant.

LowObservable wrote:

Thumper.
I have cited history, because the only recent historical precedent for such a slow start was Typhoon, and something was indeed wrong (flight control issues). The fact that something was wrong was kept under wraps, because it would very likely have killed the program. Whether that was justifiable is something we can debate.

The slow start to Typhoon had everything to do with the end of the cold war and the political battle it took to continue the program. The flight control system for the F-35 is flying on the plane now. Again irrelevant.

LowObservable wrote:

Thumper.
And every problem in every recent program - the Typhoon's FCS, the B-2's stealth issues, VRS on the V-22, wing drop on the Super Hornet, 787 manufacture issues - was preceded by all the M&S you talk about. I'm not ignoring it - I'm simply applying experience and saying that it's not a guarantee against problems.

Typhoon - event discussed and happened years ago.
B2 Stealth issues - Well could you enlighten the group on that one.
VRS on V-22- Very Irrelevant. Hybrid aircraft type. Design issues corrected at early stage of development. VRS is know operation issue for ALL rotor craft.
Wing Drop on Super Hornet-Yup, that really grounded the whole fleet. Turned out to be minor.
787-yet another red herring. The problem is in manufacture and the supply chain. No issues turned up in flight testing.

No one is saying there is a guarantee against problems. It's just that those who either are involved in the program or have a clue know that people are crying wolf out of ignorance.

What happens at this point in the F-35 program will be, indeed, a matter of fact and history.

This forum - Thumper and Conan in particular - no longer knows fact from fiction. It reminds me of trying to talk about George Bush to my nephew or my brother-in-law.

Yes, 17 airframes completed by end 09 - but that includes static and we had been talking about flying.

Yes, SDD does matter. How many SDD aircraft have ever been upgradable to service, apart from B-2 AV-1?

"Some airframes will have more" than several hundred hours by end 2009? How? By flying more than two hours every working day, starting tomorrow? The assertion is so unlikely as to be nonsensical.

I'm clearly not going to convince Thumper or Conan of anything, particularly since Conan believes that nobody without clearances knows what's going on. Incuding Thumper. And himself. LMAggie has fallen into that philopophical trap too.

We'll see how things look at end 2009.

Meanwhile, the strawberry flavor Kool-Aid is good but the blue always bothers me. It looks like Windex.

Over and out. Enjoy the party, kiddies.

Yikes... I go on vacation and you guys have all the fun Wink

Usually when someone makes an arguement, they back it up and try to avoid an ab hominem arguement. The young, the old, even the majority of household domesticated animals know this. But not, you guys. So, enlighten us on you knowledge, great masterful, knowledgable nerds. Or is it going to be more ragging on about 'defense cheerleaders', as usual? Maybe it's me, but I don't think anyone is for getting the F-35 until the F-35 is validated.

Well hopefully this discussion will make the decision easier for the Dutch DoD Very Happy

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Netherlands Ministry of Defense Chooses F-35