Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F16guy wrote:

I think ELP is adding to the discussion

I agree with what you say except for what I have quoted, Refer to DA's and Thumpers posts about that as they is dead right.
I shall say no more on the matter though after this post.

F-16.net Sponsor

DarthAmerica wrote:

elp wrote:

Take all the best F-16 maintenance studs on this site. Give them 4 brand new F-16s..... Surge them for two years (no skimping on maintenance funds-I'm lookin at you USAF Laughing

) ... record the results.

This should be the bar that the F-35A will have to limbo under.

An F-35A squadron may pull this off 5 or 6 years after IOC (so as to give tribal knowledge time to get consistent)...

But right now it is just a hope, a goal, .... not a reality at this time. Yet some claim it is already so.

Confused

Who is claiming that? Can you provide a quote. AFAIK, people merely refer to it as a design goal. You on the other hand assert and insinuate that it will not happen. Of course it's not reality in this phase. If you have ever been a program manager or talked to one, and you have even if you don't know it, at this stage, the production candidate may or may not be able to demonstrate that it is feature complete. However, if there was significant risk that the F-35 wasn't going to meet the requirement then you would not her people talking like they do about the program as moving along well. Moreover, because the aircraft is developing, it can still be brought back into spec.

-DA

Claimed in advertising of the F-35 numerous times-- that it will be cheaper to operate than an F-16 and can be acquired for the same price. This is so the clueless sheep who don't know anything yet hand out the money, fall for it. And if it doesn't happen as splashed all over in just about every brief? A con by any other name.

underhill wrote:

Arguments from the anonymous have to be assessed on their merits. That's why appealing to private sources (like Code3's pilots) does not work. So to criticize elp on the grounds of his cv is a little meaningless when nobody else posts any details at all.

I did include myself in the Mom's basement comment, which by law and practice disqualifies it as snark.

And given your apparent familiarity with 4chan I'm not surprised that you keep a low profile.

Sorry, but as some of the more mature readers have sugested, there are those who have a need to maintain anonymity. What I can tell you however, is that I am not a teenager living in my mother's basement. Beyond that, you can infer about me whatever makes you feel best.

My original point still remains though, find me any active duty pilot who is not anxiously awaiting the F-35's arrival.

Code3 wrote:

My original point still remains though, find me any active duty pilot who is not anxiously awaiting the F-35's arrival.

Opposing nation pilots at a guess Twisted Evil

ELP seems not to understand that Lockheed is actually trying to run a business and that businesses have to market their products in order to attract customers. I suppose advertising your products highlights is an evil egregious offense. I mean cmon. Could there be a more juvenille criticism?

If the F-35 is even in the ballpark of it's design goals it's going to be a dramatic leap ahead over legacy platforms. Moreover there in no reason why it can't meets it's key requirements. What it boils down to is ELP doesn't like the F-35 for some reason and can't articulate based on objective criteria why the program won't be successful. "Experts" and defense professionals don't do that.

-DA

DarthAmerica wrote:

ELP seems not to understand that Lockheed is actually trying to run a business and that businesses have to market their products in order to attract customers. I suppose advertising your products highlights is an evil egregious offense. I mean cmon. Could there be a more juvenille criticism?

If the F-35 is even in the ballpark of it's design goals it's going to be a dramatic leap ahead over legacy platforms. Moreover there in no reason why it can't meets it's key requirements. What it boils down to is ELP doesn't like the F-35 for some reason and can't articulate based on objective criteria why the program won't be successful. "Experts" and defense professionals don't do that.

-DA

Another thing to keep in mind is that for a business to stay in business(especially in a competitive market), your products have to resemble the "hype" or the prospective buyer will soon see through the smoke and mirrors. Perhaps some of the cost/maintenance claims might be premature, but if the systems/performance claims don't meet/exceed the requirements, then you lose a lot of sales/credibility.

And then there is competition. Not to mention LMs history of providing good combat aircraft. The F-35 goals are well within reason and nothing suggest they can't be met. The criticism is unfounded plain and simple and was most likely motivated by the F-22 obsession.

-DA

DarthAmerica wrote:

And then there is competition. Not to mention LMs history of providing good combat aircraft. The F-35 goals are well within reason and nothing suggest they can't be met. The criticism is unfounded plain and simple and was most likely motivated by the F-22 obsession.

-DA

Not to mention falling for APA's pretty colours and big graphs, without truly understanding the con they are attempting to portray and not being prepared to admit, "I'm wrong". Just a slow back-tracking over several years in regards to to the once openly disparaged Super Hornet. From once being a "dog" to now being nice and safe all-round with good avionics, but still slow"... F-35 will be exactly the same.

Of course he can be proven wrong with some of his opinions, ask him about the RAAF Hornets and the "mistake" they made (according to him) with the Litening pods. His errors in judgement are quite profound, yet no sign of a retraction is ever given, not even when he questions the competence or integrity of those charged with making decisions he can comfortably sit back and criticise.

Ah well. Life goes on I guess.

Conan wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

And then there is competition. Not to mention LMs history of providing good combat aircraft. The F-35 goals are well within reason and nothing suggest they can't be met. The criticism is unfounded plain and simple and was most likely motivated by the F-22 obsession.

-DA

Not to mention falling for APA's pretty colours and big graphs, without truly understanding the con they are attempting to portray and not being prepared to admit, "I'm wrong". Just a slow back-tracking over several years in regards to to the once openly disparaged Super Hornet. From once being a "dog" to now being nice and safe all-round with good avionics, but still slow"... F-35 will be exactly the same.

Of course he can be proven wrong with some of his opinions, ask him about the RAAF Hornets and the "mistake" they made (according to him) with the Litening pods. His errors in judgement are quite profound, yet no sign of a retraction is ever given, not even when he questions the competence or integrity of those charged with making decisions he can comfortably sit back and criticise.

Ah well. Life goes on I guess.

APA is not a credible organization. It was hilarious watching RAND trash one of their own reports because APA nonsense got into it. Those guys are smart, APA, and I do enjoy some of their work. However, where they lose credibility is by trying to falsely convey that they are subject matter experts which clearly they are not. The problem is that most average casual observers don't know enough to spot the bias as easily as people who are actually know the issues through work and experience. It's the same with ELP. He does the same thing.

But people are suckers for charts and graphs and scare tactics so the APA/ELP crap sticks to some casual observers. Whenever challenged directly by real subject matter experts though this crown will fade away for fear of exposure. Just like when I asked ELP about why he thinks the F-35 wont meet program goals. THE BEST answer he could come up with is that it's on LM slides. Well woopee Fing doo. That's a real hard core factual argument there! Give me a break. But put up a pretty website and airshow photos of Flanker variants that aren't even in or near production and fanboys see that and go crazy...lol

I can't tell you how many times I've read how the PLAAF is going to put hundreds of flankers in the sky and just completely overwhelm the PACRIM because of all this nonsense. Funny thing is if people actually did the research into the PLAAFs C3, ramp space, ATC and training they would know such a thing is nonsense. But, fear sells.

-DA

Whilst I don't agree with you DA on the F-22 numbers subject, or rather the lack of numbers what you have stated above in your first two paragraphs is startlingly accurate. You wrote a 10 out 10 post.

The F-22 is a sensitive subject. I understand the concern some have. I really do. Personally, 60 more don't bother me except that that money is badly needed elsewhere and I'm very confident our ability to rule the sky's isn't hinged on 60 aircraft. But that is my opinion and a different topic. More to the point, it's always important to consider the source and verify what's being said. You don't have to be an expert to do that. For instance, why does APA/ELP list as fact with the utmost conviction that the SU-27 series will dominate and overwhelm and support such assertions based on data from the manufacturer yet turn right around and criticize the F-35 based on the fact that all the data comes from the manufacturers marketing data? Talk about contradiction. Think I'm making it up? Look:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

Read that. Notice how everything concludes optimistically for the Sukhoi as if all of the proposed capability is a guarantee yet Russia, which has been flying Su-27s for decades DOESN'T HAVE IN OPERATIONAL SERVICE EVEN ONE of these more advanced Flankers. In fact the USAF has more LRIP/Test F-35s and more Operational F-22's than Russia has these "Super Flanker" prototypes. With regard to the PLAAF, the PRC can barely make modern jet engines and is beholden to Russia to have Flankers. Meanwhile, the F-35 engine is demonstrating that it can exceed design goals!

I mean come on. Who do these people think they are fooling. I have no problem with someone saying that potential threat aircraft are getting more advanced. Clearly they are. But that has to be presented in context and then looked at from a systems level.

Last example. A fanboy favorite is how Su-xx are being exported to some third world country so now unless we have an all F-22 fleet the skys are off limits to the USAF. BREAKING NEWS. If N Korea or Iran were to somehow import F-22's. It would not make a difference in the overall outcome of a war. Sure they would shoot down a few more of our jets potentially. But only in the initial sorties before our far more numerous USAF/USN/USMC demolish the airbases they came from and infrastructure they need to run. After that the surviving threat F-22's would be bombed on the ground or abandoned. This is because as a system, third world air forces no matter what fighter they have can't procure them in enough numbers or support them with AWACS and robust logistics. Moreover, they can't make/import them faster than we can destroy them. This is why when Kopp or others try and do a so-called parametric comparison between an F-35 and Su-35 prototype it's silly. An air battle isn't going to be 1 vs 1. It's many vs many with lots of variables. Variables like the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean which prevent most threats from striking the US directly while the US can bomb at will throughout the entire threat nation. SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEMs.

But all of this is simply the result of the best Air Force in the world. Its so good and powerful that people have to create boogeymen and phantoms to justify the spending and current structure because the USAF is advancing well beyond threat capability at exponential rates. Do people realize we are putting aircraft in the air for almost days at a time and can watch control them from the other side of the globe? Or how about the fact that the technology in the F-35 is going to immediately make obsolete the entire Soviet era RF/IR based IAD weapons systems and fighter radars and for about what a high end legacy fighter cost. How much will it cost threats to upgrade in order to cope with air and naval forces equipped almost exclusively with VLO tactical aircraft? If you have an S-300 air defense system and your defense planning determined coverage to be x against legacy fighters and cruise missiles but now because the F-35 is here your coverage against that platform is reduced to .25x or more then you are up a creak. You almost have to by 4x the sensors to monitor the airspace and how much is that going to cost?

The ignorance boggles the mind.

-DA

DarthAmerica wrote:

APA is not a credible organization.
-DA

Maybe you should tell LM that.
Laughing

DarthAmerica wrote:

It's the same with ELP. He does the same thing.

-DA

Yet, LM and the F-35 marketing crew get a free pass. Very interesting. Maybe you should look through all of the F-35 briefings again. If you believe them that much, you are pretty gullible. Very little of their song and dance is proven.

Nice try with trying to link me to APA. I do quote them as sources. Mostly to balance out the other side of the hype.

Conan wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

And then there is competition. Not to mention LMs history of providing good combat aircraft. The F-35 goals are well within reason and nothing suggest they can't be met. The criticism is unfounded plain and simple and was most likely motivated by the F-22 obsession.

-DA

Not to mention falling for APA's pretty colours and big graphs, without truly understanding the con they are attempting to portray and not being prepared to admit, "I'm wrong". Just a slow back-tracking over several years in regards to to the once openly disparaged Super Hornet. From once being a "dog" to now being nice and safe all-round with good avionics, but still slow"... F-35 will be exactly the same.

Of course he can be proven wrong with some of his opinions, ask him about the RAAF Hornets and the "mistake" they made (according to him) with the Litening pods. His errors in judgement are quite profound, yet no sign of a retraction is ever given, not even when he questions the competence or integrity of those charged with making decisions he can comfortably sit back and criticise.

Ah well. Life goes on I guess.

Ah yes. Conan. Everyone's favorite Defence cheerleader.

DarthAmerica wrote:

And then there is competition. Not to mention LMs history of providing good combat aircraft. The F-35 goals are well within reason and nothing suggest they can't be met. The criticism is unfounded plain and simple and was most likely motivated by the F-22 obsession.

-DA

Interesting theories. "Good combat aircraft" depends I guess if you are an F-104 customer or an F-22 user. It all depends.

F-35 goals are one thing. Wild claims pushing everything like Baghdad Bob is another.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Who is Eric L. Palmer?