Forum: F-35 Lightning II

One might add that the Joint Estimating Team predicted completion of OT in 2016.

This would involve much more money than developing the F136, which Heinz has said will prevent the program from ever passing 100 jets a year.

The JET was pooh-poohed by the JSF team management, but that was before they missed so many milestones. And by the way, you'll find that the village idiots have been consistently better at predicting schedule performance than the program office.

F-16.net Sponsor

underhill wrote:

First I'm Peter Goon, now I'm Carlo . You rapier-wits are getting me all confused.

Ah, they're known to have shared a handle before, just ask them.

I will hand it to you village idiots ( Smile

) that LM will have to start clocking flight test at a really ferocious pace if they wish to remain convincing in public (yes, you consider that point to have been passed already). That compiled list of yours is quite convincing, though I knew the bullets beforehand.

-----

I don't care for what background elp has and it serves to his credit that he fights with his visor open, though there is no requirement for anyone to do so, perhaps maybe except on his blog ofc.

It is just so tiresome that no matter what aspect of the JSF is being discussed the reply is more often than not: "2% of flight testing!"

Come on!

Oh, a quibble. ELP: To my knowledge the USAF does not believe a 4th-generation fighter has a place on a future battlefield. Even after the mighty Raptor has swept the battlespace, you can expect an "ADS in being" and lower-tier SAM threats to still lurk around. VLO is a Day 1++ requirement. F-16 types as Lo-end is not viewed as a solution. And if LM/JPO deliver on promise, F-35A may even end up cheaper than a future F-16 50/52++. Twisted Evil

Has anyone read ELP's disclaimer on his blog site? It reads as in the below:
"Opinions on war stuff that may or may not work"

from this site:
http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/

So, if you don't like what he is saying, too bad. He is entitled to his opinions, just as
you are. The real question to be asking is, where are all the test flights on the F-35
and how is it possibly reaching LRIP soon? Sounds risky to me. This is not an unfair
bashing of the jet, but again, where are all the test flights?

JetBlast16

bumtish wrote:

underhill wrote:

First I'm Peter Goon, now I'm Carlo . You rapier-wits are getting me all confused.

Ah, they're known to have shared a handle before, just ask them.

I will hand it to you village idiots ( Smile

) that LM will have to start clocking flight test at a really ferocious pace if they wish to remain convincing in public (yes, you consider that point to have been passed already). That compiled list of yours is quite convincing, though I knew the bullets beforehand.

-----

I don't care for what background elp has and it serves to his credit that he fights with his visor open, though there is no requirement for anyone to do so, perhaps maybe except on his blog ofc.

It is just so tiresome that no matter what aspect of the JSF is being discussed the reply is more often than not: "2% of flight testing!"

Come on!

Oh, a quibble. ELP: To my knowledge the USAF does not believe a 4th-generation fighter has a place on a future battlefield. Even after the mighty Raptor has swept the battlespace, you can expect an "ADS in being" and lower-tier SAM threats to still lurk around. VLO is a Day 1++ requirement. F-16 types as Lo-end is not viewed as a solution. And if LM/JPO deliver on promise, F-35A may even end up cheaper than a future F-16 50/52++. Twisted Evil

Yet still real. After long range SAMs are beat down, any other SAM threat is fish in a barrel with today's weapons and ISR. An F-15, F-16, etc can contempt of engage most lower tier SAM threats with JDAM from up high.

So part of the argument is valid. If you can do "I can touch you but you can't touch me" in near any weather, with cheap sub-4 meter CEP weapons with the range of 10-13 miles and release from high altitude, smaller AD threats will just get discovered—and plinked. Not hard... and has already been done before.

As for current USAF top leadership not buying new build 4 gen fighters—stupid is as stupid does.

It is just so tiresome that no matter what aspect of the JSF is being discussed the reply is more often than not: "2% of flight testing!"

I will say that argument's gotten pretty old, and will indeed have to be retired once they get to 3 per cent of flight testing (another 50 sorties or so). I'd certainly didn't expect one year ago or even six months ago that so little would have been done.

Has the F-35 prototype (AA-1) even reached or exceeded Mach 1.2?
What's going on over there? They should really be expanding the flight
envelope by now.

AA-1 has reached 1.05 - which is 0.038 faster than a DC-8 in 1961.

yeah but the DC-8 didn't do it with full fuel tanks and a mock payload of bombs and missiles. what exactly is your point with that comparison? if i recall correctly the chase F-16 had difficulty keeping up...are you Koop? are you Goon? are you a member of APA? people would like to know.

solomon wrote:

yeah but the DC-8 didn't do it with full fuel tanks and a mock payload of bombs and missiles. what exactly is your point with that comparison? if i recall correctly the chase F-16 had difficulty keeping up...are you Koop? are you Goon? are you a member of APA? people would like to know.

This is what I mean when I blast ELP and APA comments. They claim to be experts and yet don't understand even the most basic concepts. For instance, how many dogfights are supersonic? How often is it necessary to use such speeds. Even the F-22 doesn't do it that much. Granted its able to sustain these speeds longer. Have to say that lest the fanboys will chime in. But seriously, Comparing the F-35 to a DC-8 in terms of speed is absolutely silly.

-DA

But let's not get excited about "it went supersonic", then.

underhill wrote:

But let's not get excited about "it went supersonic", then.

No one is getting excited except fanboys and over the wrong thing. Especially comparing it to a DC-8. what's important is it does that without the drag penalties of legacy designs. That's what you should have noticed.

-DA

Just a point about supersonic capability. I think it's pretty well agreed that the F-35 won't supercruise. It therefore can't light the burners a long way out and cruise in supersonic on dry thrust as the F-22 can. (And indeed you could not make an airplane the F-35's size do that, no criticism of the engineers.)

So to go supersonic at all the F-35 has to light a colossal round-nozzle burner. Can one of the experts here (as distinct from me, elp or other manifestations of the global naysaying movement) explain how this is ... well..,. stealthy?

Going supersonic isn't a requirement for stealth or for penetrating threat airspace. Maybe you have heard of the F-117 and B-2? Or how about TLAM? Before responding ignorantly you might want to look into instances of combat aircraft going supersonic in combat.

-DA

That all depends on at what point you define super-cruise. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, or 1.5.

Quote:

I think it's pretty well agreed that the F-35 won't supercruise.

Sure, just like "all scientists concur" about human-caused global warming.

SpudmanWP wrote:

That all depends on at what point you define super-cruise. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, or 1.5.

Quote:

I think it's pretty well agreed that the F-35 won't supercruise.

Sure, just like "all scientists concur" about human-caused global warming.

And lets not forget about the requirements. Otherwise why not criticize the F-35 for not being hypersonic or capable of reaching orbit?

-DA

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Who is Eric L. Palmer?