Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Last edited by spazsinbad on Oct 27, 2011 - 01:01 AM; edited 1 time in total

Quote:

JSF: The First Decade by Bill Sweetman Oct/26/2011

"What if it had all gone according to plan?...

...The source of this alternative history? The schedule and program plans in effect when Pentagon procurement chief Pete Aldridge announced that Lockheed Martin had been selected for the JSF systems development and demonstration program, exactly ten years ago....

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

F-16.net Sponsor

This is a pretty pointless article. If Bill Sweetman had actually looked at the "number of days required between first flight and entry into service" of the last batch of fourth and fifth generation fighter jets he would have noticed that the period of time getting longer and longer with each successive jet.

Here is a list:

The Number of Days Between First Flight and Entry Into Service

That's some neat numbers. Shows the rapid change of pace.

One of the biggest drivers of upfront cost and time for the SDD phase of the F-35 is that they are putting EVERYTHING into the IOC version. By this, I mean that no initially conceived major feature has been left out for the IOC version. All the hardware is still there. Compare that to the other fighters built over the past 10 years.

1. The F-22 lost its cheek AESA arrays and AIRST (not sure if HMS was ever planned or not). Now due to budget cuts, they may never happen.

2. The Eurofighter's T1 had no A2G until the later phases of T1. T2 did not get A2G due to being total different software than T1. Problems in this area have recently been seen as they only used Brimstone (IIRC) in Libya.

3. The Rafale did not go IOC with a FLIR pod and did not get one for a very long time. It also does not have a HMD.

4. Neither the EF or Raf went IOC with AESA even though the tech was available (and the EF is still having problems securing funding for it's dev and production).

Eric Palmer said: "...the only thing the F-35 brings to the table is STOVL ops. And I don't believe in STOVL ops...." Believe? What's to believe?

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... -344134024

alloycowboy wrote:

This is a pretty pointless article. If Bill Sweetman had actually looked at the "number of days required between first flight and entry into service" of the last batch of fourth and fifth generation fighter jets he would have noticed that the period of time getting longer and longer with each successive jet.

You didn't honestly expect Billy to be impartial on this subject did you? Impartiality is something Billy simply isn't capable of when it comes to discussing the F-35 as we've all seen time and time again.

shep1978 wrote:

alloycowboy wrote:

This is a pretty pointless article. If Bill Sweetman had actually looked at the "number of days required between first flight and entry into service" of the last batch of fourth and fifth generation fighter jets he would have noticed that the period of time getting longer and longer with each successive jet.

Here is a list:

The Number of Days Between First Flight and Entry Into Service

You didn't honestly expect Billy to be impartial on this subject did you? Impartiality is something Billy simply isn't capable of when it comes to discussing the F-35 as we've all seen time and time again.

I see ELP is as yet again showing his ignorance regarding the F-35.
(Got anymore fake NATO briefings to report to us Eric? Laughing

)

@ Shep...... As a supposedly respected Aviation Journalist you would think Bill Sweetman would have a grasp on the fact that as jet fighters get more sopisticated they are going to take longer to design,test, and get into service. The fact that he doesn't understand this is rather an embarrassment to Aviation Week and a stain on its creditability.

SpudmanWP wrote:

One of the biggest drivers of upfront cost and time for the SDD phase of the F-35 is that they are putting EVERYTHING into the IOC version. By this, I mean that no initially conceived major feature has been left out for the IOC version. All the hardware is still there. Compare that to the other fighters built over the past 10 years.

1. The F-22 lost its cheek AESA arrays and AIRST (not sure if HMS was ever planned or not). Now due to budget cuts, they may never happen.

2. The Eurofighter's T1 had no A2G until the later phases of T1. T2 did not get A2G due to being total different software than T1. Problems in this area have recently been seen as they only used Brimstone (IIRC) in Libya.

3. The Rafale did not go IOC with a FLIR pod and did not get one for a very long time. It also does not have a HMD.

4. Neither the EF or Raf went IOC with AESA even though the tech was available (and the EF is still having problems securing funding for it's dev and production).

Apples and oranges comparison. The F-35 doesn't enter service with the full range of capabilities at all, the first aircraft are already delivered and severly restricted, in many cases even more than any other type before!

alloycowboy wrote:

@ Shep...... As a supposedly respected Aviation Journalist you would think Bill Sweetman would have a grasp on the fact that as jet fighters get more sopisticated they are going to take longer to design,test, and get into service. The fact that he doesn't understand this is rather an embarrassment to Aviation Week and a stain on its creditability.

Ok, I should have made my point clearer - I was actually agreeing with everything you said in your post. My sarcasm didn't come over to well so sorry i'm if I offended you.
I also agree with everything you've said about B.S in this post that i'm responding too.

Scorpion82 wrote:

Apples and oranges comparison. The F-35 doesn't enter service with the full range of capabilities at all, the first aircraft are already delivered and severly restricted, in many cases even more than any other type before!

But it enters service with a much higher level of ability and kit installed thats actually meant to be there in the first place than the likes of say the Typhoon. Typhoons AESA and lack of A-G capability being a prime example. I'm sure it'll come with a DASS that actually works out of the box too, unlike Typhoons which was broken for years, just ask anyone in the R.A.F who worked or flew it about that.
There's really no comparison.

Quote:

Scorpion82 wrote:

Apples and oranges comparison. The F-35 doesn't enter service with the full range of capabilities at all, the first aircraft are already delivered and severly restricted, in many cases even more than any other type before!

Good point - what will it be - 4-5 years before we have an operational squadron combat ready and for sure it will not be ready as per the 1996 concept. How far progressed are they with weapons testing?.
I imagine it will be about 2020 before we see the full 1996 concept as a full operational system. Most of the F16 Pilots who hoped to fly it will be ready to retire.
Also interesting how all the F35 Fanboys never miss a chance to knock "Sweetman" no matter how minor or petty the point - if they want to influence anyone why don't they give a reasoned response.
At least Sweetman gives reasons for all his opinions based on publicly available information.

rkap wrote:

Also interesting how all the F35 Fanboys never miss a chance to knock "Sweetman" no matter how minor or petty the point - if they want to influence anyone why don't they give a reasoned response.
At least Sweetman gives reasons for all his opinions based on publicly available information.

The how come you never really hear any complaints about Amy Butler or other Av-week journalists? The fact is B.S is not impartial hence the fact that people are always complaining and hence him being banned from reporting on the F-35 for a while by his own editor. He writes hit pieces with the aim of discrediting the F-35 program.
Someone should penn B.S a letter asking who's payroll he's on, just like B.S did to the SLD editor (and B.S got 'owned' in the process there).

shep1978 wrote:

But it enters service with a much higher level of ability and kit installed thats actually meant to be there in the first place than the likes of say the Typhoon. Typhoons AESA and lack of A-G capability being a prime example. I'm sure it'll come with a DASS that actually works out of the box too, unlike Typhoons which was broken for years, just ask anyone in the R.A.F who worked or flew it about that.
There's really no comparison.

Well if all that kit works fine, but how much is really ready and already used? The truth is the F-35 enters service with limited capabilities like ALL recent combat aircraft and it will need time to built up capabilities through blocks and mature. That's a very normal process. Teething problems aren't anything special either and to believe that everything on the F-35 will work out of the box is a VERY optimistic assumption. Show me a single modern combat aircraft which was thus far! It's apparent that you like other fanboys try to distract from simple facts by changing subject to another aircraft type and next time you'll complain about people derailing the thread with OT stuff. Rolling Eyes

Scorpion82 wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

One of the biggest drivers of upfront cost and time for the SDD phase of the F-35 is that they are putting EVERYTHING into the IOC version. By this, I mean that no initially conceived major feature has been left out for the IOC version. All the hardware is still there. Compare that to the other fighters built over the past 10 years.

1. The F-22 lost its cheek AESA arrays and AIRST (not sure if HMS was ever planned or not). Now due to budget cuts, they may never happen.

2. The Eurofighter's T1 had no A2G until the later phases of T1. T2 did not get A2G due to being total different software than T1. Problems in this area have recently been seen as they only used Brimstone (IIRC) in Libya.

3. The Rafale did not go IOC with a FLIR pod and did not get one for a very long time. It also does not have a HMD.

4. Neither the EF or Raf went IOC with AESA even though the tech was available (and the EF is still having problems securing funding for it's dev and production).

Apples and oranges comparison. The F-35 doesn't enter service with the full range of capabilities at all, the first aircraft are already delivered and severly restricted, in many cases even more than any other type before!

Sounds like the first F-16s

Scorpion82 wrote:

Well if all that kit works fine, but how much is really ready and already used? The truth is the F-35 enters service with limited capabilities like ALL recent combat aircraft and it will need time to built up capabilities through blocks and mature.

Like i've said before the F-35 comes off the production line with far maore capabilities than for example the Typhoon ever did in the same respective timeframe. Infact the Typhoon has only just got to the stage where it can use A-G weaponry in the last few years - the F-35 will have them from the start! Same goes for the AESA and a working defence system. There's really no comparison.
It's probably half the reason Japan dumped the Typhoon so quickly as they know the Typhoons near-mythical AESA won't turn up on time and its A-G intergration won't be to the level of the first lot of F-35's that they could get. You talk about F-35 'fanboys' whilst ignoring the facts.