Forum: F-35 Lightning II

I don't have sound and cannot read the Dutch sub-titles, my lip reading is hopeless. Am I missing anything? Very Happy

Perhaps this series has been mentioned earlier. As they say in US TV Courtroom dramas "I don't recall".

DOCUMENTRY ON F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PART 1-5
From: BELAIR2000 | Sep 11, 2010 |

http://www.youtube.com/user/CallsignAS# ... QB4W8C0rZI

http://www.youtube.com/user/CallsignAS# ... h2Gnxa_fTw

http://www.youtube.com/user/CallsignAS# ... kssZua8MVc

http://www.youtube.com/user/CallsignAS# ... hGIglwmFB8

http://www.youtube.com/user/CallsignAS# ... S7O14nzrzE

F-16.net Sponsor

Yup. All of our favorite people get to do all the talking. I'm not worried about the plane's performance anymore; it'll still mop the floor with everything it's intended to replace.

The main issue now is cost, which can be traced to the fact that responsibilities (and career risks) have been spread too widely. If no one is facing any real consequences for failure, then there is little motivation anyone to stay on time and within the budget. "So what if the odd, program manager gets fired? We're all still gonna make money no matter what happens; they can't come after all of us." I would feel sorry for that program manager (he was probably getting snowed by everyone), but getting fired apparently did nothing to hurt his prospects of getting a nice cushy job in the civilian sector.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/5/prweb8501329.htm Go figure, the cycle goes on.

No consequences... except for our military aviators who need new aircraft that we can afford to give them.

To be honest, I've had a lot of the same criticisms of the program. I would also have taken the three airplane approach were it my decision: A fighter bomber, a CAS aircraft and a VSTOL aircraft. However, we've had this argument here many times and we're stuck with the 3-in-one aircraft because that's what the US Congress dictated we'd have.

All that said, my hope is that the F-35 succeeds and is affordable. We'll see.

Was the JSF the right approach?
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... r-asc.html

In terms of what the aircraft is capable of, I have to criticize those videos which portray the F-35's capabilities in a bad light. I don't agree with Spey's claims about it being ill-designed for its missions. It is a very impressive design. Except for CAS capability, I have little doubt the JSF will be a vast improvement over legacy fighters in most situations.

The second video however (regarding its massive cost overruns) is a very valid criticism that threatens the entire program. I agree that the initial estimates were far too favorable, but the fact they changed and added so much extra to the program has had catastrophic consequences. The 60-90% cost increases are no small problem, and the program delays are absolutely unforgivable because it means having to extend the life of legacy fighters by another few years beyond what was planned... resulting in further costs not originally accounted for in the JSF program.

I frankly don't care if people say this $120 million fighter is worth every penny for its capabilities... the fighter can't be in two places at once, and that's really what they were hoping to get for $120 million. The JSF was intended to provide an affordable fighter for the next century... not to outdo the F-22 in every way possible. The F-22 by all rights and purposes was over-equipped, making it significantly more expensive, and the F-35 is doing the exact same thing all over again.

stereospace wrote:

To be honest, I've had a lot of the same criticisms of the program. I would also have taken the three airplane approach were it my decision: A fighter bomber, a CAS aircraft and a VSTOL aircraft. However, we've had this argument here many times and we're stuck with the 3-in-one aircraft because that's what the US Congress dictated we'd have.

All that said, my hope is that the F-35 succeeds and is affordable. We'll see.

Was the JSF the right approach?
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... r-asc.html

Had they gone with three seperate designs it's almost a certainly one would already be cancelled and they'd be trying to make one of the remaining two designs fill the role of all three. It's not like they didn't study this thing endlessly, but at some point you have to $hit or get off the pot.

sferrin wrote:

stereospace wrote:

To be honest, I've had a lot of the same criticisms of the program. I would also have taken the three airplane approach were it my decision: A fighter bomber, a CAS aircraft and a VSTOL aircraft. However, we've had this argument here many times and we're stuck with the 3-in-one aircraft because that's what the US Congress dictated we'd have.

All that said, my hope is that the F-35 succeeds and is affordable. We'll see.

Was the JSF the right approach?
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... r-asc.html

Had they gone with three seperate designs it's almost a certainly one would already be cancelled and they'd be trying to make one of the remaining two designs fill the role of all three. It's not like they didn't study this thing endlessly, but at some point you have to $hit or get off the pot.

If the 3-in-1 JSF approach was in fact the most superior next-gen recapitalization plan to take (as opposed to an overlapping ST21 + F-16X type interim path), perhaps the most prudent and effective strategy would have been to instead design a common 2-in-1 CV and CTOL variant, along with a separate STOVL variant sharing the same engine and avionics? imho.

Excuse my dutch if I offended anyone.

That old man know Vietnam is OVER and we've progressed a little bit?

You want old guys? Very Happy

Here dese is:
http://blogs.star-telegram.com/files/wh ... -janes.pdf (193Kb)

Courtesy of SkYtalK: F-35: The high cost of concurrency October 27, 2011

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk ... rency.html

Quote:

If the 3-in-1 JSF approach was in fact the most superior next-gen recapitalization plan to take (as opposed to an overlapping ST21 + F-16X type interim path), perhaps the most prudent and effective strategy would have been to instead design a common 2-in-1 CV and CTOL variant, along with a separate STOVL variant sharing the same engine and avionics? imho.

I think a common engine and, to the degree practical, common avionics would have been sufficient. Then let the aircraft designers run free.

[quote="stereospace"]

Quote:

I think a common engine and, to the degree practical, common avionics would have been sufficient. Then let the aircraft designers run free.

Word

well... actually... I dunno. Maybe if one of the types was dry thrust only?

geogen wrote:

perhaps the most prudent and effective strategy would have been to instead design a common 2-in-1 CV and CTOL variant, along with a separate STOVL variant sharing the same engine and avionics? imho.

Excuse my dutch if I offended anyone.

Would have cost more money. Two design teams, supply chains, R&D efforts, engines (it woulda happened), etc. Like I said, it's not like they didn't do the trades.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Utube F-35 documentary series