Forum: General F-35 Forum

Last edited by avxva on Apr 05, 2012 - 06:45 AM; edited 1 time in total

This is a really touchy group, I've never seen anything like it. My question was an honest one, if I shouldn't believe what is being said in Aviation Week and other news outlets, then what news (or report) would this group find alarming so I will know when to panic.

Not being an expert in these matters, but possessing common sense and the ability to reason, I'm more than a little confused:

1) To me, the Concurrency QLR is a shocking indictment of the program, but the consensus on the F-35 forum is, "whatever."

2) To me, being hundreds of billions of dollars over budget is alarming, but the consensus on the F-35 forum is, "no problem." (And every dollar over from now on is coming out of the buy with HUGE issues yet to be tested, much less solved.)

3) To me, being almost a decade behind schedule is horrible, but the consensus on the F-35 forum is, "so what."

4) To me, building 700 squadron dogs / mistake jets is stupid, but the consensus on the F-35 forum is, "that's normal."

5) To me, spending billions--no--trillions of dollars, on a jet that most probably will be technologically obsolete before it ever enters service is crazy, but the consensus on the F-35 forum is, "what's the big deal?"

You have to admit, if none of the above is a concern to anyone here, it is a valid exercise to ask, "What will get your attention?" "What has to happen before you begin questioning the program?" "Is there anything that will trigger that?"

These are honest questions, but I expect to be attacked again for asking them--it's like an episode of the Twilight Zone in this forum.

Al

F-16.net Sponsor

avxva wrote:

This is a really touchy group, I've never seen anything like it. My question was an honest one, if I shouldn't believe what is being said in Aviation Week and other news outlets, then what news (or report) would this group find alarming so I will know to panic.

Not being an expert in these matters, but possessing common sense and the ability to reason, I'm more than a little confused.

Mate, you said it yourself, you are no expert in these matters. Neither am I, that is why I tend to have open eyes and a closed mouth. Quoting others who are also not experts probably isn't the best start on this forum, where there are a few people who actually are. This is an aviation forum not a news outlet so there is no money to be made here by stretching facts and reinventing well known previous problems. (as media often does). When people start using terms like ''mistake jets'' shows they have not done any research on previous programmes and expect every preproduction jet to be flawless. F16, F22, F18 etc etc all had their problems, extra costs etc. Should the F16 have been cancelled because of problems in the FBW system? What about Superhornet wing problems and excess buffet? Or should the Raptor have been cancelled because of a mishap during flight testing?..Do you actually think that if Boeing had won the contract that there would be no issues? Yes the F35 has problems, that is why it's called flight testing, everything manufactured gets tested before you buy it, if Mr BS thinks all should be perfect from day one then "tell him he's dreaming". Oh and if we are playing the Trillions game then how much do you think keeping all legacy jets flying over the same timeframe will cost? Mabe, just mabe, the airforces of many countries might have a bit more of an idea than Mr BS.

I'll try and answer your question. I'm a strong supporter of the program but have been rather critical of the structure, management, schedule, and cost. From my perspective JPO was very poorly managed till Adm Venlet took over. The numbers on cost and schedule coming out now I trust he's gotten as accurate as possible. Both Adm Venlet and Dr Carter are on record as saying the program had too much concurrency. It's been scaled back.

What would concern me would be a major problem found in flight testing that seriously impacted the cost and schedule. Flight testing is supposed to reveal problems, however, so they can be corrected. Lots of significant, but not major, problems have been found but they're often blown out of proportion by those with an axe to grind.

The only thing that would really cause a bell to go off would be the unit price rising to the point we can't afford the numbers we need, which is certainly possible. It's going to be later than planned and this will have significant impact but it can be managed.

Frankly while I consider the F-35 to be a game changing strike fighter and assume it's going to perform wonderfully the world wouldn't end if the program disappeared, which there is no chance of happening. There are other fighter programs on the horizon including UCAS-D, NGAD (F/A-XX), and sharing some systems with NGAD the eventual F-22 follow on. If the F-35 is all it's supposed to be and we can afford the numbers required great. If not we'll buy less and these other programs will achieve more importance. Bottom line I don't expect the aircraft to fail to perform but it's entirely possible it fails in being affordable. That would be of very great concern; however, different customers (and many others) will have different definitions of affordable.

avxva wrote:

This is a really touchy group, I've never seen anything like it. My question was an honest one

They might have overreacted due to having dealt with a bunch of dedicated unreasonable aggressive F-35-bashing before. Sometimes people get that way in the face of a constant stream of nonsense; a newcomer shows up with a question that in any way resembles the nonsense they've already shot down a zillion times before, and they pounce on it the same way. I've seen it on other subjects. For example, a forum where evolution is discussed can expect to get a bunch of creationist crap, and get so used to destroying it that when a non-creationist shows up and asks what kind of evidence would be required to disprove evolution (which is a valid question for ANY scientific idea), it's treated as another round of creationism, instead of as the neutral curious question that it was.

avxva wrote:

To me, being hundreds of billions of dollars over budget is alarming, but the consensus on the F-35 forum is, "no problem."... To me, being almost a decade behind schedule is horrible, but the consensus on the F-35 forum is, "so what."

Not that it's no problem, just that it's predictable and expected for new aircraft in the modern era, including not only all of this plane's nearest competitors from Europe and Asia but even unrelated ones with simpler demands to meet, like the 787 and A380... and that being late and over budget does not make the plane ineffective at its job, or any alternative better, or the program overall a complete failure that needs to be cancelled. The objection here is not to the facts, but to the over-the-top inferences that we've gotten used to seeing taken from those facts by the religiously anti-F-35 crowd.

avxva wrote:

5) To me, spending billions--no--trillions of dollars, on a jet that most probably will be technologically obsolete before it ever enters service is crazy

It would be. So it's good that nobody's doing any such thing. or advocating that we should.

avxva wrote:

I know it make people angry to mention these things, but guys, the barn is on fire. But beyond having common sense and the ability to reason, I'm new to this so attack away!

No attack from me as you can't argue with the facts. And I should add i'm a big fan of the F-35. or rather its systems as they are fantastic but this is beyond a joke now. I hope the UK flushes its order and goes for Rafale as there is just bound to be yet further delays.

avxva wrote:

1) To me, the Concurrency QLR is a shocking indictment of the program, but the consensus on the F-35 forum is, "whatever."

The program was built on Concurrency and was mandated by the DoD, not by LM. Because they had waited so long after the F-16 to start the JSF project, the emphasis was placed on getting airframes in the air ASAP “knowing” that there would have to be changes made. Remember too that these initial decisions were made in much rosier economic times.

The QLR talks about concurrency risk, not about a risk to whether the program will finish or when. Their only concerne was that changes might have to be made and LRIP jets would have to be changed. News flash: that is the nature of the Concurrency Beast (which the DoD asked for).

avxva wrote:

2) To me, being hundreds of billions of dollars over budget is alarming, but the consensus on the F-35 forum is, "no problem." (And every dollar over from now on is coming out of the buy with HUGE issues yet to be tested, much less solved.)

It’s not “Hundreds of billions” over budget. According to the latest SAR report, it is $162 billion over “estimates” in Then-Year dollars. This includes both the SDD and Procurement budget estimates.

avxva wrote:

3) To me, being almost a decade behind schedule is horrible, but the consensus on the F-35 forum is, "so what."

The original IOC dates were to be 2010/11/12 (F-35B/A/C). Since the new IOC dates have not been announced (due next year), my guess is 2015/17/18, or about 5-6 years behind. BUT, the largest single contributor to the IOC shifting to the right is the DoD. The original plan was to have IOC declared at the BEGINNING of IOT&E, not after as the plan is now.

avxva wrote:

4) To me, building 700 squadron dogs / mistake jets is stupid, but the consensus on the F-35 forum is, "that's normal."

Read again the section above on concurrency as it was done this way on purpose. Did you know that the F-16 was also produced this way? They did not get a majority of the avionics and structural issues resolved (and produce a decent multi-role version) till Blk30.

Btw, Please don’t say “mistake jets” as that just makes you sound like ELP who is a dyed-in-the-wool JSF-hater.

avxva wrote:

5) To me, spending billions--no--trillions of dollars, on a jet that most probably will be technologically obsolete before it ever enters service is crazy, but the consensus on the F-35 forum is, "what's the big deal?"

To be obsolete means that there will be something better before the F-35 goes IOC. What will have a better RCS, radar, datalinks, IRST, ESM, avionics, etc by 2017? The answer is nothing.

avxva wrote:

You have to admit, if none of the above is a concern to anyone here, it is a valid exercise to ask, "What will get your attention?" "What has to happen before you begin questioning the program?" "Is there anything that will trigger that?"

These are honest questions, but I expect to be attacked again for asking them--it's like an episode of the Twilight Zone in this forum. Al

Revelations that we have been lied to, that the technology’s performance was falsified, etc would alarm me. Besides that, not so much.

fat_cat wrote:

avxva wrote:

I know it make people angry to mention these things, but guys, the barn is on fire. But beyond having common sense and the ability to reason, I'm new to this so attack away!

Al

No attack from me as you can't argue with the facts. And I should add i'm a big fan of the F-35. or rather its systems as they are fantastic but this is beyond a joke now. I hope the UK flushes its order and goes for Rafale as there is just bound to be yet further delays.

Christ no! Rafale costs more than F35 or has done in all of the competitions it's bid in barring the sudden and miraculous drop in price for the Indian bid (which is now under investigation!)

F35 or if that falls flat on it's face, SH please.

stobiewan wrote:

F35 or if that falls flat on it's face, SH please.

Yeah that's fine SH will do, Anythings better than having to wait for the ever increasingly delayed F-35. Enough is enough with this fiasco.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Yeah, I suppose his real job is complaining. If he can't come up with anything better than "let's cancel the F-35 and go back to building fighters from the disco era," then I don't really care for anything else he has to say.

People have every right to complain when a fighter jet takes nearly 30 years to get into service. It's a real p**s take.

fat_cat wrote:

People have every right to complain when a fighter jet takes nearly 30 years to get into service. It's a real p**s take.

I agree. Every single member of Congress should be ashamed they didn't stay out of LM's hair and just authorize whatever extra funding it would've taken to get it done in 15 years.

Smile

river_otter wrote:

I agree. Every single member of Congress should be ashamed they didn't stay out of LM's hair and just authorize whatever extra funding it would've taken to get it done in 15 years. Smile

You make it out as if LM is blameless for so many technical cock-ups when the fact is they are to blame. Some serious blunders and some not so serious but make no mistake they are to blame.

And sure Congress may be partly to blame but that just goes to show what a clusterf**k of a system the US has for defense procurement. The whole thing has been a serious embarrassment on a scale never seen before for the US.

If it keeps up the Chinese will most certainly have eaten you guys alive by 2030.
I wonder what the next line of excuses trotted out for this clusterf**k will be...

fat_cat wrote:

People have every right to complain when a fighter jet takes nearly 30 years to get into service. It's a real p**s take.

What dates are you using?

Have you looked at other high-tech fightres like Rafale, EF, F-22, etc for comparison?

avxva wrote:

This is a really touchy group, I've never seen anything like it. My question was an honest one, if I shouldn't believe what is being said in Aviation Week and other news outlets, then what news (or report) would this group find alarming so I will know when to panic.

The touchiness has nothing to do with Aviation Week. It has to do with Bill Sweetman, who has a record of extreme bias against the F-35.

river_otter wrote:

I agree. Every single member of Congress should be ashamed they didn't stay out of LM's hair and just authorize whatever extra funding it would've taken to get it done in 15 years.

They did give the F-35 program EVERY benefit, and what good has that done?

Lockheed Martin's product is now almost twice as much as they had promised and many years behind schedule. They should NOT have just written a blank check to LM whenever they failed to meet their goals.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Have you looked at other high-tech fightres like Rafale, EF, F-22, etc for comparison?

The fact that some other fighters took a while to develop is not a valid excuse as to why this F-35 program has been a long drawn out disaster on so many levels.
It's a screw up and anyone who can't see that is wearing rose tinted glasses. (I would say rose tinted glasses supplied by LM but if that were the case you'd still be waiting for them to arrive in the post after placing your order on Amazon 10 years ago).

Forum: General F-35 Forum

JSF - SAR Discloses Another Three-Year Slip