F-35-Constructive Criticism?

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 09:13

cavok wrote:
a concurrent development program that has been reducing risk and eliminating problems


you are kidding, aren't you? Huge delays, overcosts and now uncertainty over the fate of 108 aircrafts mainly due to that approach.

Btw, i love your way to criticize Gilmore who probably has a much wider background tha any of us here....


You mean like Dassault Rafale and EF Typhoon didn't have similar delays and cost overruns? And how is this all any different to Dassault approach to fighter development?

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... t-history/
Offline

cavok

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 09:34

hornetfinn wrote:
cavok wrote:
a concurrent development program that has been reducing risk and eliminating problems


you are kidding, aren't you? Huge delays, overcosts and now uncertainty over the fate of 108 aircrafts mainly due to that approach.

Btw, i love your way to criticize Gilmore who probably has a much wider background tha any of us here....


You mean like Dassault Rafale and EF Typhoon didn't have similar delays and cost overruns? And how is this all any different to Dassault approach to fighter development?

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... t-history/


Rafale delay was not due to technical problems but financial/political. The decision to fially develop it was taken only in 1988. And the overrun was only about 5%...Nothing to compare.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 11:29

cavok wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
cavok wrote:you are kidding, aren't you? Huge delays, overcosts and now uncertainty over the fate of 108 aircrafts mainly due to that approach.

Btw, i love your way to criticize Gilmore who probably has a much wider background tha any of us here....


You mean like Dassault Rafale and EF Typhoon didn't have similar delays and cost overruns? And how is this all any different to Dassault approach to fighter development?

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... t-history/


Rafale delay was not due to technical problems but financial/political. The decision to fially develop it was taken only in 1988. And the overrun was only about 5%...Nothing to compare.


Oh, really? AFAIK, Rafale program was originally supposed to be about US$30 billion total program costs for something like 330 aicraft. Then it was revised to 286 aircraft. By 2013 there were less than 130 of them and program cost had soared to over US$62 billion. How is that not a serious cost overrun? What numbers are you comparing to get only 5& overrun?

Besides, financial/political issues are always a factor, but Dassault Rafale C first flew in 1991 and it still took 11 years before French Air Force received first F1 models and it took still until 2006 before it achieved IOC. There was about 2 year delay during 1990s in development but that was about it. It still took 15 years before French Air Force got to IOC. For F-35A it took just 9.5 years to achieve IOC from first flight. I'm sure there were zero technical problems which lead for Rafale to take all those years of development and testing... :roll:

F-35A will be Block 4 FOC after same 15 years with far better capabilities than what Rafale F1 standard could do.

I'm not at all saying that F-35 program has been smooth, but to say that Rafale or EF Typhoon programs have gone any better is totally false.
Offline

cavok

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 12:05

You mean like Dassault Rafale and EF Typhoon didn't have similar delays and cost overruns? And how is this all any different to Dassault approach to fighter development?

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... t-history/[/quote]

Rafale delay was not due to technical problems but financial/political. The decision to fially develop it was taken only in 1988. And the overrun was only about 5%...Nothing to compare.[/quote]

Oh, really? AFAIK, Rafale program was originally supposed to be about US$30 billion total program costs for something like 330 aicraft. Then it was revised to 286 aircraft. By 2013 there were less than 130 of them and program cost had soared to over US$62 billion. How is that not a serious cost overrun? What numbers are you comparing to get only 5& overrun?

Besides, financial/political issues are always a factor, but Dassault Rafale C first flew in 1991 and it still took 11 years before French Air Force received first F1 models and it took still until 2006 before it achieved IOC. There was about 2 year delay during 1990s in development but that was about it. It still took 15 years before French Air Force got to IOC. For F-35A it took just 9.5 years to achieve IOC from first flight. I'm sure there were zero technical problems which lead for Rafale to take all those years of development and testing... :roll:

F-35A will be Block 4 FOC after same 15 years with far better capabilities than what Rafale F1 standard could do.

I'm not at all saying that F-35 program has been smooth, but to say that Rafale or EF Typhoon programs have gone any better is totally false.[/quote]

First of all, French Air Force never got any F1 (only Navy as a stop gap emergency replacement of Cruze). First AdA Rafale (F2) entered service in 2006. So it is fairly normal that IOC for AdA was sanctioned in 2006 no? (As an example of development ad testing, first flight of Rafale, mach 1.3, first catapults launchs were successful etc etc).

Second, your numbers are wrong. see p78 http://www.senat.fr/rap/a11-108-6/a11-108-61.pdf . i cold aswell give you the snate numbers for Rafale cost for france (around 70 M€ / aircraft).
Offline

cavok

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 12:07

cavok wrote:You mean like Dassault Rafale and EF Typhoon didn't have similar delays and cost overruns? And how is this all any different to Dassault approach to fighter development?

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... t-history/


Rafale delay was not due to technical problems but financial/political. The decision to fially develop it was taken only in 1988. And the overrun was only about 5%...Nothing to compare.[/quote]

Oh, really? AFAIK, Rafale program was originally supposed to be about US$30 billion total program costs for something like 330 aicraft. Then it was revised to 286 aircraft. By 2013 there were less than 130 of them and program cost had soared to over US$62 billion. How is that not a serious cost overrun? What numbers are you comparing to get only 5& overrun?

Besides, financial/political issues are always a factor, but Dassault Rafale C first flew in 1991 and it still took 11 years before French Air Force received first F1 models and it took still until 2006 before it achieved IOC. There was about 2 year delay during 1990s in development but that was about it. It still took 15 years before French Air Force got to IOC. For F-35A it took just 9.5 years to achieve IOC from first flight. I'm sure there were zero technical problems which lead for Rafale to take all those years of development and testing... :roll:

F-35A will be Block 4 FOC after same 15 years with far better capabilities than what Rafale F1 standard could do.

I'm not at all saying that F-35 program has been smooth, but to say that Rafale or EF Typhoon programs have gone any better is totally false.[/quote]

First of all, French Air Force never got any F1 (only Navy as a stop gap emergency replacement of Cruze). First AdA Rafale (F2) entered service in 2006. So it is fairly normal that IOC for AdA was sanctioned in 2006 no? (As an example of development ad testing, first flight of Rafale, mach 1.3, first catapults launchs were successful etc etc).

Second, your numbers are wrong. see p78 http://www.senat.fr/rap/a11-108-6/a11-108-61.pdf . i could aswell give you the snate numbers for Rafale cost for france (around 70 M€ / aircraft).
According to Cour des Comptes, overrun was 4.7% in 2011.
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 365
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 12:45

cavok wrote:Second, your numbers are wrong. see p78 http://www.senat.fr/rap/a11-108-6/a11-108-61.pdf . i could aswell give you the snate numbers for Rafale cost for france (around 70 M€ / aircraft).
According to Cour des Comptes, overrun was 4.7% in 2011.


The link, from 2011, says the total cost of the Rafale program, in 2011 Euros, was 43.567 billion Euros. Depending on the month in 2011 you took the conversion rate, this means it was between $57.4 billion and $63.0 billion. How is Hornetfinn off? His source is probably Wikipedia's source which is from the same report from 2013, which states that the Rafale program costs 45.9 billion Euros in 2013 Euros, or $62.7 billion.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 13:05

cavok wrote:First of all, French Air Force never got any F1 (only Navy as a stop gap emergency replacement of Cruze). First AdA Rafale (F2) entered service in 2006. So it is fairly normal that IOC for AdA was sanctioned in 2006 no? (As an example of development ad testing, first flight of Rafale, mach 1.3, first catapults launchs were successful etc etc).

Second, your numbers are wrong. see p78 http://www.senat.fr/rap/a11-108-6/a11-108-61.pdf . i could aswell give you the snate numbers for Rafale cost for france (around 70 M€ / aircraft).
According to Cour des Comptes, overrun was 4.7% in 2011.


Ok, I stand corrected on that AdA got F2 variant although it still was a very long time from first flight to actual service to be merely political and/or financial problem.

How were my numbers wrong? I don't see much wrong with them. And how is that overrun defined? F-35A costs about same for USAF at the moment with engine included and prices are dropping still.
Offline

cavok

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 14:39

hornetfinn wrote:
cavok wrote:First of all, French Air Force never got any F1 (only Navy as a stop gap emergency replacement of Cruze). First AdA Rafale (F2) entered service in 2006. So it is fairly normal that IOC for AdA was sanctioned in 2006 no? (As an example of development ad testing, first flight of Rafale, mach 1.3, first catapults launchs were successful etc etc).

Second, your numbers are wrong. see p78 http://www.senat.fr/rap/a11-108-6/a11-108-61.pdf . i could aswell give you the snate numbers for Rafale cost for france (around 70 M€ / aircraft).
According to Cour des Comptes, overrun was 4.7% in 2011.


Ok, I stand corrected on that AdA got F2 variant although it still was a very long time from first flight to actual service to be merely political and/or financial problem.

How were my numbers wrong? I don't see much wrong with them. And how is that overrun defined? F-35A costs about same for USAF at the moment with engine included and prices are dropping still.


b) Coût du programme
Le coût total du programme, actualisé aux prix de 2011, est de
43 567 millions d’euros pour l’Etat avec le développement.
(see ref above)

Exact price of Rafale versions (2013 official Senate costs, not including VAT (documents are VAT included))
Rafale C : 57.52 M€
Rafale M : 66.65
Rafale B : 61.87
http://www.senat.fr/rap/a13-158-8/a13-158-814.html
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 18981
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 14:58

Has this forum developed a RAFALE disease? I'm here for the F-35 info - I would go to a RAFALE forum if I'm interested.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6832
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 15:47

cavok wrote:Exact price of Rafale versions (2013 official Senate costs, not including VAT (documents are VAT included))
So the subsadized cost.. Got it.


BTW people.. FIX YOUR FREAKING POSTS

For the love of God, stop closing the page after hitting submit. You need to review what your post actually looks like after the page reloads. The plethora of broken BBCode (mostly quotes) makes trying to follow a conversation a real PITA.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

cavok

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 17:06

spazsinbad wrote:Has this forum developed a RAFALE disease? I'm here for the F-35 info - I would go to a RAFALE forum if I'm interested.





i am sorry about that, i did not intend to bring Rafale in this topic. I was talking about F-35 program structure (a topic in itself) when someone brought it in no?
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 595
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 21:15

cavok wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Has this forum developed a RAFALE disease? I'm here for the F-35 info - I would go to a RAFALE forum if I'm interested.


i am sorry about that, i did not intend to bring Rafale in this topic. I was talking about F-35 program structure (a topic in itself) when someone brought it in no?


LoL, imagine if you did :roll:

When it's clear crystal that the Rafale had serious development problem - by the way the Rafale took about the same/similar time to develop compared to the F-35, a much more advanced aircraft - and then you deny this undeniable truth than what are you doing here?
The question is rhetoric since the answer is simply: Trollish Rafale propaganda!

The values that you posted are also laughable since you either can't read in your own language or you're outright dishonest! By the way here's what your link says about the Rafale costs, translated to English:

b) Cost of the program

Before the MPL project was taken into account, the total cost of the program for the State was € 45.9 billion. The unit cost (excluding development costs) of € 74 million for the Rafale B (for 110 aircraft) of € 68.8 million for the Rafale C (for 118 aircraft) and € 79 million for the Rafale M for 58 aircraft).

(c) Program development

The Rafale aircraft was heavily involved in the Harmattan and Serval operations. The results confirm the relevance of the design choices made at the genesis of the program.

The operational commissioning of the nuclear capacity of the Rafale standard F3 was pronounced in 2010. The first aircraft of series equipped with the sensors of new generation was delivered in 2012.

The situation of export prospects made it necessary to anticipate the delivery of aircraft to France. The delivery schedule now foresees maintaining a rate of eleven aircraft per year until 2016. After that, deliveries will be reduced to 4 aircraft.



So the costs in your link are:
Rafale C : 68.8 Million Euros (you claimed 57.52 Million € -> 11.20 Million € less)
Rafale M : 79 Million Euros (you claimed 66.65 Million € -> 12.35 Million € less)
Rafale B : 74 Million Euros (you claimed 61.87 Million € -> 12.13 Million € less)

And all the costs above don't include development costs.

Completely different from what you posted! Who are you trying to fool here?? :roll:

And also, care to explain why France is selling Rafale to India at cost well above 100 Million Euros (flyaway) and why did Brazil rejected the Rafale because it was too expensive? Still waiting for an explanation for this... :roll:
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1889
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5003
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 Oct 2017, 07:26

cavok wrote:
Btw, i love your way to criticize Gilmore who probably has a much wider background tha any of us here....


Wider background? In what? Where and when did Gilmore ever serve and on what aircraft?

Just because you are inexperienced doesn't mean everyone else is inexperienced

I'm all ears. Because Gilmore from what i have seen And heard is another over educated whiz kid. And I've seen those types get people killed and maimed plenty.

The DoT&E doesnt even write or test. Their job is to make sure the testers test and there is no fraud. Then they take the test reports others did and compile them and give an opinion as an oversight basically.

When did that non serving bearuacrat suddenly become beyond reproach and criticism?

I've got a dozen marines on my phone at all levels with combat experience, who will sing the F-35s praises, and they disagree(d) with Gilmore on many of his assessments. But someone like yourself would retort that gilmore has a wider background so their opinions and mine are invalid? I beg your pardon?

FFS

Cavok I'm getting tired of you taking a single example, taking that to prove the "rule" and then saying that's some kind of conclusion especially when you don't know what hell you are talking about.

Why on earth would Gilmore have any more background than people here who have flown and served and fought in actual combat?? And why would you assume he knows more?

There are 2 reasons

1. It fits your agenda
2. You confused position with competence

People like cavok are scary. Because they assume all authority figures are smart, competent, and looking out for his well being. Cavok is the kind of person that would help a cop execute someone because the cop has a shiny badge. Surely this cop knows better than you or I? Than any of us really? You disagree? Well me and my cop friend would like a word...

You think that this guy couldn't be the head of the DOT&E unless he was truly gifted in the art of testing. And that's not the case he is a beaurcrat. He's not a pilot, he's not a wrench turner, or trigger puller, or a chain dragger. In fact he is politically appointed. Which means he might just be barely qualified at all But is aligned with the people in power

And if you knew a god Damn thing you would know that. Instead you start arguing he's smarter than anyone here because he's the boss of pencil pushers? The head of an alphabet agency?

Let me guess you believe anything you read? If Gilmore suggested the Rafale was a total waste of French resources you wouldn't suddenly be singing his praises right? You suddenly start thinking much more critically and balanced, seeking the truth right?

Wrong actually. Cavoks manner of argument would be to then throw Gilmore under the bus then find the next well chosen soundbite from whomever and use that as a counter. (Derp sweden is keeping the old screens derp) And at no point then would cavok have to think. He could simply move from he said to she said indefinitely.

Because there is always people who disagree. You can find someone who says the holocaust never happened and cavok, will be right there to quote him. "Hey historians you're wrong. Soldiers who were There? sit down. This racist skin head says the whole thing was made up, and his background is impeccable other than the fact that he has no education or experience in the subject"

Yep let's watch again:


About pilots quote, i'd like to cite a former F-15 pilot...

Boeing is trying to gin up interest in an even more advanced variant, the Silent Eagle. Buying either of these for the USAF would be a great way to augment the F-22. But that’s just me … there are probably some on the Air Staff who think the same way, but they have to be very careful how they say it lest it be taken as a threat to the F-35 programme.



You keep quoting this like it some kind of smoking gun, you seem to be the only one who thinks it relevant. What am I missing here?

There is not a single surprise in that statememt. Boeing wants to sell airplanes, an F-15 guy wants to see more F-15s, and the budget means someone has to lose, and you always have to be careful about what you say lest a cavok take what you say and twist your words into a weapon.

There are certain people. "Retards" I call them, who will take anything that is not 100 percent in favor of something and then use it to sow descent. These same people then wonder why they can't get honest answers from people when the people they talk to know that anything less than 100 percent is some kind of rebellion. So it becomes a feed back loop.


You cavok are a "retard". Allow me to give an example.


If an F-35 pilot says 9 positive things about an F-35 and one bad thing, "retards" will then use that one thing (you've done this plenty already) to discount, discredit, or destroy the 9 positive things. So the next time the F-35 pilot speaks he is smart. He says 9 things, all positive. He leaves the 10th out because last time everything was ignored for the 10th. The retards then complain they aren't getting the full story, and there is a cover up.

Then someone says something like this F-15 pilot which is "you have to be careful about what you say" which is true because it's under a microscope, thanks to the retards. So we don't get a chance to hear more and get better balance or explore the issues.

Retards are often agenda driven, they can however also be ignorant, and sometimes they are just.... welll... retarded. But the point is the combination of those things.combine with little experience in the field has horrific effects in terms of ignorance and false conclusions that are then picked up by other retards.

Lastly in the military you will.never ever ever have 100 percent consensus. I know old Marines who think we should go back to the M-1 garand just based on the size of the cartridge. That doesn't mean the M-27 is suddenly "wrong" or the M-4 is obsolete. But someone like cavok would gladly take that quote and use it for his own ends. "Oh yeah? Guess what this old marine says... id like to cite this blog quote now what do you think about the thousands of 21st century marines who love the M-4 and M-27 eh??" The answer is I love and respect that Marine, but times have changed, and I respectfully disagree with him. It's not a bombshell or a surprise an F-15 guy likes F-15s and understands that procurement can be a political minefield.

There's literally nothing there and you think you're wikileaks because you're too dumb to know its nothing. You confused a yellow leaf for gold bricks

The sad thing cavok is you don't even realize how absurd and transparent this all is. Quoting and believing everything you hear is red flag for anyone here, especially those who understand the military world better than you.
We know there's always gonna be someone who has his own opinion, someone who disagrees that's a feature not a bug. Take your F-15 pilot theres been thousands of F-15 pilots over 4 decades now. They all have their opinions and they won't all agree. That's humans. But taking one opinion as the sole voice of authority? That's foolish. You don't even know his name or his background. That can give you insight into his experience and from there his logic.

"Oh yeah well this guy disagrees and he's smarter than all of you!" is hardly a rebuttal it's childish and you did it twice in the same post!!
Last edited by XanderCrews on 13 Oct 2017, 08:14, edited 3 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post13 Oct 2017, 07:58

cavok wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Has this forum developed a RAFALE disease? I'm here for the F-35 info - I would go to a RAFALE forum if I'm interested.


i am sorry about that, i did not intend to bring Rafale in this topic. I was talking about F-35 program structure (a topic in itself) when someone brought it in no?


I brought it in to compare it to some other latest fighter programs. Both Rafale and EF Typhoon were clearly as much delayed and run over predicted costs by wide margin. I agree that F-35 predictions on schedule were wildly optimistic and I thought from the start that it was not going to make it because it got so many advanced features and has three different variants. I'm actually amazed how well it has held to budget though and has actually become very cheap for those capabilities and costs have continued to fall and are still going down.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests