Official declassifies F35's instantaneous turn rate

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2530
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post07 Apr 2019, 19:12

Re: "PR"

There was nothing public about the down-select deliberations that led to source selction and eventually the contract award. As Metz points out, not everyone on a source selection team is an engineer, and therefore there are certain elements of a design that have to be communicated by some means other than just "data." Some things that are plainly obvious to engineers, are not necessarily meaningful to decision-makers with non-technical backgrounds. So, in some cases, you're pointing out why certain data has meaning and/or significance. That's what LM did; that's not PR.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1982
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Apr 2019, 20:13

sferrin wrote:
magitsu wrote:I'm not sure about that. Just yesterday I read how YF-23 test pilot, who had later flown also F-22 admit that they lost due to LM having a better handle on PR. With them losing due to the narrow minded engineer approach. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... yf-23-lost


That was nearly 30 years ago. Back when Sony was the be all and end all of consumer electronics. Things change.


Yes indeed, I agree with you sferrin.
Moreover at that time LM (which was teamed up with Boeing) was competing with its YF-22 against Northrop (which was teamed up with McDonnell Douglas) with its YF-23. So yes, PR should have been an important factor or one which LM certainly needed to put a strong emphasis on it.

This as opposed to several years later, after LM won the JSF contest with its X-35 in what was a "winner takes all" type of contest. Resuming, I would say that LM simply didn't have the need to put a strong emphasis on PR after having won the JSF contest and as such PR was IMO perceived by LM to not being needed that much (or being very secondary) during the F-35's development stage.

Things are definitely changing right now regarding LM/F-35 PR and I would dare to say that one of the main reason would be to win more export customers/purchases for the F-35.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2530
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post07 Apr 2019, 23:14

ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:
magitsu wrote:I'm not sure about that. Just yesterday I read how YF-23 test pilot, who had later flown also F-22 admit that they lost due to LM having a better handle on PR. With them losing due to the narrow minded engineer approach. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... yf-23-lost


That was nearly 30 years ago. Back when Sony was the be all and end all of consumer electronics. Things change.


Yes indeed, I agree with you sferrin.
Moreover at that time LM (which was teamed up with Boeing) was competing with its YF-22 against Northrop (which was teamed up with McDonnell Douglas) with its YF-23. So yes, PR should have been an important factor or one which LM certainly needed to put a strong emphasis on it.

This as opposed to several years later, after LM won the JSF contest with its X-35 in what was a "winner takes all" type of contest. Resuming, I would say that LM simply didn't have the need to put a strong emphasis on PR after having won the JSF contest and as such PR was IMO perceived by LM to not being needed that much (or being very secondary) during the F-35's development stage.

Things are definitely changing right now regarding LM/F-35 PR and I would dare to say that one of the main reason would be to win more export customers/purchases for the F-35.


PR isnt gonna help ya when youre having a major technical issue (weight) and you lose track of what youre supposed to be spending (or not...something on the order of 200M iirc) .
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5234
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 Apr 2019, 03:21

quicksilver wrote:PR isnt gonna help ya when youre having a major technical issue (weight) and you lose track of what youre supposed to be spending (or not...something on the order of 200M iirc) .


Frankly I'm amazed the DoD had the stones to stick with it. A stealthy, STOVL fighter, with internal weapons carriage to boot? Nah, that won't be difficult.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 399
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post08 Apr 2019, 10:40

sferrin wrote:Frankly I'm amazed the DoD had the stones to stick with it. A stealthy, STOVL fighter, with internal weapons carriage to boot? Nah, that won't be difficult.

Probably due to the never before seen scale of the partnership construct. When you get dozen countries to fund the development instead of eventual FMS sales. They had a lock on the whole 5. gen western fighter market with that project design.

Also the standardization of capability across the board means many smaller countries become very capable of pitching in joint efforts.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1982
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post08 Apr 2019, 11:12

quicksilver wrote:PR isnt gonna help ya when youre having a major technical issue (weight) and you lose track of what youre supposed to be spending (or not...something on the order of 200M iirc) .


Absolutely and I fully agree with you.

Basically what I meant or my point was that the engineering part can be helped by good PR but the opposite is not true - it doesn't matter how good PR you have, this cannot help the engineering part is, specially if the engineering part is lets say "sub-par".
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Previous

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests