GAO slams F135

All about the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the (cancelled) General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post28 Apr 2015, 08:48

Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, neither the GAO or CBO have ever been a reliable source. As a matter of fact I've never seen them get it right on any Defense Program. Hell, just go look up reports from both on the Super Hornet during it's development. They were just as critical as the one's today on the F-35. Yet, the Super Hornet is now considering to be a highly successful program..... :bang:


When a weak article or incompetent journalist criticized Russian equipment all okay way it is.
But when the same is done in relation to the American equipment it is a weak article from incompetent source?
The dark side I sense ie double standards.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2606
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post28 Apr 2015, 12:27

sergei wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, neither the GAO or CBO have ever been a reliable source. As a matter of fact I've never seen them get it right on any Defense Program. Hell, just go look up reports from both on the Super Hornet during it's development. They were just as critical as the one's today on the F-35. Yet, the Super Hornet is now considering to be a highly successful program..... :bang:


When a weak article or incompetent journalist criticized Russian equipment all okay way it is.
But when the same is done in relation to the American equipment it is a weak article from incompetent source?
The dark side I sense ie double standards.


This coming in from the guy who constantly harasses / pokes fun of / disparages US military equipment every chance he gets and points out the superiority of Russian equipment.
Offline

shrimpman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011, 13:40
  • Location: Dublin

Unread post28 Apr 2015, 13:22

That's just pride. He cannot cope with Russia being sent to the margins. Russians have been reported to own a super-weapon of this or that sort since long before I was even born. Their super-waepons were supposed to be absolutely unbeatable, years ahead of anything the West could come up with. And then time after time it turned out the Soviet/Russian superweapon was beaten and trashed and mauled in every possible war scenario or confrontation. Each time western and eastern hardware meets in combat, we get a Bekaa Valley replay. And even then they won't stop bragging about their next super-weapon. It's got boring years ago.
Offline

mikemag

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2015, 13:19

Unread post28 Apr 2015, 14:28

Russia has produced some fearsome aircraft over the years and I have no doubt the PAK FA will be formidable if it's ever mass produced. But to the F-35/F135 critics who want to say the PAK FA is more reliable, don't forget MAKS 2011.
Offline

gabriele

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2015, 19:42

Unread post28 Apr 2015, 15:15

flew about 47 hours between failures...... instead of the 90 hours planned


Where is that said, by the way...? I gave a (quick) look through the GAO and IG reports, and found nothing like that.
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 763
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post28 Apr 2015, 16:38

You are right Sergei : Russia spends a crazy amount of money on Defense programs.

About half of that ends up in the actual programs.
The other half "dissapears", or "leaks", into deep dark pockets on the way.

No wonder nothing can be done any more.
R&D is on its knees.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2606
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post28 Apr 2015, 17:27

Russia had a unique and interesting idea in the Caspian Sea Monster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster

Yet, Soviet Russia never followed up on it. It would've been one heck of a troop / vehicle transport.

But Soviet Russia wasn't wise enough to invest in it.

At that time, it had features that would've scared the west because of it's

1) Speed
2) Carrying capacity
3) Ability to be beneath radar, yet above the water

Sadly, Soviet Russia never invested more money into the tech to make it a unique transport platform.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post28 Apr 2015, 18:12

KamenRiderBlade wrote:..would've been one heck of a troop / vehicle transport...



...not so sure it would have, for sea states have a bit of impact on this vehicle. Two things are against it, sea water and sea state.

Sea water corrodes stainless steel and is ever so hard to maintain "against" that corrosion. Maybe why ships last only thirty years (not from corrosion, but exhaustion from the maintenance).

Sea States can be "Not Fun" when your mommy is not around to call you back home.

Sea State Wave height Characteristics
0 0 metres (0 ft) Calm (glassy)
1 0 to 0.1 metres (0.00 to 0.33 ft) Calm (rippled)
2 0.1 to 0.5 metres (3.9 in to 1 ft 7.7 in) Smooth (wavelets)
3 0.5 to 1.25 metres (1 ft 8 in to 4 ft 1 in) Slight
4 1.25 to 2.5 metres (4 ft 1 in to 8 ft 2 in) Moderate
5 2.5 to 4 metres (8 ft 2 in to 13 ft 1 in) Rough
6 4 to 6 metres (13 to 20 ft) Very rough
7 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 ft) High
8 9 to 14 metres (30 to 46 ft) Very high
9 Over 14 metres (46 ft) Phenomenal


These plane/ boats were a cute idea, but there are many reasons they ended up on the beach. :)
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post28 Apr 2015, 23:46

Unfortunately everything that happened with these two Oversight groups and their most recent reports was entirely predictable.

For example,

Lockheed Martin makes airplanes, so what do they recommend? --> Buy more F-35s
Your kids Orthodontist, what do they recommend? --> Buy more retainers, braces etc
The Roofing guy, what does he recommend? --> Buy a new roofing
The Government Oversight group, what do they recommend? --> Buy more oversight

Has there ever been an occasion where these groups completed their Reports and recommended that you throw their number away and not call them again because there was nothing for them to do but burn your tax dollars?
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2606
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post29 Apr 2015, 03:37

Please tell me we don't pay the GAO to do their jobs?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4205
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post29 Apr 2015, 04:21

archeman wrote:Unfortunately everything that happened with these two Oversight groups and their most recent reports was entirely predictable.

For example,

Lockheed Martin makes airplanes, so what do they recommend? --> Buy more F-35s
Your kids Orthodontist, what do they recommend? --> Buy more retainers, braces etc
The Roofing guy, what does he recommend? --> Buy a new roofing
The Government Oversight group, what do they recommend? --> Buy more oversight

Has there ever been an occasion where these groups completed their Reports and recommended that you throw their number away and not call them again because there was nothing for them to do but burn your tax dollars?


Exactly, GAO and CBO are thinking more about job security than the true facts at hand..... :bang:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5512
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post29 Apr 2015, 06:45

sergei wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, neither the GAO or CBO have ever been a reliable source. As a matter of fact I've never seen them get it right on any Defense Program. Hell, just go look up reports from both on the Super Hornet during it's development. They were just as critical as the one's today on the F-35. Yet, the Super Hornet is now considering to be a highly successful program..... :bang:


When a weak article or incompetent journalist criticized Russian equipment all okay way it is.
But when the same is done in relation to the American equipment it is a weak article from incompetent source?
The dark side I sense ie double standards.


A few quick points:

1. F135 isn't an upgrade of an old flanker engine. Russia hopes to have something close to the f135 in ten years. (The us developed f119 in 1990) if russia hurries they can still be only 30 years behind.
2. F135 hasn't caused nearly the issues seen In for example India. Where it is clearly affecting combat readiness. Su-30MKI used to be the crown jewel of flanker fans.
3. You are confusing "failure" before maintenence goals with "overhaul. " the issue with russian flanker engines in India besides the fact that they don't work on a daily basis (despite decades to perfect them) is that they require overhaul more often
4. In the us the GAO is rather famous for using suspect numbers and making poor recommendations. They were wrong about the super hornet and godawful wrong about the affordable care act back in 2009. Within months of that their numbers were found to be grossly maniupulated and biased.

Good luck on your inferiority complex and confusion
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2606
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post29 Apr 2015, 07:26

XanderCrews wrote:
sergei wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, neither the GAO or CBO have ever been a reliable source. As a matter of fact I've never seen them get it right on any Defense Program. Hell, just go look up reports from both on the Super Hornet during it's development. They were just as critical as the one's today on the F-35. Yet, the Super Hornet is now considering to be a highly successful program..... :bang:


When a weak article or incompetent journalist criticized Russian equipment all okay way it is.
But when the same is done in relation to the American equipment it is a weak article from incompetent source?
The dark side I sense ie double standards.


A few quick points:

1. F135 isn't an upgrade of an old flanker engine. Russia hopes to have something close to the f135 in ten years. (The us developed f119 in 1990) if russia hurries they can still be only 30 years behind.
2. F135 hasn't caused nearly the issues seen In for example India. Where it is clearly affecting combat readiness. Su-30MKI used to be the crown jewel of flanker fans.
3. You are confusing "failure" before maintenence goals with "overhaul. " the issue with russian flanker engines in India besides the fact that they don't work on a daily basis (despite decades to perfect them) is that they require overhaul more often
4. In the us the GAO is rather famous for using suspect numbers and making poor recommendations. They were wrong about the super hornet and godawful wrong about the affordable care act back in 2009. Within months of that their numbers were found to be grossly maniupulated and biased.

Good luck on your inferiority complex and confusion


As far as the "Affordable Care Act", my fees basically doubled to get the same if less coverage.

So how "Affordable" is it, it's a load of crap IMO.
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2015, 22:03

Unread post29 Apr 2015, 10:31

KamenRiderBlade wrote:As far as the "Affordable Care Act", my fees basically doubled to get the same if less coverage.

So how "Affordable" is it, it's a load of crap IMO.


My premiums were cut in half. So it all evens out. :wink:
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4474
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post29 Apr 2015, 10:50

mrigdon wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:As far as the "Affordable Care Act", my fees basically doubled to get the same if less coverage.

So how "Affordable" is it, it's a load of crap IMO.


My premiums were cut in half. So it all evens out. :wink:


Spotted the parasite. :wink:
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Engine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests