POGO: Not Ready for Primetime

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5989
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 Mar 2015, 22:12

I miss the good old days when POGO and the GAO smashed the Rhino, don't you Maus?
Choose Crews
Offline

gabriele

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2015, 19:42

Unread post16 Mar 2015, 22:34

"F-35 not ready for prime time", brought to you by the authors of "Why Super Hornet is a super failure".

http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/comments/c341.htm
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23290
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Mar 2015, 05:54

An Anon Pilot Dumps Crap on the F-35 via the tube of Tony Carr.
The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35
16 Mar 2015 Tony Carr

Unbelievable

Source: http://www.jqpublicblog.com/the-little- ... -the-f-35/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Online

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2812
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post18 Mar 2015, 09:11

I wonder what POGO et al. would have said about F-16, F/A-18, F-22, F-14, A-10, F-15, AV-8, Su-27, MiG-29, JAS-39 Gripen, Dassault Rafale, EF Typhoon programs... All these required years and years of development before they reached even close to full capabilities. I don't think any of those aircraft had half the capabilities when they reached IOC compared to F-35 IOC. Which aircraft has had capability for BVR combat, drop guided bombs day or night, had helmet mounted sights, had air-to-ground targeting capability, had multi-ship sensor fusion, secure datalinks and electronic attack capabilties when they reached IOC? Actually which fighter aircraft has had even three of those capabilities when they reached IOC? Which fully operational fighter aircraft currently has all of those capabilities (or even close to it)? Fact is that IOC F-35 will be immensely capable and versatile aircraft and totally eclipses most of current fighter capabilities.

I think the "problem" is that F-35 is going to have such a huge array of capabilities that people don't understand that having even third of those capabilities is much more than all the capabilities current fighter aircraft have. I'd much rather engage modern enemy with IOC F-35B than pretty much any current fighter aircraft, maybe save F-22.
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post18 Mar 2015, 10:41

My first thought was, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," but re-reading what the pilot is claimed to have said, I'm not sure anything extraordinary was claimed.

He says "observations of a current F-35 pilot." Okay, maybe the pilot is a current pilot. The question is, when did he make these observations? The absence of evidence would lead one to believe that these must be musings from within the last few weeks, but the author doesn't give any context. I'm sure he'd rather you inferred that he and the pilot had drinks last week and this was right out of his flight logs from that very morning. However, the engine failure was nearly a year-and-a-half ago. Six months ago, they were talking about fixes. But they didn't stop flying the plane. There were restrictions on the plane (as there should be and as there are on all aircraft when issues are discovered. Remember the flight limitations on the F-15 when an example disintegrated in flight? And the limitations on two-seater F-16s when longeron cracks were found?), but are these restrictions still in place as of March 16, 2015? The article wants you to believe that, of course.

His complaints about the restrictions were hyperbolic (pun intended). Limited to 7Gs and 20 degrees A-O-A? The plane is "useless". I recall that in its waning years of service, the F-14 was limited to 6.5Gs in order to preserve the airframe. Did the F-14 suddenly become useless? There were still pilots who swore by the plane until it left service. And the F-16 is limited to 25 degrees A-O-A by flight software. Five degrees less and the F-16 would become useless as well? Obviously, picking and choosing specs and deriving blanket judgements about performance is a fool's errand, but the way this is written, we're supposed to believe that the G and A-O-A limit have crippled the plane.

The author leaves out all information about the pilot, since it might expose him to "swift and certain reprisal", although how many pilots are privy to this information? The Pentagon can't figure out who spilled the beans? Whatever, leave it to the reader to read between the lines. There are three different models of the F-35; each one has different performance requirements. Depending on which plane this pilot was flying, these limitations are more or less significant. He is quoted as having concern that "barely any testing will be done to these engines" [followed by a block quote by the writer which indicates that the pilot said something different than what's actually in the quotes, while it's still be passed off as the pilot's words. Whatever.] The Air Force version of the F-35 isn't slated to enter service until 2016. Are you saying that a year's worth of flight testing isn't enough to validate the engine fixes? The only F-35 slated to enter service near term is the F-35B, which leads me to believe this pilot is flying that model (which will make it easier for the Pentagon to track him down). If that's true, then the 7G limit isn't a limit at all. That's what the Marines asked for. The plane is performing as requested. The A-O-A may be limited, but the Marines are primarily tasked with CAS. I'm not sure that's a mission that benefits from high A-O-A maneuvers.

He complains about the lack of rearward visibility, but that's supposed to be addressed by the helmet. The final plane will have 360 degree visibility through the use of sensors, fused in the helmet display. You can "see through" the plane. Those helmets didn't become available until midway through 2014, so his observation that you can't "check your six" must date from early 2014 or before. As I said, the author of this piece wants you to assume that the pilot being "interviewed" is reporting on the current status of the premiere version of the F-35 (the A model the Air Force will field), when it's more likely these are the reports of an F-35B pilot from sometime eight to twelve months ago. Of course, chances are he didn't talk to the pilot, but there is some email from a pilot that got loose from that time period and is now being paraded around as evidence of the current state of the program. And there's always the possibility that he just made up the whole interview. However, if you assume the pilot was flying an F-35B without the latest helmet, then what he says isn't that extraordinary.
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 848
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post18 Mar 2015, 12:24

That article was worse than a pile of s**t. Anonymous pilot most likely = author's own sock puppet or whatever sh*t he wants to make up.
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post18 Mar 2015, 20:24

spazsinbad wrote:An Anon Pilot Dumps Crap on the F-35 via the tube of Tony Carr.
The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35
16 Mar 2015 Tony Carr

Unbelievable

Source: http://www.jqpublicblog.com/the-little- ... -the-f-35/

The guy is a budding "Reformer". Saw it last night via OpFor blog and had some observations :)
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5989
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post18 Mar 2015, 23:59

smsgtmac wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:An Anon Pilot Dumps Crap on the F-35 via the tube of Tony Carr.
The Little “Fighter” That Couldn’t: Moral Hazard and the F-35
16 Mar 2015 Tony Carr

Unbelievable

Source: http://www.jqpublicblog.com/the-little- ... -the-f-35/

The guy is a budding "Reformer". Saw it last night via OpFor blog and had some observations :)


Did he attend Lionel Hutz law school?

https://youtu.be/YZoQFVVXV2s?t=3m33s
Choose Crews
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post19 Mar 2015, 01:54

I kinda want to see an A-10 replacement program, just so we can watch POGO lose their minds about it being 'too technological'.

"DIRCM and EODAS? All it needs are flares, armor and engines mounted high!"
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post19 Mar 2015, 02:21

XanderCrews wrote:Did he attend Lionel Hutz law school?

https://youtu.be/YZoQFVVXV2s?t=3m33s


Naw. I looked him up at lunch today. He's attending law school now. Ret. (early?) LtCol C-17 driver. Commissioned after I retired, and retired after less than 20 unless he had prior enlisted time. I would probably be most interested in almost anything he had to say on Air Mobility/Air transport topics, but on Acquisition? Fighter tech? Rank amateur.
Trust me, he has to have had something on the ball at least at once upon a time to have made it through his Freshman year at ERAU: the distractions in Daytona Beach tend to weed out the less disciplined students pretty quick. So I've filed him under "intellect held captive by ideology and inexperience".
If his pilot friend is real, he's just another disgruntled meat-servo, perhaps having a tough time transitioning to the F-35 so... 'It's the plane!' . Little 'tells' like whining about the 'helmet size' indicate someone who has never worn anything other than a nifty lightweight unit (shoulda kept mine) which also has a much smaller OML, with a simple visor setup vs the integrated one found on earlier hats and now on the F-35's. I wore a Gen 1 helmet about 2006 and they're not too big IMHO: just bigger than the ones immediately before, but I'll also wager that if the pilot is real, and while he could have come from the A-10 with the giant canopy, most likely he came from the F-16 community with the slant-back seat which, as the F-35 seat is more upright --would make it harder to scan from 5 to 7 more than any helmet change. It also tells me the guy wouldn't be using all of the new tools at his disposal for keeping the '6' clear--if they're even all there yet-- including little things like setting up the PCD to best suit his need/taste, and using all his inputs to interpret what is happening ALL around him. Surprised he wasn't b*tchin about the number of controls on the HOTAS. In any case, the claim about BFM maneuvering was total BS and I'm willing to wait until the program talks about it.
I would find reliance on any one operator's opinion on PVI laughable either way-- given the number of pilots' that were involved in the design, development and maturation of the 'office'. There was extensive testing of the Pilot Vehicle Interfaces (perhaps hundreds of pilots' inputs; from 'mock up' to labs to simulators to flight test) and the overwhelming positive public attributable statements from the drivers taken as a whole.
Of course, for some people it is simply much easier to apply the standard Fallacious Circumstantial Ad Hominem and cry 'disaster!' and 'cover up!' to suit their predisposed views or mood. But you'll never get to the root of their 'argument' you'll never find one that isn't just a tarted up opinion. Hey! I'm now mildly curious if his 'pilot friend' was one of those "get gunned every time"guys from a couple of years ago. It would explain much.

Update: Mr. Carr has responded FWIW. Found out right after I left here .
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Previous

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest