Forum: General F-35 Forum

Frankly I don't think ELP would be allowed to Darwinise - perhaps he might be allowed to evolve. But whatever. Thankfully I'm nowhere near there in this Great Southern Land.

F-16.net Sponsor

SpudmanWP wrote:

Using subscription sources (that are not reported anywhere else) is akin to using an unnamed source.

This is what appears to be the Bloomberg article (or a derivative of it):

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-0 ... hases.html

Another issue is one that I have not heard about yet contained in this paragraph:

"The report identified 13 current or likely test issues of varying severity, the combined impact of which “results in a lack of confidence” in the aircraft’s design stability. They included the Navy version’s tailhook for aircraft carrier landings, the system for dumping extra fuel before landing, excessive aircraft shaking during flight and deficiencies with the pilot’s helmet-mounted display of flight information."

It goes on to say:

"The F-35 has had more retrofits and changes than planned with “the most challenging portions of flight tests ahead,” according to the 20-page report prepared for acting Pentagon weapons buyer Frank Kendall. A stable aircraft design is less likely to require numerous, potentially costly changes as test issues emerge.
The assessment, obtained by Bloomberg News, concluded that the combination of the required fixes and the lack of design confidence “supports serious reconsideration of procurement and production planning.”

RAM is not a skin-deep coating on the F-35. C.f. FiberMat.

The M4 Sherman was much much worse as a fiery deathtrap, and it won almost every battle it fought in. (Despite the fire hazard, and being outgunned and outarmored.)

hcobb wrote:

RAM is not a skin-deep coating on the F-35. C.f. FiberMat.

The M4 Sherman was much much worse as a fiery deathtrap, and it won almost every battle it fought in. (Despite the fire hazard, and being outgunned and outarmored.)

The F-16 Fightning Falcon (Viper) and M-1 Tanks had there share of critics just like ELP. Yet, both turned out to very succesful programs. Idea

mmm... M1A1...

Sorry, 19K flashback Smile

Last edited by luke_sandoz on Jan 18, 2012 - 07:50 PM; edited 1 time in total

Without Eric's hyperbole, exaggerations, hysterics and fear mongering - "the F-35C is at serious risk of never being able to land aboard an aircraft carrier" ( one of his better efforts at creative writing), this forum would lack a certain je ne c'est quoi . . . fun.

What amazes me about Eric is that his expertise and talents went so unrecognized during his USAF tenure and they didn't promote to head the USAF.

Such a waste of incite (Freudian slip, or maybe a miniskirt) and aviation expertise.

Cheers

'incite'? Yep dear ELP is good at that in the North Korean sense of 'dear'. Sloganeering is about as good as it gets with (help) from da GOON sometimes it seems (or) APA in general. And don't forget the Elmer FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).

stereospace wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

ELP is an EDITOR here now? What?

He's been an editor for a while now. Considering his opposition to all things F-35, I think he's done a commendable job of letting people have their say, in true, old fashioned American democracy tradition; which is more than can be said for many websites.

A discussion forum need people with opposing views. If everyone is in agreement all the time it would be boring, and one could just as well read Code One magazine instead. It makes it interesting

Wink

I like "informed" an "polite" discussions, not kindergarten name-calling spats.

I agree.

aceshigh wrote:

stereospace wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

ELP is an EDITOR here now? What?

He's been an editor for a while now. Considering his opposition to all things F-35, I think he's done a commendable job of letting people have their say, in true, old fashioned American democracy tradition; which is more than can be said for many websites.

A discussion forum need people with opposing views. If everyone is in agreement all the time it would be boring, and one could just as well read Code One magazine instead. It makes it interesting

Wink

No, a discussion forum needs people with informed opinions and willing to engage in open minded debate: the presence of opposing views is tangential. There isn't a need for more arguments based on shoddy evidence or rhetoric and ignorance.

Well I'm not defending use of shoddy evidence etc, but that is a valid argument to bring into the discussion (as people here do). I don't think it is fair to define people (for example ELP) as uninformed or label them as such and such. A lot of issues with the F-35 program deserve to be questioned and looked into, like the C model's tailhook. I say again that this would be a far less interesting forum without people who question the consensus around here. Sometimes I miss people like Underhill here, even if he was full of venom at times Devil

aceshigh wrote:

Well I'm not defending use of shoddy evidence etc, but that is an valid argument to bring into the discussion (as people here also do). I don't think it is fair to define people (like ELP) as uninformed or label them as such and such.

No, I'd say extremely biased and shrill is a more apt description.

aceshigh wrote:

A lot of things with the F-35 program deserve to be questioned and looked into, like the C model's tailhook etc.

Sure I completely agree. However saying this:

"The U.S. Navy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) known as the F-35C is at serious risk of never being able to land aboard an aircraft carrier."

Does nothing to "look into" an issue. Rather it serves to be a platform to fire off more anti-JSF rhetoric. The statement borders on the ridiculous, which is followed up by an article filled with near baseless assertions (NAVAIR and Engineers were overruled on the tailhook design? Really?) Personally, I would never claim to make unless I was part of said program in that room when the decision was made or had documentary evidence to prove it was true. Instead it illustrates more about the person making the claim and his personal biases.

Put it another way. Had it not been written, would the quality of the debate on the F-35's tailhook suffered? I sincerely doubt it.

aceshigh wrote:

I say again that this would be a far less interesting forum without people who question the consensus around here. Sometimes i miss people like Underhill here, even if he was full of venom at times Devil

I would suggest that if certain individuals were a little less shrill and more reflective, you'd actually still see a range of views and people could have reasonable disagreements on issues. Its simply the fact that we see alot of people who come on here who make the same, baseless criticism of the program, and then bash anyone who disagrees with them. It seemingly creates a major division between two "sides." In reality I've got serious concerns about the program, and I suspect that many so called "fanboys" do too.

Defense programs are expensive and see significant cost, performance and time slippages. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has an even basic understanding of acquisitions or casually looked at a program since the WWII.

As a final note, I'm not for just banning people or anything like that. Practically it rarely ends up well unless its agreed by most posters. I think this forum does a pretty good job of fostering discussion and having a decent range of views. It doesn't mean it can't be improved however.

Please do not ban Eric.

Humor is a priceless talent and a rare commodity. If Eric is banned, where else will he be allowed to ply hiscomical knowledge of aviation and all things F-35?

Where will we go when we need a laugh, a chuckle, a really good guffaw?

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 issues for the next cycle