Forum: Program and politics

Pentagon's Best-Kept Secret: F-35 Fighter Is Progressing Nicely Loren Thompson 11 June 2012

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomps ... d=rss_home

"If you pay any attention to media coverage of the F-35 fighter program, then you know the Pentagon’s biggest weapons program is “troubled” (to use the favored adjective of reporters)....

...Wrong. The reality is that for the third straight year flight tests are ahead of schedule, the cost to build each plane is falling fast, and international partners are so enthused that new customers are getting in line for the F-35 on a regular basis (South Korea will be next)....

...Flight tests. Let’s start with the flight tests that are steadily verifying all the performance features of the aircraft. The program has surpassed its goals for flight testing in each of the last three years, doing 15 percent better than planned in 2011 and 20 percent better than planned so far in 2012. Collectively, the three versions of the F-35 have now flown well over 2,000 times, accomplishing more than a quarter of the planned tasks in a comprehensive testing regime. By the end of this year, the most common version of the plane — the one that will be used by the Air Force and exported to most foreign customers — will be 45 percent of the way through all its flight tests....

...For all the hand-wringing and delays, the F-35 fighter is gradually becoming an American success story. It would be nice to hear somebody in the Pentagon actually say that."

BEST to go to the URL above to read it all and don't complain about Thompson or Lexington Institute - we know already!

F-16.net Sponsor

Glad to hear some accurate reporting to shut up some of the naysayers.

Sorry Spaz, it's fun to complain!

Quote:

and don't complain about Thompson or Lexington Institute - we know already!

The source is a 'happy face' media mouth for the defense industrial complex.
The Lex. Inst. do produce some good historical perspective pieces tucked in between shouts of slavish joy for their masters.

pants3204 wrote:

Glad to hear some accurate reporting to shut up some of the naysayers.

Dr. Thompson is a paid consultant for Lockheed Martin.

Sure, we will start to hear good news from a certain point.
It's about managing expectation.
When the new JSF program chief office came in charge, what he needs to do is to separate him from precedents' failure, set new time line, set new expectation, a lower one, where new successful story starts.
So negative reports are all comparing against old schedule, old budget, while positive reports are comparing against new plan, new budget.

maus92 wrote:

Dr. Thompson is a paid consultant for Lockheed Martin.

And the average reporter is paid for what, sensationalism? Testing IS going exceptionally well. Prices ARE coming down, despite cuts in production orders.

The Bleeding Edge helmet is having its birthing pains, but whatever its flaws, the pilots are still saying they'd rather fly with it, as is, than go back to not having it.

Apparently the stealth goals were more than met, Venlet seemed very happy with those numbers.

The engine and STOVL flight controls seem to be performing better, much better, than anyone has the right to expect from a brand new engine design and brand new software. P&W and BAE should be proud, that's a major piece of technology development and tremendous manufacturing know-how.

Now if ALCOA can build those bulkheads so they don't crack, I think we may have a fairly spectacular little F-16 replacement on our hands.

About the only complaint I have is that it's not nearly as gorgeous as an F-16 or an F-22. That's a big disappointment to me. But guess I'll have to take advanced capability over looks. I can make that trade with aircraft, but I wouldn't make it with a woman! Very Happy

Frankly, I think the F-35 looks better than the F-22. The F-35 looks sculpted, while the F-22 looks like a banged up F-15. Now, that YF-23, on the other hand...

I put about as much stock in Loren Thompson's F-35 articles as I do in Bill Sweetman's. I generally assume the truth is somewhere between the two.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I put about as much stock in Loren Thompson's F-35 articles as I do in Bill Sweetman's. I generally assume the truth is somewhere between the two.

Here's an article by Bill Sweetman about an article written by Dr. Thompson in 2009:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 438707def0

That is old news 'maus92'. Wot has happened to Sweetman? Not much output these days?

I'd rather glean facts from writers rather than their opinions.

maus92 wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I put about as much stock in Loren Thompson's F-35 articles as I do in Bill Sweetman's. I generally assume the truth is somewhere between the two.

Here's an article by Bill Sweetman about an article written by Dr. Thompson in 2009:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 438707def0

Academic fights are so snippy. I say these two need to settle this with a cage-match.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

maus92 wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I put about as much stock in Loren Thompson's F-35 articles as I do in Bill Sweetman's. I generally assume the truth is somewhere between the two.

Here's an article by Bill Sweetman about an article written by Dr. Thompson in 2009:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 438707def0

Academic fights are so snippy. I say these two need to settle this with a cage-match.

Neither are academics. Certainly not Sweetman. Thompson is closer to one, but articles like this make me wince.

With this amount of money on the line, this many politicians bought and paid for, this many lobbyists hard at work, does it surprise ANYONE that Forbes would come out with an article saying how rosy the program is looking? This thing has reached the "too big to fail" point I am afraid. We already know it can't maneuver, climb with, or run away from the best 4th and 4.5 generation fighters. And two of the versions have no internal gun. Oh yeah, might I add that if you lose one engine, and you've got a $120 million yard dart. Those facts are troubling. Still, we don't know the results of the true acid test. (We damn sure better not, because it should be above Top Secret.) How far out can the F-15s equipped with the newest and strongest AESA radars detect an clean oncoming F-35? Same for a F-18 using its slightly smaller but still excellent AESA and it's ISTR capability. Those detections better not be possible until the F-35 is too close for it to matter, or we are going to waste a tremendous amount of money on this one trick, no payload pony. Because we have to assume that over its 40 year life, potential enemy aircraft will have radars at least that good.

And even if the plane's stealth is that good, will the unit cost be so great that we can only replace 1/3 of our F-16? That is the other key question. I'm sorry, but I'd rather have 1200 Block 52 F-16s than 400 F-35As. There are other very effective ways to defeat radar.

redbird87 wrote:

With this amount of money on the line, this many politicians bought and paid for, this many lobbyists hard at work, does it surprise ANYONE that Forbes would come out with an article saying how rosy the program is looking? This thing has reached the "too big to fail" point I am afraid. We already know it can't maneuver, climb with, or run away from the best 4th and 4.5 generation fighters. And two of the versions have no internal gun. Oh yeah, might I add that if you lose one engine, and you've got a $120 million yard dart. Those facts are troubling. Still, we don't know the results of the true acid test. (We damn sure better not, because it should be above Top Secret.) How far out can the F-15s equipped with the newest and strongest AESA radars detect an clean oncoming F-35? Same for a F-18 using its slightly smaller but still excellent AESA and it's ISTR capability. Those detections better not be possible until the F-35 is too close for it to matter, or we are going to waste a tremendous amount of money on this one trick, no payload pony. Because we have to assume that over its 40 year life, potential enemy aircraft will have radars at least that good.

Stick to the things you claim you know by virtue of your 'seniority.' You clearly know only what is available from public sources and therefore are ill, mis and dis-informed.

redbird87 wrote:

With this amount of money on the line, this many politicians bought and paid for, this many lobbyists hard at work, does it surprise ANYONE that Forbes would come out with an article saying how rosy the program is looking? This thing has reached the "too big to fail" point I am afraid. We already know it can't maneuver, climb with, or run away from the best 4th and 4.5 generation fighters. And two of the versions have no internal gun. Oh yeah, might I add that if you lose one engine, and you've got a $120 million yard dart. Those facts are troubling. Still, we don't know the results of the true acid test. (We damn sure better not, because it should be above Top Secret.) How far out can the F-15s equipped with the newest and strongest AESA radars detect an clean oncoming F-35? Same for a F-18 using its slightly smaller but still excellent AESA and it's ISTR capability. Those detections better not be possible until the F-35 is too close for it to matter, or we are going to waste a tremendous amount of money on this one trick, no payload pony. Because we have to assume that over its 40 year life, potential enemy aircraft will have radars at least that good.

And even if the plane's stealth is that good, will the unit cost be so great that we can only replace 1/3 of our F-16? That is the other key question. I'm sorry, but I'd rather have 1200 Block 52 F-16s than 400 F-35As. There are other very effective ways to defeat radar.

Why would Forbes be wrong? Who are the “we” and why should the “we”, in stead of Forbes, are right about the F35 can't maneuver, climb with, or run away from the best 4th and 4.5 generation fighters.

At least 10% of the F35 is classified, so the “we” as well have no idea what they are talking about.

The best and the “only” reference of a jet is a pilot that flies a jet! Advice … listen to the pilots flying the F35

Forum: Program and politics

Pentagon's Best-Kept Secret: F-35 Is Progressing Nicely