F-35 Is Now the Air Force’s Second-largest Fighter Fleet

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4441
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post12 May 2021, 13:56

That's a fair point, but I still think an F-35 PR department would have helped..

Consider the Sprey narrative: "Can't turn, Can't climb, Can't run". 3 points in 6 words, easy to understand and even easier to remember. Sure it's all false, but the media never let facts get in the way of a good story. A similar narrative speaking to the true capabilities of the aircraft would have helped in the public's perception, and may have done the same with Congress. If that had been done, we might not be building new F-15's and don't even get me going on this "kingsnake" idea..

I'm not sure how I feel about the claim of it being USAF's 2nd most numerous fighter, if only for the F-15 comparison. 400+ Eagles is the same airframe to me, the same aircraft no matter which version. Still, that number will continue to grow and hopefully eclipse the 1,000 F-16's or so we currently field. I would however, like to see as many of these aircraft sent to the boneyard as possible. So much capability, it seems they have so much life left in them. Better to have them and not need them, then need them and not have them..

The F-35 is here and just in time to restore our qualitative edge.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3249
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 May 2021, 14:28

krieger22 wrote:From what I understand based on conversations with people with more contact with the LM sales team, they prefer to let the performance evaluations do the talking instead of the hype packs other manufacturers put out.


Sure and that would have worked extremely well in the Pre-Internet era.
However in these modern Internet days it's very easy to influence the masses (both negatively and positively) so that they preconceive an idea that something is 'bad' or 'good'. And in western and democratic countries it's the masses that vote and choose their leaders which means that the leaders are also subjected to the same influence.
And again IMO, I think that the lack of an effective PR strategy is hampering the F-35 with the points mentioned by mixelflick (Congress, F-15s and the "kingsnake" idea) being potential examples of this.
Another example of this is Canada which first selected the F-35 and after this a new PM was elected which promised to buy a "cheaper fighter aircraft instead of an expensive stealth fighter-bomber". Of course that and fast-forwarding to today the F-35 seem to be the favorite contender in Canada (likely due to the "performance evaluations" that you mentioned above) but the harm is already done -> the F-35 will enter much later into RCAF service which means that Canadian companies have lost business opportunities regarding the F-35 and the government had to waste millions (billions?) in keeping their old Hornet fleet in flying and combat conditions. And all of this because the elected PM felt for what the media said which is partly based on the (better) PR from other companies such and namely as Boeing and even Saab.


krieger22 wrote:As a counterpoint there's the Gripen E, which has the backing of all the credulous idiots with a Twitter account in addition to Saab's slickly produced PR materials "SMAAAART FIGHTER", and has so far completely failed to land any export orders outside of Brazil.


Like with everything else in life, the 'mid term' is the correct way - Not having or having a weak PR is bad and this for all the reasons previously mentioned but of course having too much PR specially if the product doesn't meet the PR's expectations/rethoric is also very bad. And IMO, this is exactly what is happening with Saab and Gripen E/F.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25910
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 May 2021, 15:08

IF ONLY PR could make the world a better place I'd be all for it. The internet changes everything. We have some blaming the so-called 'left wing media' or whatever the 'right wing nut jobs' call them (I use these pejorative terms to illustrate my point). IF the internet relies on page views by click bait for advertising revenue I BLAME the ADS! :roll: Doesn't make sense - rite? (yes I know). None of this makes sense because none of us know the real capabilities of the F-35. WE ALL HAVE OUR LOONYBERG Lens on - viewing a murky (as told by good and bad PR) picture of the F-35. A better F-35 LM / USER PR department will NOT fix the issue. The world/internet is VAST, bad MEMEs persist despite your best efforts. DEAL WITH IT.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3249
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 May 2021, 18:51

spazsinbad wrote:IF ONLY PR could make the world a better place I'd be all for it.


No, no. I guess you got me wrong.
I would say that PR makes (or often makes) the world a worse place instead of a better one. Unfortunately the best way to fight PR seems to be with PR (ou counter-PR if you will).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 841
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post12 May 2021, 23:25

WTF?
The Air Force wants to downsize from 7 types of fighter jets to a mix of 4, plus the A-10 Warthog. But noticeably absent from Gen. CQ Brown's list? The F-22 Raptor & F-15E Strike Eagle

Air Force Chief Hints At Retiring the F-22 Raptor in Fighter Downsize

https://twitter.com/Oriana0214/status/1 ... 2432902151

CQB adding to his previous weird statements. Now F-22 supposedly isn't wanted but somehow A-10 might be for a while. :doh:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3249
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 May 2021, 01:30

magitsu wrote:WTF?
The Air Force wants to downsize from 7 types of fighter jets to a mix of 4, plus the A-10 Warthog. But noticeably absent from Gen. CQ Brown's list? The F-22 Raptor & F-15E Strike Eagle

Air Force Chief Hints At Retiring the F-22 Raptor in Fighter Downsize

https://twitter.com/Oriana0214/status/1 ... 2432902151

CQB adding to his previous weird statements. Now F-22 supposedly isn't wanted but somehow A-10 might be for a while. :doh:


WOW, that Gen (Charlie) Brown is really a "piece of work"... :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7546
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 May 2021, 01:40

ricnunes wrote:
magitsu wrote:WTF?
The Air Force wants to downsize from 7 types of fighter jets to a mix of 4, plus the A-10 Warthog. But noticeably absent from Gen. CQ Brown's list? The F-22 Raptor & F-15E Strike Eagle

Air Force Chief Hints At Retiring the F-22 Raptor in Fighter Downsize

https://twitter.com/Oriana0214/status/1 ... 2432902151

CQB adding to his previous weird statements. Now F-22 supposedly isn't wanted but somehow A-10 might be for a while. :doh:


WOW, that Gen (Charlie) Brown is really a "piece of work"... :roll:


He may know a little more than you.... :wink:
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 864
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post13 May 2021, 02:03

magitsu wrote:WTF?
The Air Force wants to downsize from 7 types of fighter jets to a mix of 4, plus the A-10 Warthog. But noticeably absent from Gen. CQ Brown's list? The F-22 Raptor & F-15E Strike Eagle

Air Force Chief Hints At Retiring the F-22 Raptor in Fighter Downsize

https://twitter.com/Oriana0214/status/1 ... 2432902151

CQB adding to his previous weird statements. Now F-22 supposedly isn't wanted but somehow A-10 might be for a while. :doh:


The F-22 has short legs, old avionics, high maintenance stealth coatings, and a large infared signature. Plus you can get two F-35A's for the price of one F-22, which essentially allows you be two places at once.

The F-15 was designed using a slide rule in the late 1960's to the early 70's. It is time to send it the bone yard.
Offline

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3032
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post13 May 2021, 02:45

Keeping A-10 around is pointless.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7546
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 May 2021, 03:21

Keeping the A-10 and buying the F-15EX. Is making it harder to buy more F-35's and keep the F-22...... :?
Offline

herciv

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 08:24

Unread post13 May 2021, 08:33

Lockheed-Backed Reps Lobby Against F-35 Spending Cuts
https://thebrick.house/lockheed-backed- ... ding-cuts/
And the letter here : https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... _final.pdf
by David Moore
in Sludge
May 12, 2021

The F-35 joint strike fighter, the most expensive weapons program in history, is finally facing tough questions about its future after chronic delays and cost overruns. But over 150 members of Congress are arguing that the dysfunctional aircraft must keep its high level of funding next year, lest the U.S.—which spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined—fall behind in air superiority to “adversaries like China and Russia.”

On April 28, a bipartisan group of 132 House members put out a letter calling on Congress to continue with F-35 production, procurement, and “robust investment,” citing concerns that any spending reduction would lead to a “capability gap that legacy aircraft or new variants thereof cannot fulfill.”

The letter was led by the four co-chairs of the Joint Strike Fighter Caucus: Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.), Marc Veasey (D-Tex.), Michael Turner (R-Ohio), and Chris Stewart (R-Utah). A group of twenty bipartisan senators followed-up with their own pro-F-35 letter released on May 5.

The cost of the F-35 program has nearly doubled to well over $428 billion since its initial estimate of $233 billion in 2001. Annual defense bills by Congress have pushed tens of billions of dollars into the troubled program even as it suffers from a host of technical maladies, bringing the 50-year operating cost of the F-35 to a gigantic $1.727 trillion of public money authorized. Last year, Congress’ defense budget funded 17 more of the planes than the Pentagon requested.

This year, progressives in Congress are renewing calls for President Biden to significantly reduce the military budget, as they called for last summer during the coronavirus pandemic under President Trump.

Even some hawkish Democratic members of Congress with jurisdiction over the Pentagon budget have joined in advocating for reduced spending on the F-35, which in recent months has seen its official support within the Pentagon begin to wane. The powerful House Armed Services Committee Chair Adam Smith (D-Wash.) criticized the jet’s runaway costs, saying, “I want to stop throwing money down that particular rathole” and suggesting the Pentagon find a way to “cut our losses.” Two Democratic subcommittee chairs said last week that they’re wary of adding any more F-35s than the Pentagon requests to the FY2022 defense budget, which is still being developed as part of Biden’s federal budget proposal. The F-35 is one of a handful of projects mentioned in a Feb. 17 memo by Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks as being under Pentagon review for potential cuts in acquisitions.

The House letter to the chairs and ranking members of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee claims, “The F-35 is the only fighter in production that can produce aircraft in the numbers required to recapture our aging fighter force.” It reads, “The F-35 is a great deterrent for the near peer threats of China and Russia; and as such, we urge the committees to support readiness (sustainment), rate (production ramp) and relevance (modernization) for both the airframe (F-35) and the propulsion system (F135).”

The Joint Strike Fighter Caucus is composed of 27 representatives—seven Democrats and 20 Republicans—who led a similar letter last year calling for continued spending on the F-35 program. The caucus was founded in 2011 to prevent F-35 budget cuts by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.), who was the House’s top recipient of cash from Lockheed Martin’s PAC and employees last cycle at nearly $198,000, and then-Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), whose top career contributors were mostly military contractors, including Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin, the largest defense contractor in the world, is the prime contractor on the F-35 Lightning II program, which Pentagon watchdogs have tracked has been riddled with structural deficiencies and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Last year, Lockheed received $72.3 billion from the Department of Defense according to Bloomberg Government, and the company gets around 70% of its revenue from the federal government, making it one of the “pure-play” military contractors. The Pentagon’s former chief weapons buyer, Frank Kendall, told 60 Minutes in a 2014 interview that the faulty F-35 represented “acquisition malpractice.”

Earlier this year, Dan Grazier, a military analyst with the nonpartisan Project On Government Oversight (POGO), told me about Lockheed’s strategies to keep the F-35’s budget sacrosanct. “All the defense contractors use campaign donations to increase their influence on Capitol Hill. Even more important than that, they also spread contracts and subcontracts all over the country,” Grazier said. “The economic impact and the appearance of jobs created among their constituents tends to make members of Congress vocal advocates for particular programs.”

Lockheed’s PAC donated to 25 of the Joint Strike Fighter Caucus members in the 2020 election cycle, not all of whom signed the letter, averaging $7,120, according to Sludge’s review of data from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Eleven of the reps received the per-cycle $10,000 maximum from Lockheed’s PAC, and combined with employee donations, entities affiliated with Lockheed gave over $426,000 to caucus members last cycle. By comparison, to 324 other reps who received PAC contributions from Lockheed, the company’s PAC and employees gave an average of $5,140.
Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) speaks during a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, April 15, 2021. (Al Drago/Pool via AP)

Caucus co-chair Turner was the third-highest House recipient of contributions from Lockheed’s PAC and employees at $64,350, according to CRP. Each of the F-35 letter’s three other organizers—Larson, Veasy, and Stewart—received the per-cycle maximum of $10,000 from Lockheed’s PAC in the 2020 cycle.

Lockheed has been the second-highest career donor to Turner, who represents Ohio’s Tenth Congressional District encompassing much of Dayton, at over $162,000. The defense aerospace industry has been Turner’s third-largest career backer with over $504,000 contributed, according to CRP. For his GOP colleague Stewart, defense contractors have also been top campaign contributors, with Lockheed’s PAC giving a total of $40,000.

Over his career, twelve-term Democratic Rep. Larson has received over $584,000 in contributions from the defense industry, making it his sixth-highest industry donor according to CRP. Weapons contractor Raytheon, which manufactures sensor systems for the F-35, is Larson’s top career donor, with $407,225 given. Lockheed’s PAC and employees have contributed a total of $92,700 to Larson’s campaigns.

Among the letter’s 132 signers are representatives who hold, or recently held, personal investments in Lockheed Martin stock while they advocate for billions of dollars in continued spending on its weapons systems. In the 2019 financial disclosure report for Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), he discloses holding up to $15,000 in Lockheed through a joint trust called the Hern Family Foundation. On July 27, 2020, he reported purchasing an investment in Lockheed in an amount between $1,000 and $15,000, described as a subholding of Kevin Hern Insurance Trust.

Letter signer Rep. Daniel Meuser (R-Penn.) holds up to $15,000 in Lockheed stock, according to his annual financial disclosure for 2019 with the office of the House clerk.

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), another signer, reported that his spouse bought up to $15,000 worth of Lockheed Martin stock on Dec. 31, 2019, and sold up to the same amount of Lockheed stock on Aug. 7, 2020. Courtney had also signed last year’s letter calling for continued F-35 spending while his spouse likely held shares of Lockheed.

Last July, the House and Senate considered an amendment brought by Progressive Caucus leaders Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), as well as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), that would have cut the Pentagon’s budget by 10% to reallocate funding to healthcare, education, and other needs.

While the amendment did not succeed in either chamber, Pentagon watchdogs described it as the first time in years that cuts to the bloated military budget were the subject of a full House vote. A 2018 POGO report on the Pentagon’s revolving door found that Lockheed, like other top weapons contractors, hires dozens of former senior government officials as lobbyists or company directors to secure Department of Defense contracts.

Progressive advocacy group Win Without War is tracking the members of Congress who publicly support this year’s proposed reduction in the Pentagon budget, and those who supported last year’s amendment to prioritize shifting some $74 billion to pandemic response.
Offline

herciv

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 08:24

Unread post13 May 2021, 09:05

Pentagon to Seek 85 F-35 Jets in Next Year’s Budget Request
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/pentagon-to ... -1.1603122
Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg News

(Bloomberg) -- The Biden administration will seek $11 billion to buy 85 Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 jets in the coming fiscal year, tracking a plan outlined last year by the Trump administration, according to a U.S. official.

With a $715 billion budget request for fiscal year 2022, the Pentagon had considered increasing the quantity of next-generation fighters it planned to buy but decided to instead focus on using additional funding to upgrade the F-35 with new capabilities every six months, the official said.
(..)
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3249
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 May 2021, 14:13

Corsair1963 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
WOW, that Gen (Charlie) Brown is really a "piece of work"... :roll:


He may know a little more than you.... :wink:


And he may be incompetent as well (it wouldn't be the first time in history that incompetent people reach so high positions) :wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7117
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 May 2021, 18:51

mixelflick wrote:The reality is this: Perception IS reality..


No. budgets are reality. The US along is buying 85 F-35s this year. Why do you count that as some kind of "loss?"

every year the F-35 gets more nations aboard, produces more airplanes, for less money. As far as reality is concerned its completely and utterly winning everywhere but the internet.

This is of great concern for you for some reason

And PR can sway perception. Pierre Sprey and others went on major news outlets and gave their 2cents on various shows (the Fifth Estate, maybe 60 minutes I can't remember now), but they were right there, front and center bad mouthing the F-35.


it can sway, but has it?

60 minutes was actually bashed by the naysayers for presenting the F-35 in a positive light. It was very comical. the day before the show came on all the anti F-35 people on the internet were licking their chops. After the show aired all the pro F-35 people were laughing.

Where were the Lockheed designers, USAF people who wrote the specs (and more importantly, WHY the specs are what they are)? There was no balance, and no historical context. This has happened to virtually every major US weapons system in recent memory - so it was predictable/inevitable.


they've been everywhere, you've been selectively confirming your bias. The worst place for F-35 people in Uniform has been Canada, where members of the military are barred from speaking about it even before Trudeau, and then the additional gag orders after Trudeau.



APA might be a joke to people in the know, but to the public? They don't know, so only know what they hear. And politicians aren't immune, they watch the same programs and form the same opinions.


APA is a joke and its increasingly irrelevant, its been irrelevant for years now in fact.

Will it cost money for a PR dept? Absolutely. But I think at least in the F-35's case, it would have been money well spent...


most companies already do have PR departments as does the US military and the pentagon itself. APA didn't hurt the F-35 nearly as much as the loudmouth USAF boss. We expect APA to say really stupid crap in an attempt to undermine the F-35, but when the USAF boss does it, that actually carries some weight. When the nation/service spearheading the endeavor displays hesitation, thats a bigger hit than all the APA propaganda in the world. You have US officials calling it "A piece of S**t" and a "rathole"

So what makes you think anything said on the internet is somehow more damning than that?? "but guys there's an Australian website out there that says..." honest question.

What amount of "PR" is going to "spin" what the officials bluntly say on the program? Im all ears. please enlighten me. I want to know how the USAF disagrees with its own top general.



ricnunes wrote:
I always thought (and still have this opinion) that when it comes to PR and the F-35, Lockheed Martin did a pretty bad job (again IMO, others I believe will probably disagree with me). And I have the idea that it took long (several years) for LM to take PR more seriously. I guess a good example of this would be the F-35 'can't turn' rhetoric which the immediate response was something in the lines of - The F-35 doesn't need to dogfight - and took several years for finally LM try to dismiss this 'can't turn' by putting Billie Flynn in the controls of a F-35 during an airshow to demonstrate the aircraft's agility (but then again and IMO, this took way too many years to happen).



its very much based on perception, for the first half of the 2010s especially (and to this day, though not nearly as much) every piece of good news about the F-35 was dismissed as "lockheed PR" or "pentagon PR" I saw it many times. When the USMC declared VMFA-121 IOC in 2015, many on the internet dismissed the years of hardwork and meeting a government set series of unbreakable standards as a "PR stunt" it was very insulting to say the least.

So for the better or worse the world has changed and now most people have access to all sorts of info (many of it being garbage) so yes, aerospace companies will need to take PR much more seriously than ever before and like you said perhaps creating dedicated PR departments (in case they don't have it already).


they've had PR departments since before your parents were even born, I assure you. whether they called them "PR departments" or "the boys in marketing" or whatever. And a lot of what you see is indeed company propoganda, from other aircraft companies and PR depts.

You guys shouting about needing "better PR" is like a man standing above a factory floor and yelling "be more efficient!" Ok!

its so broad and nebulus as to be ridiculous.

Take any aircraft company and ask them if they wish they had the F-35's order book and guess what theyll say? so thats every company buy LM wishing they were winning like that. In the FBI we call that a clue.

if the point of "PR" is to sell airplanes, and not warm fuzzies on the internet, then the F-35 has the best out there. Gripen propaganda rarely translates to actual sales, and it actually backfired badly in Switzerland. PR so "good", it lost a sale? count me out.

I guess a very good example of how important PR can be is the Saab Gripen E/F - An aircraft which isn't in service yet and by everything we know about it, it will be clearly inferior to its competition (and I'm talking about other 4.5th gen fighter aircraft) and yet look at the 'popularity' of it!
Many may argue here that this is due to the aircraft being Swedish and Sweden being a neutral and 'underdog' nation and there would be valid points here but the fact is that Saab clearly bet on PR and the only reason why all this PR still didn't pay dividends is because the aircraft is, sorry to say - a pile of crap!
If the Gripen E/F was a better aircraft and with all the PR around it then I'm sure that it would have secured more order than it currently has.


Saab gets away with what it does because it doesn't have official government reports released annually that detail all the troubles its having. Saab is Sweden, and Sweden is Saab. Sweden doesn't want to hurt itself by being honest about Gripen and killing its sales prospect any more than they have already been murdered. The F-35 doesn't have that option, not many american programs do, since the US is actually open and horribly fair warts and all and all the other thing Saab lies about being.

They were hyping the Gripen E/F for a full decade before it even first flew, its test results are secret unless saab "leaks" the great news only, and they havn't even made a dozen of them, and its still not in service. Theres hardly anything to critique because its barely done anything really. which is one way of "winning" PR I guess, but its not winning and thats a key point.

Why do I care if the Gripen looks good on the internet but loses where it matter in official competition? You guys need to learn to pick your battles and count your blessings.

yes the F-35 doesn't always win on the internet, but it wins everywhere else. Saab hasn't had a Gripen E sale in 7 years. hows the F-35 done comparitively? bueller? Take the wins, there are many. hell even the USAF is talking about retiring F-22. F-35 might soon be the ONLY operational 5th generation fighter. and we have no idea what the export restrictions will be for the gen 5.6/gen 6 stuff. So it might be the ONLY for a very long time. F-35 is going to have the last laugh. even in this thread where the F-35 is now the 2nd largest fleet in the worlds largest air force-- you gripe. What more do you want?

shut up and learn to be happy, you're winning.

One big obvious thing about Gripen E/F that "Says it all" is that the Gripen E is being ordered in very limited numbers by Sweden and not only won't won't replace the old gripen one for one--- but the fact they are also keeping all the older Gripens in service too. Its a swedish welfare and jobs program, it never had and never will have the success they hoped and with the benefit of hindsight probably would have never ever happened. The fact that theyve paid 2 billion dollars to develop a new variant of gripen that doesn't even replace the old, so they could sell 36 of them to brazil completely undermines the entire endeavor. maybe when it was going ot oust F-35 nations and sell "400-450" but now? hell no
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7117
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 May 2021, 19:54

krieger22 wrote:From what I understand based on conversations with people with more contact with the LM sales team, they prefer to let the performance evaluations do the talking instead of the hype packs other manufacturers put out.


This is probably the best way to go about it given the open nature of the program, there is simply little room for "spin" in all reality.

As a counterpoint there's the Gripen E, which has the backing of all the credulous idiots with a Twitter account in addition to Saab's slickly produced PR materials "SMAAAART FIGHTER", and has so far completely failed to land any export orders outside of Brazil.


And after 15 years of trying at that. in 15 years they've exported 3 dozen fighters to one nation.

Again the perception of what is PR and what isn't. known anti F-35 PR man (hes not a journalist) Bill Sweetman ranted mightily that LM had "invented" the term 5th generation, and challenged anyone online to prove otherwise. He was quickly obliged, and no LM did not invent the term "5th generation" (though they have ruthlessly used it very well):


Lockheed Martin labeled the F-35 a “fifth-generation” fighter in 2005, a term it borrowed from Russia in 2004 to describe the F-22. Some of their rivals tumbled into this rhetorical trap and tried to argue that “fourth-generation” was just as capable. Whether it is true or not, making such a case is an uphill struggle.


to Bill Sweetman, LM PR was so effective he had to be informed they had not invented the term "5th generation":mrgreen:
he finally conceded it online and then later in this article, but before that he genuinely believed it was a completely invented by LM "marketing phrase" and boasted as such until corrected. in a pure ironic form, Sweetman believed LM PR was so effective, he gave it even more credit than it actually deserved-- which is, in and of itself, amazing PR.

The bolded part highlights the effect. All other non 5th gen F-35 competitors were forced to justify being "not 5th gen" as the default was "5th gen" already :devil: they were put on "defense" early, "well no we aren't the F-35, but..." well who cares. Boeing tried with "balanced survivability" we are still waiting for that to take hold, and theres still some competitions out there, so we shall see but so far its not selling like 5th gen.

We come full circle as in this very article sweetman "invents" what 6th generation will be in his mind, and tried to create that PR lie that the Gripen NG/E/F is actually secretly a "6th generation fighter." since in his mind affordability will be the key factor in a 6th generation fighter to exclusion of all else. But even then LM effectivley "owns" the 5th gen tag no matter how Sweetman tries to spin it as "outdated." and "from the 80s"


Canada is an exception to the rule of LM generally winning PR albeit not the way people like, but even then-- "muh perception is reality!"-- perception of 65 million dollar Super Hornets didn't magically produce the 65 million dollar interim super hornets. The deal was spiked after reality intruded on perception (turns out theyre about 5 times as much, and the deal was destroyed, showing the limits of propaganda yet again). I can delve more into Canada, and how Boeing turned perception into reality crashing down, but I have before many times already.


When asked what contingency plans Saab has in place if the Swiss people reject the Gripen deal, a spokesman said the company would not speculate on the outcome, adding: "We are not part of this campaign as it is a domestic issue. We are part of procurement programmes all over the world and sometimes there is a customer buying a product and sometimes there is not. Our track record to date is we have won 50% of competitions and we aim to sell 300 to 450 Gripen over the next 20 years."


from an article about the Swiss Referendum in 2014. Theres still a qoute in the GRipen thread from one of those "smart fighter" sales people telling us how the Rafale would never sell, and the Gripen NG would challenge and beat F-35s in sales competitions.

real smart people. IF and when the GRipen E is given its latest "no thanks" from Finland and Canada there should be (for many there won't be of course) a real hard look at whatever combination of performance and cost that the "smart fighter" people were so sure they had perfected, that has lead to zero sales among anyone who really matters. I'm not privy to every detail of all the decisions made, but they completely misread the market somehow. out of 300-450 theyve secured orders for not even 100 after being spotted 60 by their home nation, and then 15 years of trying and not winning 25 percent, let alone 50 percent of competitions-- and thats when theyre considered at all. often they're not even invited.


lots of ways to measure greatness, but the supply and demand are pretty telling. generally speaking airplanes that are produced in the thousands and even tens of thousands are "popular" and popularity is usually measured by how great and useful that product is.
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 64 guests