Official declassifies F35's instantaneous turn rate

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3190
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post07 Apr 2019, 19:12

Re: "PR"

There was nothing public about the down-select deliberations that led to source selction and eventually the contract award. As Metz points out, not everyone on a source selection team is an engineer, and therefore there are certain elements of a design that have to be communicated by some means other than just "data." Some things that are plainly obvious to engineers, are not necessarily meaningful to decision-makers with non-technical backgrounds. So, in some cases, you're pointing out why certain data has meaning and/or significance. That's what LM did; that's not PR.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2884
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Apr 2019, 20:13

sferrin wrote:
magitsu wrote:I'm not sure about that. Just yesterday I read how YF-23 test pilot, who had later flown also F-22 admit that they lost due to LM having a better handle on PR. With them losing due to the narrow minded engineer approach. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... yf-23-lost


That was nearly 30 years ago. Back when Sony was the be all and end all of consumer electronics. Things change.


Yes indeed, I agree with you sferrin.
Moreover at that time LM (which was teamed up with Boeing) was competing with its YF-22 against Northrop (which was teamed up with McDonnell Douglas) with its YF-23. So yes, PR should have been an important factor or one which LM certainly needed to put a strong emphasis on it.

This as opposed to several years later, after LM won the JSF contest with its X-35 in what was a "winner takes all" type of contest. Resuming, I would say that LM simply didn't have the need to put a strong emphasis on PR after having won the JSF contest and as such PR was IMO perceived by LM to not being needed that much (or being very secondary) during the F-35's development stage.

Things are definitely changing right now regarding LM/F-35 PR and I would dare to say that one of the main reason would be to win more export customers/purchases for the F-35.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3190
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post07 Apr 2019, 23:14

ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:
magitsu wrote:I'm not sure about that. Just yesterday I read how YF-23 test pilot, who had later flown also F-22 admit that they lost due to LM having a better handle on PR. With them losing due to the narrow minded engineer approach. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... yf-23-lost


That was nearly 30 years ago. Back when Sony was the be all and end all of consumer electronics. Things change.


Yes indeed, I agree with you sferrin.
Moreover at that time LM (which was teamed up with Boeing) was competing with its YF-22 against Northrop (which was teamed up with McDonnell Douglas) with its YF-23. So yes, PR should have been an important factor or one which LM certainly needed to put a strong emphasis on it.

This as opposed to several years later, after LM won the JSF contest with its X-35 in what was a "winner takes all" type of contest. Resuming, I would say that LM simply didn't have the need to put a strong emphasis on PR after having won the JSF contest and as such PR was IMO perceived by LM to not being needed that much (or being very secondary) during the F-35's development stage.

Things are definitely changing right now regarding LM/F-35 PR and I would dare to say that one of the main reason would be to win more export customers/purchases for the F-35.


PR isnt gonna help ya when youre having a major technical issue (weight) and you lose track of what youre supposed to be spending (or not...something on the order of 200M iirc) .
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5601
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 Apr 2019, 03:21

quicksilver wrote:PR isnt gonna help ya when youre having a major technical issue (weight) and you lose track of what youre supposed to be spending (or not...something on the order of 200M iirc) .


Frankly I'm amazed the DoD had the stones to stick with it. A stealthy, STOVL fighter, with internal weapons carriage to boot? Nah, that won't be difficult.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 673
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post08 Apr 2019, 10:40

sferrin wrote:Frankly I'm amazed the DoD had the stones to stick with it. A stealthy, STOVL fighter, with internal weapons carriage to boot? Nah, that won't be difficult.

Probably due to the never before seen scale of the partnership construct. When you get dozen countries to fund the development instead of eventual FMS sales. They had a lock on the whole 5. gen western fighter market with that project design.

Also the standardization of capability across the board means many smaller countries become very capable of pitching in joint efforts.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2884
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post08 Apr 2019, 11:12

quicksilver wrote:PR isnt gonna help ya when youre having a major technical issue (weight) and you lose track of what youre supposed to be spending (or not...something on the order of 200M iirc) .


Absolutely and I fully agree with you.

Basically what I meant or my point was that the engineering part can be helped by good PR but the opposite is not true - it doesn't matter how good PR you have, this cannot help the engineering part is, specially if the engineering part is lets say "sub-par".
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2364
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post04 Jan 2021, 10:22

F-35C
Dang that thing can turn
Attachments

InShot_20210104_171906612.mp4 [ 2.38 MiB | Viewed 3244 times ]

Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2884
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post04 Jan 2021, 17:52

WoW, that's insane! :thumb:
I can perfectly understand why the F-35C is Billie Flynn's favorite variant of the F-35.
Those longer wings certainly makes the F-35C slow(er) speed turning even more impressive than other F-35 variants (like the -A) which already have impressive slow(er) speed turning capabilities!
“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: 6565
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Jan 2021, 23:22

ricnunes wrote:
quicksilver wrote:PR isnt gonna help ya when youre having a major technical issue (weight) and you lose track of what youre supposed to be spending (or not...something on the order of 200M iirc) .


Absolutely and I fully agree with you.

Basically what I meant or my point was that the engineering part can be helped by good PR but the opposite is not true - it doesn't matter how good PR you have, this cannot help the engineering part is, specially if the engineering part is lets say "sub-par".



It wasn't necessarily an engineering issue, well perhaps but its not entirely the fault of the engineers. The reason the F-35 gained weight was at the intersection of "heavy aircraft part/component" vs "cost" they deviated to cost, and weight ballooned.

a lot of F-35 problems are and were thanks to the "customer" from the timelines, to the requests, bad hook data, etc. once the weight issue was put front and center and the "good idea fairies removed" SWAT produced a capable aircraft.

obviously tall trees get cut down first, and yes the JSF program has several "program induced oscillations" that spilled into the public sphere along with the sheer size.

now a word on "PR" if one looks at the results of the F-35, it generally won the PR battle. hell Bill Sweetman got fired. The F-35 won that. Other than some internet wackos in odd spots of the internet that then occasionally moved to odd spots in politics and journalism, it was basically the same garbage that was leveled against most programs, just larger. anyone familiar with the trials and tribulations of the Super Hornet from 1995 to the retirement of the Tomcat can tell you we saw the exact same arguments sometimes verbatim in fact. as I have sad before many times, there a template the media has worked off of for decades:

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a-cartoon.jpg

They're not exactly creative.

it needs to be remembered that this is not a "passive environment" every time the V-22 crashed or had an incident Sikorsky was right there to try and snake the contracts away, first with H-60, then S-92 (which has suffered some high profile crashes since). The F-35 is no different. if you think the "source code" incident with the UK was some "oopsie daisy out of thin air" issue in 2005 that wasn't manufactured and brought to light by, oh I don't know the UK arm of the Eurofighter consortium, I have some magic beans to sell you. You can look at Boeing and the SH as well-- This is not a friendly competition. all F-35 problems were magnified because the death of the JSF would bring business to everyone else in the fighter game-- and yes even Bill Sweetman called it a monopoly that would kill European fighter business. i guess "ulterior motives" and "conflicts of interest" is a great pair of phrases to describe so many critics. some are simply bought outright.

Now red pill time. McCain complaining is what McCain did. one could look at McCain and Bernie blovating on the high cost of the F-35 as pure theater, as they ensured it was backed and brought to their state. its McCains job to pretend to be fiscally conservative, and Bernie's job to mention how expensive it would be and how many government funded lollipops that could buy the commoners. but at no point is it ever in real danger.

regarding the odd spots i just mentioned, some Australian politico from a fringe party tried "grilling" the boss of the Aus Air Force (Air Marshal Geoff Brown) with Goon and Kopp talking points and just got completely smacked on the PP. That was the closest to a "PR crises" as Australia ever got -- despite Airpower Australia's fanfiction, army of idiot commenters, full time goon, kopp and co. techno babble/schizo posting, and the occasional "fellow travelers" elsewhere. some easily debunked questions in a public committee with Brown specifically saying internet commenters didn't know what they were talking about. He even ran up the score when the politician breathlessly and dramatically asked if there had ever been a more controversial program in Australian military history. Brown paused and answered "I'd have to say F-111" The army general next to him cracked up and pointed out that what the critics wanted to keep. thus completing the beat down and PR backfire.

how much of this "getting it wrong on PR" actually cost the program? even regarding canada, was the CBC going to write and produce flattering things about the F-35? was the auditor general not wooed by sufficient PR fluff? lot of military programs are disliked by the public by the fact that they're military programs and not something else. (like more money to the hardworking folks in Canadian bureaucracy and that fine CBC!) now to contradict everything I've said the F-35 was having cost and public relation issues, but it was indeed the engine fire that put the program on serious hold as Canada was floating buying a few and being done in 2015 before the elections.

in other cases the PR has been excellent. Norway did a superb job. Taiwan of all places, since they are barred from getting the F-35 have been downright flattering of it in their discontent at not being able to obtain it. 60 minutes did its "hit piece" on the F-35 in early 2014 that was such a nothing burger that people critical of the F-35 slayed them for it LOL

The F-35 is and was an extremely ambitious program, and I've had my faults with it as well. however it was something that many deemed downright impossible. it was no surprise that a program trying to accomplish so much was going to run into delays and cost overruns (thats an easy call to make with a lot of programs), and that critics and competitors would pounce. There was a severe lack no so much of "PR" but of "expectation management". How could the largest most ambitious defense program ever run into problems?! for the record the Gripen NG, which is supposed to be the antithesis of JSF program, using a nice "Safe" platform is also delayed and over budget. The S-92 that was supposed to be the "safe solution" (literally) to the V-22 has aged poorly as well and has had fatal transmission issues. Those "safe" and "unambitious" programs can run into problems too.

look at this big picture. in terms of annoying comments on the internet the F-35 has been in a bad spot, but in terms of those comments having any actual effect on the program? The F-35 won that handily. real politik like the Turks and the Russian SAM purchase had a larger effect on this program than anything the news or internet comment sections ever did. In fact, I like to think for every 10,000 negative comments or so we get about the F-35, another F-35 gets it wings...

Image

I swear there are times where this whole program is fueled by the hate and tears of the internet...
Last edited by XanderCrews on 05 Jan 2021, 00:00, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25121
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Jan 2021, 23:45

Just bekuz I like fat F-14s cartoon referenced reproduced below: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a-cartoon.jpg
Attachments
F-14fatMillionCartoon1974MATSforum.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2884
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Jan 2021, 00:03

XanderCrews wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
quicksilver wrote:PR isnt gonna help ya when youre having a major technical issue (weight) and you lose track of what youre supposed to be spending (or not...something on the order of 200M iirc) .


Absolutely and I fully agree with you.

Basically what I meant or my point was that the engineering part can be helped by good PR but the opposite is not true - it doesn't matter how good PR you have, this cannot help the engineering part is, specially if the engineering part is lets say "sub-par".



Well, that post of mine is almost 2 years old :mrgreen: :wink:


XanderCrews wrote:now a word on "PR" if one looks at the results of the F-35, it generally won the PR battle. hell Bill Sweetman got fired. The F-35 won that. Other than some internet wackos in odd spots of the internet that then occasionally moved to odd spots in politics and journalism, it was basically the same garbage that was leveled against most programs, just larger. anyone familiar with the trials and tribulations of the Super Hornet from 1995 to the retirement of the Tomcat can tell you we saw the exact same arguments sometimes verbatim in fact. as I have sad before many times, there a template the media has worked off of for decades:


Yes, I basically agree with everything you said and yes, you're right about the PR issue above. However, I still feel that if LM started to pay attention to PR much sooner (IMO, I still think that they started late) what happened above and people Bill Sweetman & his minions or other similar wannabes would have been exposed much sooner.
And this could (I believe) even prevented the pathetic current situation around the Canadian procurement.
“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: 6565
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Jan 2021, 02:36

ricrunes, in order to not threadjack the topic,

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=448131#p448131

My rebuttal is posted in the Canada thread^
Choose Crews
Previous

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests