Roper Hints NGAD Could Replace F-35; Why? Life-Cycle Costs

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

glennwhitten

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 12 May 2017, 18:42

Unread post06 Apr 2021, 04:57

We can't afford a lot of 15 billion dollar Ford Class aircraft carriers. Seems to me that the next generation aircraft for the Navy should be a twin engine aircraft like the F-22 but about 50% larger to give it a greater range. If possible it should have 2 lift fans also to give it STOVL ability. There is a huge glut of supertankers right now that are selling for pennies on the dollar that could be converted to something like an arsenal ship. They could buy several of these and put a simple flight deck on it. No catapult or wires for landing- these aircraft could take off STOVL and do a rolling landing like on the Brit carriers. No nuclear power or extensive maintenance facilities , only a small crew - just some aviation fuel and weapons. You could put some vertical launch systems around the periphery of the flight deck. It would be easy to disperse some of these aircraft to small airfields on forward islands and atolls due to their STOVL ability. The Ford Class aircraft carriers could be 400-500 miles behind the arsenal ships. The aircraft could shuttle back to the Ford Class carriers for more extensive maintenance.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25655
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Apr 2021, 05:55

Why would not the two lift fans reduce the range of this twin engine very large aircraft despite having two powerful engines? Then there is the long lead time to design/manufacture/flight test/IOC/FOC this 'idea aircraft' for the use of.

Potential flat deck ships for the aircraft won't be built to military standards so they won't be forward deployed - my guess.

Usually these ''tankers' converted to flight decks will have bridges somewhere NOT not in the way of any SRVL approaches.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2529
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post07 Apr 2021, 07:02

Having lift fans would be contrary to what the NGAD is designed to do.

The USMC wants to operate within the kill zone. STOVL facilitates the aircraft to operate within the enemy's kill zone, maximize sortie rates from the short mission duration. The F-35B is designed just right for the job. NGAD is intended to operate from outside the kill zone (lots of fuel/range) to eliminate the need for tanker assets. There is no benefit from having STOVL with long range. But there is benefit from not needing tankers since that's exactly the soft targets the Chinese are targeting.

After all the criticism of the USMC requirements restricting the F-35 from achieving its full potential, the USAF isn't going to, and rightfully has not distracted NGAD with this requirement. Don't shoot self. Smart!
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2677
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post07 Apr 2021, 14:15

weasel1962 wrote:After all the criticism of the USMC requirements restricting the F-35 from achieving its full potential, the USAF isn't going to, and rightfully has not distracted NGAD with this requirement. Don't shoot self. Smart!


How have USMC requirements "restricted the F-35 from achieving its full potential?"

The USMC requirements are the requirements that brought about the F-35 in the first place? (The Navy had to be brought kicking and screaming to the table.) The Air Force bought into the program. Dr. Bevilaqua has stated in his paper, The Genesis of the Joint Strike Fighter, that the lift fan in no way diminished or impacted the aerodynamics or performance of the jet. (Other than stealing volume that could have stored fuel.) Billie Flynn stated "you" cannot tell the difference in performance between the -B and the -A. Or perhaps he said the performance difference is "negligible."

This notion that the STOVL requirements that begat the Killer Bee are a hinderance to the F-35 needs to die. It needs to die now.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6963
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Apr 2021, 21:48

weasel1962 wrote: NGAD is intended to operate from outside the kill zone (lots of fuel/range) to eliminate the need for tanker assets.


Even Strategic bombers use tankers

as always, with so many posters here I am always interested to hear how they know so much about NGAD is and what it does, and how they speak so definitively about what it is and what its not.

I want more details honestly.


There is no benefit from having STOVL with long range.


That's a dumb thing to say, but unfortunately not the dumbest thing in this post.


But there is benefit from not needing tankers since that's exactly the soft targets the Chinese are targeting


No such animal.

After all the criticism of the USMC requirements restricting the F-35 from achieving its full potential,


Most of the people who make assertions like that are completely ignorant of what they're even talking about especially regarding the history of the program. The USAF doesn't feel the JSF program was "compromised" by the STOVL requirement. STOVL predates the USAF's participation in fact. So I have no idea how the B version "restricted" the F-35 when it was baked in from the start, and since the USAF isn't completely ignorant and stupid, they knew. The Gripes i've heard that are worth noting have more to do with international requirements and program management along with testing requirements, honestly.

The only two gripes I've ever really heard with JSF and STOVL via USAF per specifically is the Ejection system. Since STOVL has unique punch out requirements, the USAF has to have all those things too. like for them an overly complex seat (By USAF standards) and features. Annoying, but nothing having to do with combat unless you're on the wrong end of some bad news, and of course it works, they just don't like that its "over engineered".

The USAF dodged a huge bullet in the sense that they aren't lugging around heavy-A$$ landing gear for crash landing onto an aircraft carrier and a massively heavy tailhook and the thousands of additional pounds in structure they need to lug around to never even land on a ship-- thats a nasty compromise. Its actually pretty amazing that each service gets to have its cake and eat it too, previously having an airplane that had to land on a ship meant the USAF was stuck with whatever the Navy picked. one could make the argument the B saved the USAF from simply having to adopt the F-35C along with the Marines and Navy.


As for the second gripe I'm keeping it quiet, I've only ever seen it on the internet one other time and its specific. I'm not going to enlighten the idiots to make them better at whining. I like the way it is now where they broadcast their ignorance. Not giving them the inside.

The big gripe for the USMC and USAF was the 2K bomb requirement, which was from the navy. That threw a big wrench into things. both the USMC and USAF were happy with 1K bombs. It was never STOVL. The F-35A and B are made separately, its not like the Air Force is flying an F-35B without a liftfan installed. They just filled that volume with a gas tank, which by the way is very handy.

Thanks to SWAT one could make the case the STOVL Requirement vastly added to the F-35A's performance, removing 1500 unnecessary pounds that wouldn't have been refined out otherwise. the STOVL requirement also assured an extremely powerful (single) engine would be involved

The "muh USMC Ruined the JSF" is an internet trope repeated by idiots. And since you're not an idiot you won't bring such silliness up again... right?

F-35A performs at or better than an F-16, and that's all the USAF cared about. the USAF wanted something at or better than an F-16 (which is no mean feat), and the USMC wanted an F-18 that hovered (again, not easy). They both got what they wanted. it wasn't supposed to be some hyper expensive uber performer. Thats why it doesn't have Thrust Vectoring (on the A that is) And a bunch of other whiz bang they could have thrown on but decided firmly against it. It has nothing to do with the USMC (And more to add accuracy UK/italy requirement). It has much more to do with MONEY. (pro tip: money will decide what NGAD is more than anything too) Money decided what the F-35A is more than any other factor. Which should be extremely obvious. The idea that anything the USAF fields that isn't an F-22 is now "compromised" and then blaming it on another variant is completely ridiculous but that seems to be the standard. Imagine trying to say the F-16 was compromised since its not an F-15, and thus the potential it had is gone.

The USMC Ruined JSF trope is truly the last refuge of a complete ignoramious of aviation and tactical aircraft. There is probably nothing out there that will signal just how dumb one is on this subject than floating that stupidity. Its actually very helpful in that regard, and I was not surprised at all to see Pierre Sprey latch onto which truly cemented it, while also assuring his acolytes would swallow it hook line and sinker.

the USAF isn't going to, and rightfully has not distracted NGAD with this requirement.


surely it hasn't-- but you still have no idea what NGAD is, you're guessing like most people here.

Again I think its funny. Listening to all these people tell me about features that should be classified gets me tingly in a kind of Federal prison way. Keep talking
Choose Crews
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2529
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Apr 2021, 03:29

XanderCrews wrote:surely it hasn't-- but you still have no idea what NGAD is, you're guessing like most people here.


Thought I start by addressing this first by agreeing. I would point out that applies to everyone else, not associated with the program, none of whom are presumably posting on this forum since that would rightly involve federal prison time.

What we do know...
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/IF11659.pdf

I would say first with some certainty that since propulsion happens to be the one technology being looked at as part of NGAD. And since no one is funding anything remotely resembling a lift fan that can handle 2 engines, I would safely say that STOVL isn't part of the equation here.

XanderCrews wrote:So I have no idea how the B version "restricted" the F-35 when it was baked in from the start, and since the USAF isn't completely ignorant and stupid, they knew.


...except for what exactly happened (no plan survives first contact).

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

page 13: The delay was exacerbated by the consolidation of the former JAST and ASTOVL programs, discussed in footnote 54. Normally, in a development program, the most technically simple variant is developed first, and lessons applied while working up to more complicated variants. Because the Marine Corps’ Harrier fleet was reaching the end of life before the Air Force and Navy fleets the F-35 was designed to replace, in this case, the most complicated variant—the F-35B—had to be developed first. That meant the technical challenges unique to STOVL aircraft delayed all of the variants

Weasel's note: The original intent of the F-35 was design commonality across all variants. Clearly all the issues with the F-35B resulting in substantially less commonality than originally envisaged. Not to mention changes in production & assembly strategy especially during early development. I can understand why people forget since it was at least 16 years ago when that happened however I still remember the weight limitation issues for the F-35B which was necessary for STOVL. What happened to all those quick mate joints? I am too lazy to search for all the articles that questioned why the forces then decided to go for commonality etc. It may be easily forgotten here but I doubt that experience would have been so easily forgotten in the leadership. If commonality isn't a requirement for NGAD, then there is no need for the air force to take into account STOVL requirements.

XanderCrews wrote:Even Strategic bombers use tankers


Yup, but the range of the strategic bombers means tanking can happen much further back as compared to shorter ranged fighters right...So unless the Chinese fighters can match the same range of the bombers, there will always be a safe zone. Sure those chinese fighters can tank to extend range but the flip side applies to them.

weasel1962 wrote:There is no benefit from having STOVL with long range.
XanderCrews wrote:That's a dumb thing to say, but unfortunately not the dumbest thing in this post.


I think the context of what I stated matters. STOVL is only used by the USMC. The USMC concept of ops clearly dictates that range isn't as important as STOVL. The simplest illustration is that the F-35B has a 450nm range vis the F-35A/Cs much greater range. If range is that important, they would have baked that into their concept of ops.

Sure, people are entitled to their opinion to think that the USMC made a mistake and should have had the F-35B designed with more range (I don't choose to read Xandercrew's remarks as inferring that) but clearly that shorter combat radius was something the USMC thought was sufficient. I agree the statement would not be accurate outside the context but I can't control how other people choose to interpret what I'm trying to say.

XanderCrews wrote:No such animal.


Sure, we can pretend that the chinese aren't targeting air tankers or that the USAF wants tankers to be operating within the PLA kill zone.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2677
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post08 Apr 2021, 03:47

450nm combat range for the Killer Bee...

How does that compare to the F/A-18C, the fixed wing tacair asset of the USMC at the time?

And to the AV-8B combat range?

An aircraft better than a Bug, that STOVL'd easier than a Harrier, and had more range than both... Hmmm... someone got their cake, and ate it too...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2529
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Apr 2021, 04:06

The F-18Cs probably have a longer radius with tanks. The Bee is only slightly better radius than an AV-8B with tanks (but supersonic). The purpose of the F-35 (All variants) is to operate without tanks in stealth mode.

I think we also have to accept that the lift fan takes up space. Its either build a bigger plane or compromise weight e.g. less fuel = less range. That doesn't apply to a CTOL. If there is no design commonality, no constraint to CTOL.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3461
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post08 Apr 2021, 06:34

weasel1962 wrote:The F-18Cs probably have a longer radius with tanks. The Bee is only slightly better radius than an AV-8B with tanks (but supersonic). The purpose of the F-35 (All variants) is to operate without tanks in stealth mode.

I think we also have to accept that the lift fan takes up space. Its either build a bigger plane or compromise weight e.g. less fuel = less range. That doesn't apply to a CTOL. If there is no design commonality, no constraint to CTOL.


Yes, that seems to be about correct for range. There is that old picture posted here several times:
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=28931&p=359844&hilit=burbage+tailhook#p359844

Image

I'd like to add that besides being supersonic and being more maneuverable and much easier to fly, F-35B also adds VLO stealth, far superior SA along with superior payload capabilities and targeting pod as standard. Of course currently and in the near future AV-8B and F/A-18 can carry a much wider array of weapons as weapons integration takes time. But overall F-35B is definitely a huge leap in capability over AV-8B and Hornets.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6963
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Apr 2021, 15:54

...except for what exactly happened (no plan survives first contact).

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

page 13: The delay was exacerbated by the consolidation of the former JAST and ASTOVL programs, discussed in footnote 54. Normally, in a development program, the most technically simple variant is developed first, and lessons applied while working up to more complicated variants. Because the Marine Corps’ Harrier fleet was reaching the end of life before the Air Force and Navy fleets the F-35 was designed to replace, in this case, the most complicated variant—the F-35B—had to be developed first. That meant the technical challenges unique to STOVL aircraft delayed all of the variants


The underlined part is completely untrue, before we even get to my main point. in fact even some basic research would do wonders on that claim.

I think you've moved the goal posts here. After being schooled on performance compromises you had to dig somewhere and find development delays instead. But I don't consider Delays and Flight Performance to be in the same ball park at all, but you had to find "something" instead of just dropping it.

Perhaps something was lost in translation, but you never said a thing about time being a compromised. Moreover, The F-22 was a perfectly USAF airplane that also experienced delays. Lots of aircraft programs internationally suffer delays that have nothing to do with STOVL or the Marines. Allow me to demonstrate:

Program suffers delays: Reeee its delayed and overbudget!

JSF suffers any problem: You know its the STOVL requirement! The Marines!

Weasel's note: The original intent of the F-35 was design commonality across all variants. Clearly all the issues with the F-35B resulting in substantially less commonality than originally envisaged.


What? Do tell me exactly and precisely CTOL Vs STOVL what was envisioned vs what took place. Be specific.

before you say anything, I'll counsel that "commonality across all variants" is more than just sharing the same section of tubing somewhere in a bay. The most expensive parts of an airplane in the 21st century is engines and avionics. The people looking at the relatively simple parts like common undercarriage doors and such are on the wrong track.

And theres a lot of wrong tracks with the JSF and F-35 since the internet makes it up as it goes and several narratives that were never true have taken hold.

Not to mention changes in production & assembly strategy especially during early development.


That never happens!!!

I can understand why people forget since it was at least 16 years ago when that happened however I still remember the weight limitation issues for the F-35B which was necessary for STOVL. What happened to all those quick mate joints?


Turns out they were heavy and unnecessary. I don't know who's brainchild they were originally but it was one of those "great idea!" that aren't needed. Maybe it was to win the contract. (I've seen that happen) but they seem perfectly capable of not having them as currently evidence. The only downside was the added time needed to get rid of them.

please don't hit me with this it was "16 years ago", while acting like some of this stuff is somehow unique and only JSF?F-35 problem. Where was it written that if the F-35 was redesigned, delayed, or constructed diferently, or that things were added or taken away over the years, that it was unacceptable?

Was JSF the first program that was supposed to be completely and utterly inflexible? Even the mighty Gripen NG has had delays and redesigns and plans change. That seems to be pretty standard fair doesn't it?

It seems to me you are working hard to REACH after being stymied on the performance "compromise" claim. But then they had to change plans guys! Thats STOVLs fault! LOL ok.

I am too lazy to search for all the articles that questioned why the forces then decided to go for commonality etc. It may be easily forgotten here but I doubt that experience would have been so easily forgotten in the leadership.


clearly You don't even really know what the experience is.

If commonality isn't a requirement for NGAD, then there is no need for the air force to take into account STOVL requirements...

... I would safely say that STOVL isn't part of the equation here.


I think the twin engined STOVL quip was in jest anyway. some people took it seriously which is why I try to use pictures and gifs so often in this forum.


I think the context of what I stated matters. STOVL is only used by the USMC. The USMC concept of ops clearly dictates that range isn't as important as STOVL. The simplest illustration is that the F-35B has a 450nm range vis the F-35A/Cs much greater range. If range is that important, they would have baked that into their concept of ops.

Sure, people are entitled to their opinion to think that the USMC made a mistake and should have had the F-35B designed with more range (I don't choose to read Xandercrew's remarks as inferring that) but clearly that shorter combat radius was something the USMC thought was sufficient. I agree the statement would not be accurate outside the context


I think the original statement is rather silly to say, Range is like money, whatever I have I could use more. obviously decisions got made moreover comparing range to F-35A/C to make the point is also a cheap shot. as Hornetfinn pointed out. "Shorter" compared to what? picks some of the few aircraft that actually do outrange it, as its about equal to teens and vastly better than harrier.



but I can't control how other people choose to interpret what I'm trying to say.


You can control the lies and assertions and flat out wild a$$ guesses. in the age of the internet ignorance is no excuse, but as you said, you're lazy.

untruths-- Thats what I have issue with :mrgreen:



Sure, we can pretend that the chinese aren't targeting air tankers or that the USAF wants tankers to be operating within the PLA kill zone.


is it like how you "pretended" there was any mention of tankers at all in the PDF you provided of what we "know"?

Of course the USAF doesn't want their tankers targeted, you did a cheap rhetorical trick there wherein me saying "we don't know if its optimized for X mission" means that the USAF must want its stuff to die in X mission!

child, Please

No doubt the USAF like always wants to keep its support aircraft out of harms way, like they always do. Is the NGAD built specifically to facilitate that?

YOU HAVE NO IDEA and are instead making an assertion and treating it as fact.


weasel1962 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:surely it hasn't-- but you still have no idea what NGAD is, you're guessing like most people here.


Thought I start by addressing this first by agreeing. I would point out that applies to everyone else, not associated with the program, none of whom are presumably posting on this forum since that would rightly involve federal prison time.

What we do know...
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/IF11659.pdf

I would say first with some certainty that since propulsion happens to be the one technology being looked at as part of NGAD. And since no one is funding anything remotely resembling a lift fan that can handle 2 engines,
Yup, but the range of the strategic bombers means tanking can happen much further back as compared to shorter ranged fighters right...So unless the Chinese fighters can match the same range of the bombers, there will always be a safe zone. Sure those chinese fighters can tank to extend range but the flip side applies to them.


Is it some quirk of the human condition where we decide that the thing we know the most about it we surround with questions and doubt but the thing we know the least about we speak with such conviction?

look at even this thread.

What will an F-35 cost in 2025? Well we THINK around $25,000 in 2025.

and what will NGAD be per hour in the year 2035?

We just KNOW it will be cheaper!

Really? HOW? We don't even "know" what an F-35 will cost in 4 years but we can definitely say what an NGAD will cost in 2035?

Of course I have no idea about what NGAD is or what it entails. But here is the top 10 features and objectives of NGAD?

The same person telling me "no plan survives first contact" is telling me definitely what a NGAD concept demo will do when its service years from now and the emphasis that has been selected, but as for the F-35 "well things change, 16 years ago was a long time" Its important to note one of the first compromises on F-22 was range. Not only do we know little about NGAD in terms of the fact that its very much in its infancy, we know even less than that because so much of it is classified info.

But you go right ahead, and keep on inventing things.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6963
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Apr 2021, 18:37

Image
Choose Crews
Offline

zhangmdev

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 232
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post08 Apr 2021, 19:06

The main constraint to the F-35 design is the internal weapon bays and single engine. The liftfan doesn't lead to a bigger plane, but a different shaped fuselage of the B variation.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6963
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Apr 2021, 20:24

zhangmdev wrote:The main constraint to the F-35 design is the internal weapon bays and single engine. The liftfan doesn't lead to a bigger plane, but a different shaped fuselage of the B variation.


And hell that internal volume is double what every other customer wanted. The USN insisted on larger bays.

The F-35 has problems, And i'd even go so far as to say it has "quirks" and "unique issues" The problem is and always has been that the real problems that should perhaps get some consideration and some fanfare, some "thoughts" if you will are nearly non existent from the environment. Instead we get complaints by senile old men who think the F-35 "looks fat" I think this is fascinating. I always thought the Apache looked "ugly" This is a huge strike against whatever I've assumed the performance is.

LET'S REFORM THE MILITARY REFORMERS
By Fred Reed
October 11, 1987


MANY AND GRAVE things are wrong with the military, about which nothing will be done; these defects could easily lose us a big war. A major reason why we will do nothing to remedy them is that a few evangelical critics of the military, by focusing on defects which do not exist, have distracted attention from defects that do exist. Not to mince words, much of what prominent adversaries of the military write is absolute, verifiable nonsense -- yet Washington takes it seriously. This is an inadequate approach to the management of a heavily armed world.

A few examples of the work of these people, who invariably call themselves Military Reformers:

Dina Rasor, archenemy of the M1 tank, head of the Project on Military Procurement, and so frequently on talk-shows as to seem part of their furniture, has over the years released all sorts of information purporting to show the manifold shortcomings of the M1. Rather less attention has been paid to the manifold shortcomings of Rasor, the unconscious assumption in much of Washington being that anything derogatory to the military must be true.

In 1985 she published a book, a risk which few Reformers should take. In the book ("The Pentagon Underground"), she tells of going with a congressional delegation to Fort Hood, Texas, in 1981 to see the M1. She tells of getting into the driver's seat, low in the front of the hull, and discovering -- lo! The Army had designed the tank for midgets! There wasn't enough room for people of normal size. For example, her head bumped against the turret. Why, she gasped, one of our boys might be knocked out.

Ever vigilant, Rasor ferreted out another manifestation of the tanks excessive tininess. She is only 5'6" tall, she writes, yet "I later had a crew member close the hatch while I was in the driver's seat. In order to fit, I had to dig my chin into my chest and put myself in an almost impossible driving position."

I had the same problem until I adjusted the seat.

At 5'11" I fit comfortably into the tank. Not only didn't Rasor know about the adjustable seat, she apparently wasn't interested: The book was published in 1985, and the trip made in 1981, allowing ample time to make a telephone call. Her whole book is full of such tales. Thus do we influence policy in Washington.

Ignorance of such august dimensions is customary among Reformers. When I first became a military columnist for the Washington Times in 1982, I was given a briefing by Pierre Sprey, a Reformer and universal expert, about the defects of the tank. Sprey proceeded to tell me many terrible things about the M1. Much of it struck me as implausible: I grew up on a research base (Dahlgren Naval Weapons Laboratory), and graduated in 1966 from the Marine Corps light-armor school at Camp Pendleton. Sprey's notions bore no relation either to the military I had been in or to the engineers I had lived with. On the other hand, I didn't trust the Army. While the services had done little if any actual lying to me, on many occasions they had, er, interpreted vigorously.

Having been duly "spreyed," I showed up at Fort Knox with my own stopwatch and tape measure. I was determined that the Army wasn't going to fool me with a rigged acceleration test. I proceeded to badger the Army into letting me actually use the beast: drag-race it over a 50-foot course, fire it on the move and the rest. In every case I could personally verify, from acceleration to effectiveness of turret stabilization, the Army's version proved correct.

Sprey had told me for example that the M1 was so dependent on its electronics that, should they fail, the tank couldn't fire. This is typical Reformery: Anything technically more advanced than the weaponry of WWII doesn't work. I turned the engine off, cut the master power, turned the turret with the hand cranks, aimed the auxiliary sight and twisted the manual firing handle. The tank fired.

All of these steps are explained in the crew's manual (as is seat adjustment) with drawings. Why didn't Sprey and Rasor know these things? Because they had not tried to find out. Before leaving Washington I had asked Rasor's office for the manual. They didn't have one and had never read it: The tanks' premier critics hadn't bothered to read the instruction book. There are genuine questions to be asked about the tank, fairly interesting ones actually, but you won't hear of them because the Reformers keep the discussion at the level of clowning.

One begins to notice a pattern in the writings of the evangelical Reformers: First, a robust disregard for truth. Second, a taste for parody. Observe that the Reformers do not accuse the military merely of bureaucratic ineptitude, poor judgment, and inattention in the expenditure of other people's money -- the normal foibles of federal agencies. Instead soldiers are accused of absurdity, of serious unfamiliarity with their profession, of behavior explainable only by clinically substandard intelligence. This is not analysis. It is caricature.



And do it goes. F-35 is basically going to meet or exceed its requirements (despite constant messing about via the customer) the bigger question is if the requirements are the right ones, and that is a much more difficult answer to quantify.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25655
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Apr 2021, 21:09

XanderCrews wrote:Image

Is this BILLYBOBBOYSWEETIEPIE [Bill Sweetman to his mother] excited by the GRIPEN E?! LADBROKE IT!

Ladbrokes 2021 Ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wnxPbl_33Q

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3256
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post08 Apr 2021, 23:29

So we have some fanboy fantasy stuff at the top of the page that sets off yet another round of nonsense about JSF requirements. Really? :doh: :crazypilot:
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests