The F-35 is Set to Receive Most Expensive Software Patch in History

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Monster Zero, Mar 20, 2019.

  1. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The F-35 was a cool concept, just not worth doing in real life, and has turned into a real mess. We need to abandon this project and focus on more single-purpose planes that are really technologically integrated.
     
  2. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,099
    Likes Received:
    68,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its not a real mess. Difference is now there are units deployed across the globe and its doing its job well.

    We aren't going to give up our tech advantage to the Russians and commie china.
     
    Jonsa likes this.
  3. FivepointFive

    FivepointFive Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,754
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Context

    The commissars in town

    The more you live the faster you will die if you're only worth ten million dollars


    On average





    Are regulations and oversight a socialist concept?

    That chemical fire was pretty bad in Texas
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019
    US Conservative and BuckyBadger like this.
  4. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Me too. That aircraft is amazing. I love the F-15 though. It's Air frame has been structurally sound despite being outdated. Upgrades to it's weapon systems and avionics have kept them flying in the US and for sale abroad. Put a great pilot in an F-15 and he can still sweep the skies clean.

    But those F-22's are deadly. Wish I could have flown one of those. Maybe I'll make a few phone calls. :)
     
  5. mdrobster

    mdrobster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    34,177
    Likes Received:
    12,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    just because some of them can fly doesnt mean they are special craft, our pf site putin supporter.
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  6. Tim15856

    Tim15856 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    7,792
    Likes Received:
    4,229
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Drones are fine when attacking slow moving vehicles, but not fast moving planes. If we put all our eggs into the one satellite communication basket the enemy only needs to find a way to jam that data link and they turn into useless toys. Besides, the lag from satellite comm isn't going to allow real time air combat unless the aircraft has AI that can do the fighting all by itself.
     
    Jonsa likes this.
  7. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Understand this, robster -- if you don't respect the potential/demonstrated abilities of an adversary, you run the risk of making very serious mistakes. We are at a double disadvantage in trying to confront the challenge posed by not one, but TWO powerful opponents -- Russia AND China, who often ally themselves with each other! And to make things even worse, each of those countries is run by leaders of surpassing, uncontested power, Putin and Xi -- whether you, or myself, or anybody else likes it or not. It doesn't help our cause that both of them are experienced, educated, and very intelligent.

    Wake up, and understand that you don't have to be in "love" with some foreign leader to respect and understand what he can do FOR you, or AGAINST you.... Take a moment from your no-doubt busy day and reflect on everything that has happened in the world from 2001 until this morning. Who's winning? Who's losing? And who is fighting an entrenched political 'civil war' where NOBODY wins (except Russia and China)...? :lonely:
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
  8. mdrobster

    mdrobster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    34,177
    Likes Received:
    12,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FYI, an aircraft's lethal concerns are more with the pilot and the situation awareness data it receives. Russian aircraft are built to take off on non clean runways, i.e., runways that contain a lot of debris that can be sucked into the engines. While doing so, they become less efficient due to the necessary tolerances added with the debris. Not sure about today, but all US military craft had their rivets sanded down to reduce air friction, Russian planes didn't do that years ago.

    That said, the Su-71 is just a follow up from previous craft, it is not some special new design, it is merely improvements.
     
  9. NMNeil

    NMNeil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And they were up against some serious competition for that award 8)
     
  10. NMNeil

    NMNeil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And everyone they sell comes equipped with a big box of duct tape.

    "During durability testing, the Marine and Navy F-35s have suffered so many cracks and received so many repairs and modifications that the test planes can’t complete their 8,000-hour life-expectancy tests. The Marine version’s airframe life could be so short that today’s F-35Bs might end up in the boneyard as early as 2026, 44 years before the program’s planned 2070 sunset"

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-35-isnt-ready-war-48312
     
  11. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What is a "Su-71"? Ah, nevermind... if anybody but us makes it, it's probably just a piece of sh!t anyway, right? So what difference does it make.... No worries... it's fun being virtually 'invulnerable'.

    [​IMG]. "And sad to say, our Chengdu J-20 is inferior to anything American-made." :alcoholic:
     
  12. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    https://nationalinterest.org/profile/dan-grazier

    Guy has it in for the F-35.
     
  13. mdrobster

    mdrobster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    34,177
    Likes Received:
    12,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sorry i was lookimg an sr-71 article.
     
  14. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah, I loved the old "Blackbird", back in the day.... Man, that thing was FAST!

    [​IMG]. It was a real 'gas-guzzler', but it didn't need duct-tape....
     
    mdrobster likes this.
  15. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    41,793
    Likes Received:
    14,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Nope.....not at all.


    F-35 and F-15X combination- unstoppable


    In a future air fight, it’s possible that the more stealthy F-35A could get closer to enemies, spot them, then relay targeting data back to F-15Xs, which could launch the missiles at threats from a safe distance. The US military has embraced this kind of networked warfare as a whole, and the strengths of the F-15X and F-35A complement each other in such an environment.....snip~

    Throw in some Raptures with the assist and the Russians or Chinese are screwed.

     
  16. Primus Epic

    Primus Epic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,341
    Likes Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you a Pilot, Aeronautical Engineer or both? I just want to know what level of conversation to have with you on this subject. Your post is right on some points and wrong on others. If you want clarification and better understanding about the why behind the F-35, then I can help you understand what you got wrong (and right) and why. My cousin was one of the Lead Integration Engineers on the YF-22 before it became the F-22 in production. He was about 7 years my senior, but we both have advanced degrees from EARU in Aerospace Science Engineering (Florida Campus). He was Avionics & Flight Controls and I was Aerodynamics and Flight Dynamics - about 7 years behind him.

    There are many things wrong with the F-35, but they are not caused by Engineers. Designing and producing something like the F-35, is not the same thing as (for example) Pilatus designing and producing the PC-24. Nor, is this the same as Boeing designing and producing the 737 Max Series. Again, your post is highly loaded, politically charged, on point in some areas and grossly off course in others.


    I've highlighted in red those areas that stand out in my mind as being worthy of note. The point is this - anytime you take an advanced design and attempt to do post-design "integration and augmentation" to include additional systems/features/functionality not originally intended, unless you've made nomenclature provisions for such augmentations, you are running a high probability for integration problems along the way and thus, significantly higher costs associated with making such attempts. Sometimes, you are better off redesigning the original concept. But, at these R&D price levels, nobody in politics or at Lockheed is even remotely interesting in telling you that.

    Compromise, is a natural part of any new aircraft design concept. To gain one benefit, you often times have to be willing to sacrifice another. To try to make the aircraft all things to all those with an interest is often times a recipe for redesign headache down range somewhere in the lifespan of the program. Military aircraft are highly mission oriented platforms and the design process is highly reflective of this fact. This requires unique performance parameters, functionality, feature sets and highly bespoke design concepts that are often times not easily changed. That's part of the problem here. The real synergy takes place when innovative capacity meets head-on with bespoke design ideas that accomplish a specific set of requirements and goals. I'm afraid that this is where the F-35 has failed.

    With the F-35, we have successfully proven that the Russians are better at Military Aircraft Design and Execution than we are. I'm sorry to say it, but that is true and it has been true for quite some time now. The proof is in the new Su 57. A fighter that I personally would not want to meet in any US front line fighter in a 1-v-1 scenario either BVR or in the Merge. In fact, you can go all the way back to the Su 27/Su 30/F-15 comparisons. The fact of the matter is that the Flanker was more aerodynamically flexible and thrust capable than the Eagle, and in the right hands would have a higher degree of survivability in both ACM and ATG missions. The F-22 is a very competent first run "Stealth" fighter. However, even the MiG 35 would give the F-22 problems 1-v-1 and that's a relatively "cheap" development extending on the original Fulcrum's capabilities.

    At lower altitudes (especially) the Russian fighters can simply do things a combination of thrust and aerodynamics that our front line fighters would have no ability to counter. We've dominated BVR (Beyond Visual Range) for a while now and probably lost the Dog Fighter design innovations necessary to keep pace with what the Russians were doing over the past couple decades at least. Now, they their BVR is catching up to our and when you combine their full-up ACM capabilities at all altitudes with their much improved radar, target acquisition and tracking and engagement capabilities, it really does put the U.S. maybe a half step behind the RADF. In the case of the Su 57, that may be increased to just under 1 full step behind as far as Air Combat is concerned. When you start to toss in Russia's advanced implementations of Counter ECM and newer ATG ordinance, it does not paint a pretty picture for the United States.

    Improved sensors and datalinks are not the answer. Cramming new ordinance on-board an aircraft whose internal geometry was not designed to accommodate is not the answer. And, exporting nearly guaranteed systems failures that will ground aircraft more than support their operational readiness is also not the answer. I'm afraid that from a purely political standpoint, US Citizens don't really want to hear the right answer. However, the right answer is to go back to the drawing board, learn from our mistakes on the F-35 and finally bring forth what the Northrup Grumman's innovation brought into existence in its YF-23 design concept. Taking what we know now about both the F-22 and F-35, we could produce an F-23 at lower cost and with a combat performance repertoire second to none on the planet today. We won't do that however, because the political fallout would be enormous.

    [if it were in production] I would take the Northrup Grumman F-23 into combat against any Russian front line fighter to date - and win.
     
    Pollycy, Labouroflove and zer0lis like this.
  17. Primus Epic

    Primus Epic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,341
    Likes Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I read the excerpt and it sounds like platitude poppycock to me trained eyes. Just an educated guess, though.

    A2AD? We did not spend this kind of money on a new weapons platform that could easily be replicated by any number of already existing US weapons platforms 'rapidly' (relative term) deployable nearly anywhere in the world. Our Navy already has precision class strike missiles of various ranges and capacity for yield. We've lead the world in this type of sea launched weapon for eons. Claiming that the F-35 is now going to be some kind of critical deployment platform for stand-off airborne A2AD strikes, sounds like one of many excuses to come merely for the sake of keeping the F-35 around.

    We got the design, implementation and execution wrong on the F-35 in too many areas. It does some things very well. However, the cost involved in supporting it make no sense - especially when it was the Pentagon, who claimed that Northrup Grumman's cost overruns on previous weapons systems was the primary reason why it went with Lockheed on the F-35. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If both companies are going to produce cost overruns, then it makes more sense to go with the better platform and the Northrup Grumman F-23, was (and still is) superior in a number of different and important ways over the Lockheed F-35.

    We should cut our losses, go back to Northrup Grumman and ask them to extend the F-23 into a brand new "F-30." That aircraft will answer anything Russia has in its inventory today - no matter what they have in their inventory today. Yes, the YF-23 was that good.
     
    Monster Zero, Labouroflove and Zorro like this.
  18. Monster Zero

    Monster Zero Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    227
    Trophy Points:
    63


    I Can't believe you're defending this scandalous, outrageously over priced, tech heavy pork barrel F-35 disaster.

    Yeah, there's an F-35 model A,B, and C - so what?

    :juggle:


    ....
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
  19. AZBob

    AZBob Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dumbest non related post ever.
     
  20. AZBob

    AZBob Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They should of killed the F-35 before it even off got the ground, we simply didn’t need it.
    We could upgraded the A-10 till the cows came home, and it still would be the best ground support aircraft ever made.
    Insane McCain pushed this hunk of crap for his favorite constituent Lockheed Martin, at the tune of billions of dollars.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
    Labouroflove and TheGreatSatan like this.
  21. Monster Zero

    Monster Zero Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    227
    Trophy Points:
    63

    The price tag alone and Bernie Sanders always sticking up for it - is more than enough to prove Democrats, Rhinos, Indpendants in Congress are all bought and paid for. It's not even a Right v Left or even a issue relegated to the activists or Libertarians, or so called Progressives ...Everybody thinks the same on Middle East issues, and Big Defense ... whether NZ, AUS, UK, or America ...

    It's the corrupted BBC, and American media acting as GATE KEEPERS (like Face crook,Twitter, bots and bot net, fake computerized accounts, comments and personas, that weaponized the blogosphere, or whats left of it, anyways ... mainly Astroturf Foundation funded, Establishment, corporate protest, news sites, and activism).

    It's all window dressing, info warfare, digital democracy, computer voting etc. I'm not saying don't vote - but it's who counts the votes and computer voting forget it. Every country needs an independant election monitoring group from outside the nation, this push button non paper ballot thing Technocrat thing, we need international election monnitoring groups and paper ballots to keep things real.

    I voted in 2018, but do I believe the results ...?

    Not at all.





    an Australian rocker weighs in ...
    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    Steve Kilbey: the Church frontman on asylum seekers, whalers and new album
    Andrew P Street

    [​IMG]

    Kilbey’s no stranger to expressing strong opinions, such as his deep disappointment with the state of current politics. “I wish to **** Australia would stay out of the Middle East,” he snarls. “I would have thought that Australia would have had its fingers burned by that by now.

    “And I’m just a pop singer and I don’t claim to understand this, but it seems to me that western countries, mainly England and America, have been ****ing around in the Middle East for over a hundred years without doing any good.

    “When Abbott described it as ‘baddies against baddies’, that’s about the extent of our knowledge of what’s actually happening. It’s a messy situation, and I’m ashamed at how we’re dealing with it.

    As you can probably surmise, Kilbey’s not a huge fan of the Coalition government. “That’s an understatement. In all of my long years I have never seen the country so disillusioned with their politicians.”

    He sighs as the conversation turns to Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers. “I’d rather our navy were out sinking Japanese whalers, personally. And talking about welfare cuts when you’ve got a $12bn contract for the jet planes [F-35 strike fighters] that don’t work and will be out of date by the time we get ’em – you could have everyone in Australia on the dole for that!”


    https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...ntman-on-asylum-seekers-whalers-and-new-album






    :juggle:

    .....
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
  22. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This bomber is darn near 66 years old technology and is expected to serve well into the 2050's.

    [​IMG]
     
  23. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Actually the best CAS aircraft to ever fly was the Douglas A-1 Skyraider.
    Not even the A-10 Warthog can fill its flight boots.
    And the A-1 has shot down Mig jet fighters over North Vietnam.
    [​IMG]

    The A-10 Warthog is the best CAS aircraft flying today but not the best to ever fly and see combat.
     
    Labouroflove and US Conservative like this.
  24. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,099
    Likes Received:
    68,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I read a different report, with the same stat about flyable aircraft.

    What it does not tell you is that the 35B is replacing the harrier, a dated design. The F35 is getting more bombs on target, with less threat of detection, in far faster times than a harrier while in sustained operations for months in Syria-the first of its kind.

    We are also learning more about the platform. While we are using the F35 as a stealth bomb truck, the brits have developed a way to greatly reduce wear on the aircraft in its landings on carriers, and mini aircraft carriers.

    Point being there was much being said about how poor a choice the F35 is, without anyone with knowledge to say otherwise. Now that we have actual data, and experienced operators, I think things are changing.

    They are getting less expensive as well.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
    APACHERAT likes this.
  25. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,099
    Likes Received:
    68,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was digging around the (2 floored) cockpit in one of those. I found a black and white playboy magazine.

    The bomb sight can actually look above the horizon.
     
    APACHERAT likes this.

Share This Page