Posted on 01/06/2017 7:07:49 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Yep and the LCS and F-35 should follow the Crusader into obscurity.
“Stop pointing at the contractor. The contractor is delivering what the govt asked for”
This! Times 1000.
Contractors are TOTALLY controlled by the bureaucracy, regulations, and actively controlled by military and government oversight. I am sick and tired of people with NO CLUE how the system works attacking it. It does have flaws but they aren’t the ones listed by morons. And THEN we get all these so called conserves here on FR regurgitating what they read in leftist hit piece anti-military articles.
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 can’t dogfight.
https://warisboring.com/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875#.9pekmjfaj
“The tailhook being engineered under the two main landing wheels also tells me that navy pilots didn’t have a say in the design.”
Well you are wrong. The Navy had 100% involvement in the development. They are getting what they asked for.
The Navy has a long list of single engine planes... and THIS engine is FAR more reliable than jet engines from the 60s.
Yeah, it would hurt....a lot. But, if we stick with it, we (and our allies) can't afford anything else for the next 30 years or more.
The aircraft is a compromised design in every variant, in order to fill three very different roles.
Why would you want to field less than optimum weapons when survival of men, units, forces, and the nation depend upon them?
“The issue occurs when a lightly loaded F-35C’s landing gear nose strut is compressed while the jet throttles up, right before launch. As the catapult fires and the hold back bar is released, the jet is rapidly pulled forward, during which time the strut oscillates violently up and down. The bouncing continues as the aircraft proceeds down the catapult track at increasing speed.”
That’s the best you got? Seriously engineers came up with 5 fixes by time you finished writing that down. Only bureaucracy keeps them from all being implemented already.
Why do we trust Lockheed? Oh maybe it is the DECADES of tireless work developing systems that keep our country safe. SR-71, F-16, F-22, C-130, and THOUSANDS of lesser known products you have never heard of. They are trusted because they are audited up the yin-yang and the bureaucrats are happy. Stop believing leftwing hit pieces.
Maybe, maybe not, and no non-expert can ever know where the contractor's fault ends and the government's fault begins.
My best guess would be: about 50-50.
The serious question on the table for "deciders" is whether it's worth while to sink $billions more into the project, or put a few $millions into writing up a book of "lessons learned" and then start all over from scratch.
Like I said, if this were an Army project, it would have been cancelled decades ago.
But the Air Force & Navy... well, they're... special.
“Test Pilot Admits the F-35 can’t dogfight.”
Funny, the F-35 pilot I met said the opposite.
Besides, why dog fight when you can shoot missiles at targets beside you just by turning your head? Last I checked it was a STRIKE fighter and not a dog fighter. If they wanted a dog fighter they would have given it thrust vectoring. It does just what it was designed to do. It is not the F-35’s problem that YOU don’t understand the requirements. Or that you read an article by someone that did not understand them either. Engineers built what the military asked for. Get off our backs.
Update the A-10 for ground support roles.
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 can’t dogfight.
But if they used newer technology to create a smaller, longer range version of the old Phoenix missile they’d never have to let an enemy get close enough to dogfight. But that system could be used on existing multirole fighters, so no need for the F-35 anyway.
And, I left out, cheaper. A million bucks a unit is a bit costly.
Concur. Lots of blame to go around.
But.... An American who critiques a piece of gear that our posterity will be taking to the boat in high seas with no divert is a great American, not a leftist.
Left implies big government. Big government is what is being critiqued.
Many times I screwed up but the Grumman Ironworks engineers made it so I wouldn’t die. Same with Beech, 2000+ hours in those also. Students tried to kill me with bad landings. Engineers saved my ass.
So yes engineers and builders are held in high regard.
But critiquing is natural and should be respectful.
From an article in 2013 (!!!)...
In testing, the tailhooks were failing to catch the arresting wires that are stretched across a carrier’s flight deck to bring the aircraft to a halt.
So in the initial iteration the tail hook didn't actually work... as a tail hook. Just great.
Non experts should acknowledge that up front rather than regurgitate insults to hard working patriots and vets.
My best guess would be: about 50-50.
Try again. More like 80/20. It starts with the govt. And there are good govt folks as well, but they are not necessarily the experts in any given area, and they are often unrealistic in expectations from technology and contractors. The big mistake they make today is to think they can get tomorrows invincible capability for less than todays capability cost. That, and politics of doling out funds, often not to the best performing contractor, but in the name of spreading the wealth around. I also believe that certain politicians have it in mind to intentionally set up contracts for failure, because they really aren't interested in the US best interests.
whether it's worth while to sink $billions more into the project, or put a few $millions into writing up a book of "lessons learned" and then start all over from scratch.
Maybe, but probably not, as all the development costs would be lost in a start over. That sunk cost often IS the lessons learned. Additionally, starting over will leave a capability gap for decades that our military cant afford as older systems age out. We are already there for so many systems today, and that's ALL services...
The Marines must have the F-35 or they are out of the fixed wing strike business. The USAF is getting theirs now, the question will be ‘how many’. That leaves the Navy — which could very well back out in favor of a new aircraft to fill the strike roll, keeping their Super Hornets for fleet interceptors.
Joint = USAF.
Beech won the USAF contract for the T6A in 2000.
Navy was along for the ride. We apparently had a rep invited to meetings. Feedback was predictable.
I was the T6B guy in 2007... We then began to be able to provide inputs on a airplane designed years ago. Not the end of the world, everyone worked together to make it work.
You and I need to collaborate sometime on an thread that debunks the whole “military-industrial complex” meme. I wish people would look at history and learn what was required to industrialize for WWII in order to out produce the Axis powers. It was $$$.
I really wonder about the Pentagon forever latching onto these attempts to build one aircraft to rule them all. It just never works. It never saves money, and you end up with an aircraft that attempts to do everything, but doesn’t do anything particularly well.
It’s like you can buy a Swiss Army knife and it might have a cute little set of screw drivers, files, and a saw built into it. In a pinch it might be handy, but you don’t want to try building a house with one. It’s the same with aircraft. Design it to do a few things well and it will be a great design.
Yep.
Before the engineers, pilots, maintainers, etc get their hands on the equipment, the program is flawed from the beginning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.