Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

All the ways the F-35 is screwed up, according to the Pentagon’s top weapons tester
The Washington Post ^ | 2/4/16 | Dan Lamothe

Posted on 02/06/2016 7:44:03 AM PST by don-o

The Pentagon's top weapons tester has condemned aspects of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program in a new report, raising questions about the $1.5-trillion effort's ability to meet its already slipped production schedule, synthesize information on the battlefield and keep aircraft available to fly.

The 82-page report was distributed to Congress last month, and released publicly this week. It was completed by Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation. He reports directly to Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, and carries out independent assessments for both Carter and members of Congress.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; f35
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: Kickass Conservative
ersonally, I think the A-10 is the Belle of the Ball.

As long as F-15s and F-18s have been there to sanitize the air above it.

41 posted on 02/06/2016 10:59:37 AM PST by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney

The video I mentioned earlier was Battle of the X-Planes.You can find it ion YouTube.


42 posted on 02/06/2016 11:00:23 AM PST by puppypusher ( The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Same pressures as applied during the design of the space shuttle, and we know how well that turned out.


43 posted on 02/06/2016 11:13:57 AM PST by Ozark Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: don-o

“One-size-fits-all”, doesn’t.


44 posted on 02/06/2016 11:15:39 AM PST by r_barton (We the People of the United States...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doorgunner69

Someone always brings up the A-10 in a discussion about fighter planes.


45 posted on 02/06/2016 11:26:52 AM PST by Mr. Blond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blond

Because the Air Foce and the Air Force fighter pilots that fly the A-10 classify it as a fighter.

The Navy has an official “attack” designation - the Air Force does not.

If one was to go into a fighter bar and declare to all the A-10 fighter pilots they are not fighter pilots, that someone would be subject to wall-to-wall counseling to correct his attitude.

cheers.


46 posted on 02/06/2016 12:13:41 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blond

Oh, one thing, we never say “fighter planes.”

Most times we just say “fighters”


47 posted on 02/06/2016 12:16:58 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blond
Well, I have seen shots of the A-10 with Sidewinders mounted, so some sort of A-A must be contemplated. Be interesting to know if they are there for knocking down enemy helo gunships or self defense against enemy fighters.

I would think Su-27s would fire from well beyond AIM-9 range.

48 posted on 02/06/2016 12:29:06 PM PST by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wjcsux

“From what I have heard, the F-35 doesn’t stand a chance against an F-16 in head to head combat.”

You have heard wrong... :-)

A contrived, close-in dogfight is far different from modern air combat with BVR weapons. In a literally head-on encounter at a range of 30+ miles, the F-16 would be an easy target for an AMRAAM, while its own AMRAAMs would be unable to acquire the F-35.

That is not to say that the F-35 is perfect in its present form, but it has plenty of potential to be a worthy successor to the F-16 and F-18.

We could use plenty more F-22 class planes, but that’s a different story.


49 posted on 02/06/2016 1:12:29 PM PST by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hulka; All
Most times we just say "fighters"

I am way behind the curve on all things aviation. I hope I can be added to any ping lists, so I can learn.

What about "strikers" or "jet strikers" as far as lingo?

Here is the T-45 that the Marines fly at Meridian NAS. He has yet to make his first flight. Already passed the centrifuge, had some ground school and sims.

 photo t 45.jpg

50 posted on 02/06/2016 1:19:11 PM PST by don-o (He will not share His glory. And He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the Name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: datricker

It has a gun but only a few hundred rounds.


51 posted on 02/06/2016 1:26:04 PM PST by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Wow. That PDF report shows the F-35 to be incapable of just about anything. It couldn’t even out dogfight an F-16 that had full external fuel tanks to limit the F-16 to 7.0g.


52 posted on 02/06/2016 2:43:26 PM PST by CodeToad (Islam should be banned and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: puppypusher

“All Aircraft and technologies have development issues.Nothing is a sure bet.”

True, but that is why you don’t bet everything on one platform like they did with the F-35.


53 posted on 02/06/2016 2:44:55 PM PST by CodeToad (Islam should be banned and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
True, but that is why you don’t bet everything on one platform like they did with the F-35.

IIRC, the F-4 Phantom II was never intended as a do-everything platform, but it evolved into that over time.

54 posted on 02/06/2016 3:05:04 PM PST by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

There was a competition...Lockheed and partner companies against Boeing and partner companies.

Boeing’s design was garbage. Used the same techniques/technologies the USMC was trying to get away from in the AV8.

Maybe the intent was for Boeing to create such a butt ugly airframe that couldn’t perform in order to throw the competition?


55 posted on 02/06/2016 5:54:34 PM PST by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political parties in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

“...When the B-52 first became operational, the only aerial refuelers were KC-97s or KB-29s. ... hair raising ...

IMO the Boeing 707 was rushed into production in order to become the KC-135, which made refueling in flight for B-52’s a whole lot easier.”

elcid is correct about the difference in aircraft performance, but has left out large segments of USAF history.

Boeing’s B-47 (designed in 1945, first flight 1947, operational 1951-1969) was an intermediate-range bomber that set the design pattern for the great majority of large jets since. Built in greater numbers than the B-52, B-47s also enjoyed an edge in performance, in several other attributes.

Mid-air refueling of B-47s behind KC-97s (based on Boeing’s Stratocruiser) was indeed a demanding activity. Boeing’s KC-135 (based on the 720) was eagerly awaited by Strategic Air Command aircrews. But KC-97s did hang around until the 1970s.


56 posted on 02/06/2016 6:05:04 PM PST by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: don-o

In the USAF, we have “trainers,” we have “fighters” and we have “lifters”. . .no “strikers (though we do fly “strike packages”. . .you know, bunch of jets fly in a gorilla package to hit a major target.

Though. . .to keep it simple, we have two types of aircraft. . .fighters and targets. . .

Will keep you in mind.

Ref the picture. Cool jet, snappy thing. He will have the time of his life. . .as a student you are not supposed to have “air-sense” or “judgment” yet, so have at it. . . back when I was flying as a student in a T-38 over south Texas, in the MOA, got a call from ATC saying they have traffic in the area, type and altitude unknown. . .and would I mind checking it out? (ATC must have forgot I was a solo student pilot).

So, I found the little C-172 puttering along and I swooped down from his high 7 o’clock position and throttled back, speed brake out, flaps down, had everything hanging but the gear and the canopy open as I tried to slow to his speed. . .a speed we basically taxi at. . .anyway, I zipped by the guy—he was wearing a red ball-cap and white shirt, I was THAT close—and as I passed him, I hit the burner and did a climbing barrel roll up and away. Boy, those were fun days.

(Now I am a former A-10 fighter pilot and F-15E fighter pilot).


57 posted on 02/06/2016 6:09:01 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

Great story!


58 posted on 02/06/2016 6:13:54 PM PST by don-o (He will not share His glory. And He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the Name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

Good thing that Cessna pilot didn’t get your buzz numbers.

;^)


59 posted on 02/06/2016 6:20:17 PM PST by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

” ... It couldn’t even out dogfight an F-16 that had full external fuel tanks ...”

Even if this is an accurate summary, it misses the point.

The F-35 was not designed for air-to-air combat. If it had been, other capabilities would have been diminished.

The public’s conception of air combat is somewhat out-of-date anyway: dogfighting has been on the wane since the 1930s at least.

The egoes of fighter pilots - never a small thing - cannot permit them to admit it, though.

And it’s just possible they enjoy the hero-worship that washes over them, from star-struck lesser mortals at all points of the compass.


60 posted on 02/06/2016 6:41:04 PM PST by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson