Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
JSF affordability still a huge concern
Author Message
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #1
JSF affordability still a huge concern
As is viability.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/03/12/gao-js...r-concern/

Seems like a mistake at several levels.
03-20-2013 02:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #2
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
Well, that and it's a piece of sh*t.
03-20-2013 02:21 PM
Quote this message in a reply
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #3
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
(03-20-2013 02:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Well, that and it's a piece of sh*t.

Its the "Son of F-111B."

Problem is DoD was buying before the design was final with all the bugs worked out.

Even the most straightforward design, the USAF model, is over budget and over weight.

The VSOL version cant even come close to its performance specs on range and payload.

The Royal Navy is really going to get hosed since they designed their Queen Elizabeth class large deck aircraft carriers for VSTOL version. No cats and traps on these ships.

The USN will see the writing on the wall when they realize they can buy two F-18E's for the cost of one F-35C.

Who really cares about a LO Fighter for the Navy since the Drones on the carrier are stealth and will take out the air defenses or take on the critical strike missions
03-20-2013 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoApps70 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 20,650
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location: Charlotte, N. C.
Post: #4
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
[Image: F-35CArmaments_zps5828e65a.jpg][Image: F-35C_zpse71268b0.jpg][Image: F-35CLandingonCarrier_zps6b9facc9.jpg][Image: F-35Family_zpsbe0008e3.jpg][Image: F-35CAngles_zps8e264ddc.jpg]
Isn't it still a much better VSTOL than any other in the world?
03-20-2013 05:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,878
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #5
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
Is there a potential enemy out there that will soon have something better than what we currently have?
03-20-2013 05:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoApps70 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 20,650
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location: Charlotte, N. C.
Post: #6
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
Since China supposedly downloaded all the specs and diagrams from our defense contractors, would think yes, probably soon in China.
03-20-2013 05:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #7
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
(03-20-2013 05:08 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  [Image: F-35CArmaments_zps5828e65a.jpg][Image: F-35C_zpse71268b0.jpg][Image: F-35CLandingonCarrier_zps6b9facc9.jpg][Image: F-35Family_zpsbe0008e3.jpg][Image: F-35CAngles_zps8e264ddc.jpg]
Isn't it still a much better VSTOL than any other in the world?

You sit your ass in it and get into a dogfight with a 5th generation fighter from China or Russia. You better be able to do some magician sh*t, because you won't be able to outrun them. They do 1800+. The 35 does about 1350. I'll take the 22. Oh ...wait.... the Kenyan canceled that.
03-20-2013 10:28 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #8
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
And if VSTOL was so needed, they'd already be numerous in our surplus. They're not. STOL? Yeah, the C-17 is about as STOL as I'd like to get. Leave the VTOL to the Helos.
03-20-2013 10:30 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #9
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
And I'm NOT against the technology; I'm just saying it's not there. The 35 was f'ed up from the start because they built a multi-role jet that was supposed to do all this magical sh*t. It's the same damn thing the French did. You want an air superiority fighter? Build an air superiority fighter. You want a bomber? Build a bomber. You want a close role support attack jet? Build a close role support attack jet. DON'T role them all up into one and amalgamate the damn things when you KNOW it doesn't work. See the French and Brits.
03-20-2013 10:34 PM
Quote this message in a reply
GoApps70 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 20,650
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location: Charlotte, N. C.
Post: #10
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
Our Marines and a lot of nations depend on VSTOL aircraft. British only had what they had during the Falklands War. Main thing was to get faster, supersonic planes with same capabilities.
Yes, speed saves lives if you get into a dog fight. However, remember, the military geniuses have determined that we are going to sit 50 miles away and blow the enemy out of the air. Reminds me of when they took guns and canons off our jets because we would never get into another dog fight. Coming around again it seems.
We have been able to build faster aircraft for a long time, but do not so that they can have other capabilities.
03-20-2013 10:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #11
JSF affordability still a huge concern
That time was pre-Apache, Apps. Again, not trashing the technology, but what's the answer the the Navy's aging fighter fleet? 35's? Puh-fn-leeze.
03-20-2013 10:52 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #12
JSF affordability still a huge concern
A Super Hornet will do 1800 but its built on an aged design. They need a stealth, carrier-based fighter like the 22.
03-20-2013 10:53 PM
Quote this message in a reply
GoApps70 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 20,650
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location: Charlotte, N. C.
Post: #13
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
(03-20-2013 10:53 PM)Rebel Wrote:  A Super Hornet will do 1800 but its built on an aged design. They need a stealth, carrier-based fighter like the 22.

Actually I would be in favor of a new design. The F-22 first flew 16 years ago. Would think we might be able to out do it now.
Some would say we do not need it right now, but who knows what might be out there for some nation to put into fast production.
03-20-2013 11:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #14
JSF affordability still a huge concern
You will never see a jet planned, designed, built, and fielded in 1 year. 16 years is actually not that bad.
03-20-2013 11:23 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #15
JSF affordability still a huge concern
Btw, the Russians, Indians, and Chinese are already building 5th generation fighters that do in excess of 1800. Not needed? Yeah, if you want to be ruled. With air superiority, any country can be taken over.
03-20-2013 11:25 PM
Quote this message in a reply
T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #16
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
JSF is turning into a colossal failure. Most notably that the C version can't even field a tailhook. And the VTSOL is pointless if you're not even close to the budget. We need to stop dumping so much money into our planes that don't do anything. Give us the next generation of helos! Has 11 years of war in Afghanistan not taught us that we need to upgrade our Vietnam/Cold war era hardware?
03-20-2013 11:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #17
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
Wonderful. Another Chitload of cash wasted on something useless. I am beginning to wonder if this chit is not planned. Now what will take its place to waste another chitload of cash? This never ends. Gen. Smedley Butler was correct...War is a racket. Ike saw this also and warned us when he left office of the IMC and its perils.
03-21-2013 12:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #18
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
I saw a C Model in Fort Worth.

Has ZERO rear visibility. But wait, it gets better...

Test Pilots: Stealth Jet’s Blind Spot Will Get It ‘Gunned Every Time’

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the military’s expensive main warplane of the future, has a huge blind spot directly behind it. Pilots say that could get them shot down in close-quarters combat, where the flier with the better visibility has the killing advantage.

“Aft visibility could turn out to be a significant problem for all F-35 pilots in the future,” the Pentagon acknowledged in a report (.pdf) obtained by the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C. watchdog group.

That admission should not come as a surprise to observers of the Joint Strike Fighter program. Critics of the delayed, over-budget F-35 — which is built in three versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps — have been trying for years to draw attention to the plane’s blind spot, only to be dismissed by the government and Lockheed Martin, the Joint Strike Fighter’s primary builder.

The damning report, dated Feb. 15, summarized the experiences of four test pilots who flew the F-35A — the relatively lightweight Air Force version — during a September-to-November trial run of the Joint Strike Fighter’s planned training program at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The report mentions a number of shortfalls of the highly complex F-35, including sensors, communications and aerial refueling gear that aren’t yet fully designed or just don’t work right.

No aspect of the report is more damning than the pilots’ critiques of the F-35′s rearward visibility. “All four student pilots commented on the out-of-cockpit visibility of the F-35, an issue which not only adversely affects training, but safety and survivability as well,” the report states. The Joint Strike Fighter is a stealth plane designed to avoid detection by radar, but if it ends up in a short-range dogfight, a distinct possibility even in this high-tech age, it’s the pilot’s eyes that matter most.

Meant to replace almost all of the military’s jet fighters at an initial cost of more than $400 billion, the F-35 has a clamshell-style windshield with a good view to the front and sides. But it’s got no line of sight to the rear, which is blocked by the pilot’s seat and the plane’s upper fuselage spine. Today’s A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s and F-22s, by contrast, have so-called “bubble canopies” with good all-round vision.

The limitations of the F-35′s canopy are “partially a result of designing a common pilot escape system [a.k.a. ejection seat] for all three variants to the requirements of the short-take-off and vertical landing environment.” In other words, the Joint Strike Fighter’s windshield is constrained by the need to fit a standard ejection seat and the downward-facing engine of the Marine Corps variant, which allows that model to take off and land vertically and is located directly behind the cockpit.

The pilots, who formerly flew A-10s and F-16s, didn’t seem interested in excuses. Their comments, quoted in the report, are scathingly direct.

“Difficult to see [other aircraft in the visual traffic] pattern due to canopy bow,” one said.

“Staying visual with wingman during tactical formation maneuvering a little tougher than [older] legacy [jets] due to reduced rearward visibility from cockpit,” another added.

Said a third, “A pilot will find it nearly impossible to check [their six o'clock position] under G [force].”

“The head rest is too large and will impede aft visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” one pilot reported.

Most damningly: “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time” during a dogfight.

The pilots’ sentiments echo warnings by Pierre Sprey, one of the original designers of the A-10 and F-16. Joined occasionally by former national security staffer Winslow Wheeler and ex-Pentagon test director Tom Christie, Sprey has repeatedly spoken out against the military’s tendency to downplay pilot visibility in recent warplane design efforts. At a presentation in Washington six years ago, Sprey told Danger Room that the F-22, also built by Lockheed Martin, featured a more limited view from the cockpit than the company’s older F-16 — and that the F-35, then still in early design and testing, would be far worse still.

Lockheed and the military’s response has been to tout the benefits of the Joint Strike Fighter’s sensors, which Lockheed vice president Steve O’Bryan last year characterized as “world-beating.” The F-35 has six wide-angle cameras installed along the fuselage that are supposed to stream a steady, 360-degree view directly to the pilot’s specially designed helmet display. In essence, the warplane should see for the pilot.

But the helmet display doesn’t work yet, another shortfall highlighted by the Pentagon report. For now — and perhaps forever if the display’s problems don’t get resolved — Joint Strike Fighter pilots rely solely on their eyes for their view outside the jet. And their vision is incomplete owing to the F-35′s design compromises.

“There is no simple relief to limitations of the F-35 cockpit visibility,” the report states. Instead, the Pentagon admits it is more or less hoping that the problem will somehow go away on its own. “It remains to be seen whether or not, in these more advanced aspects of training, the visibility issues will rise to the level of safety issues, or if, instead, the visibility limitations are something that pilots adapt to over time and with more experience.”

But wishful thinking is no basis for warplane design. Especially when the plane in question is supposed to form the backbone of the entire U.S. air arsenal.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/...lind-spot/
03-21-2013 05:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #19
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
The big problem on terminating Pentagon Turkey weapons programs is the cost of such termination.

In the late 80's McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics had the contract to build the A-12 attack jet for the Navy. This was the infamous "Flying Dorito."

In 1990, the Pentagon axed the program because the Plane was WAY over budget, over design weight, and because the Cold War was over. $2 Billion+ was paid to the contractors for the program and not even one flying test model was produced. The Government demanded their money back.

So what did the contractors do? They sued the Government to stop the collection efforts. This was 1992. The litigation concluded in 2011.

The Government was very cagey, stopping the suit because classified data was going to be used in open court.

"For the past 20 years, the government has been demanding repayment of money spent on the plane’s development and the companies have been resisting, filing a lawsuit in federal court to block the Pentagon from collecting.

But the government asked for the lawsuit to be thrown out because classified secrets were being leaked during the discovery process.

The Supreme Court was being asked to settle the issue of whether the government’s refusal to turn over classified information, thus preventing the companies from defending themselves, should bar the government from recovering the money.

The state-secrets privilege, on which the government relied to shut down the companies’ lawsuit, typically arises in national security and terrorism cases. Invoking the privilege, which the Supreme Court ratified in the 1950s, the government tells a court that allowing a case to go forward would force the disclosure of information that could damage national security.

The court agreed that the litigation could not go forward if state secrets were going to be spilled, but also that the government could not use a defense that included classified information. The justices decided the best thing to do is to send both sides back to where they were when the case started.

“The traditional course is to leave the parties where they stood when they knocked on the courthouse door,” Scalia said.

That basically means Boeing Co. and General Dynamics don’t immediately have to repay the government $1.35 billion, plus more than $2.5 billion in accumulated interest, after the Pentagon declared the companies in default on the contract of the canceled attack plane.

But it also means that companies won’t immediately get $1.2 billion awarded to them by the Court of Federal Claims when it decided the government’s termination for default instead was a termination for convenience. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had already thrown out that award, but the companies were hoping to get it reinstated by the Supreme Court.

The high court sent the case back to the lower courts to see if other issues involving the contract can be resolved in court."
03-21-2013 06:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,648
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #20
RE: JSF affordability still a huge concern
Some thoughts from the perspective of Senior Officer Present, which I think I still am around here:

1. The JSF suffers badly from "elephant is a mouse designed by a committee" syndrome. There really are three separate aircraft--a fighter version, an attack/bomber version, and a naval STOL/STOBAR version--but in the case of each the optimum design has been compromised to some extent in favor of "commonality" across the board. So you end up with a fighter that doesn't really have all that much in common with the naval version, for example, but the fighter would be a better fighter and the naval version would be a better naval version if they had even less in common, and were in fact three distinctly different aircraft, because in each case functionality was sacrificed for what commonality was achieved.

2. Dash speed is important, but is not the most important criterion in a dogfight. Pilot competence and maneuverability are both more important in a dogfight scenario. What you really want in a dogfight is to get into position behind the other guy. Do that and you control the action. Obviously, if you can't see behind you, that's a huge problem. Despite being subsonic, the Harrier actually performed surprisingly well in the relatively few dogfights it got involved in because 1) the pilots (mostly Brits) were a whole lot better than who they were up against (Argentines/third world) and 2) those pilots learned how to use the vectored thrust system to achieve some pretty amazing maneuverability. The STOL/STOBAR JSF gets its vertical component not from vectored thrust (which allows it to be faster than the Harrier) but from a separate vertical jet engine, which takes up space and weight and makes it less maneuverable. Harriers would be in bad trouble against a 5th generation with a pilot who knew what he/she was doing, but up against third world air forces/pilots, they'd probably still do pretty well for years to come. Not sure about the JSF, but not optimistic. I'm not a fan of the vertical jet system for several reasons, including the visibility issues cited above. One other point is that Russian designs are historically notorious fuel guzzlers. This means that if they're going to engage at dash speed they are going to be limited to very short range or very limited hang time. Not sure what advances they will make in a 5th generation design, but if you're worried about running out of gas you're usually not very good in a dogfight.

3. The most likely engagements are not dogfights in the classical sense but standoff near-dogfights where electronics and weapons systems become more important. In playing around with how deck space would work for some alternative carrier designs, I was surprised to find out how small the naval JSF was. Given the room taken up by the vertical thrust system, I'm not sure how stout an electronics load they can carry, despite the claims in the article above. Maybe the ones that don't actually have the vertical jet can cram a bunch more in that space. Austin Bay, whom some Rice folks may remember, has described future west v. east confrontations as "high tech v. heavy metal" and that would be an apt phrase to keep in mind here.

4. The issues cited with terminating a contract are just one example of how flawed our whole defense procurement system in general is, particularly our weapons procurement. Among many problems, we tend far too often to put all our eggs into one basket, usually an unproved basket that breaks under pressure. We need more competition, more "fly before you buy" systems. Yeah, you end up paying more on the front end that way, but you get a better system and you don't keep throwing good money after bad on something that doesn't work and never will. The Abrams tank is one system that we bought that way, and even though we ended up for political reasons going with what was probably the 2nd or maybe even 3rd best option, it has turned out to be a damned effective option.

Bottom line--it's an expensive mistake. Another F-111 for pretty much the same reasons. The 111 ultimately found a home as a low level dash bomber, but that's not something I see the F-35 as doing. I wouldn't fly a fighter where I couldn't see behind me.
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2013 06:51 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
03-21-2013 06:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.