- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A not too kind assessment of the F-35 program.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:00 pm to UndercoverBryologist
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:00 pm to UndercoverBryologist
Where the F-35 excels is in coordinating the battle field and data integration from multiple sources. Many of the F-35's woes would be cured if we brought back production of the F-22 and designed a new stealthy close air support aircraft to replace the A-10. With an integrated network and planes that excel in a dogfighting role (F-22) and Ground attack role (A-10 replacement) we'd have a complete package much like we used to have with the B-1 & B52/F-15/F-16 and A-10.
0
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:00 pm to UndercoverBryologist
I have a friend whose son is trying to fly these things. He says the hi tech helmet is giving them fits on being reliable.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:02 pm to jbgleason
quote:
You know why the Air Force brass hates the A-10? Because it does one thing, CAS, really REALLY well and not much else.
FIFY. The Army and Marine Corps Brass loves the dang thing.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:02 pm to SantaFe
quote:
hi tech helmet
that thing is incredible and so is the overall technology in that aircraft
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:03 pm to Centinel
quote:
Let me explain to you how Defense Contracting works these days:
Lockheed: We can build the F-35 and make it do these gazillion things for just a couple billion!
DoD: OMG OMG OMG! You get the contract.
Lockheed: *snickering* Suckers...
--one year later--
Lockheed: Ya, so, um, turns out we can only do half the things we said we could, and it's going to cost three times as much.
DoD: Uh, ok. Here's your money.
Lockheed: *snickering again* Suckers....
--One Year Later--
Lockheed: So, um, turns out we're only going to be able to do a quarter of the things we said we would, at five times the cost, and it's going to take three times as long.
DoD: Ok, here's more money!!!
Absolutely none of this is close to the truth.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:10 pm to Floating Change Up
quote:
Absolutely none of this is close to the truth.
I was a business analyst for PEO Aviation, Apache Block III.
I got to see all the KO reports and correspondence with Boeing.
It is most certainly accurate.
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:10 pm to USMEagles
quote:F-111 is a classic example of it never happening before.
If only there had been some historical precedent, where DoD nincompoops with outsized vocabularies and masturbatory requirements lists had tried to make a bunch of groups share the same hardware and failed... if only. Then we would have known better.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:11 pm to UndercoverBryologist
I have a strange feeling that none of the people in charge of the development of the F-35 ever watched The Pentagon Wars.
Relevant scene
Relevant scene
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:13 pm to Floating Change Up
quote:
quote:
Let me explain to you how Defense Contracting works these days:
Lockheed: We can build the F-35 and make it do these gazillion things for just a couple billion!
DoD: OMG OMG OMG! You get the contract.
Lockheed: *snickering* Suckers...
--one year later--
Lockheed: Ya, so, um, turns out we can only do half the things we said we could, and it's going to cost three times as much.
DoD: Uh, ok. Here's your money.
Lockheed: *snickering again* Suckers....
--One Year Later--
Lockheed: So, um, turns out we're only going to be able to do a quarter of the things we said we would, at five times the cost, and it's going to take three times as long.
DoD: Ok, here's more money!!!
Absolutely none of this is close to the truth.
Yeah it more like:
Defense contractor: Shite we need a new contract....finds out who makes the decision....proceeds to lavish gifts, trips, and women until the contract is won.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:15 pm to Tigeralum2008
Kind of feel attacked. We do a few components on the f35 where I work.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:17 pm to UndercoverBryologist
Not from janes not reading
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:20 pm to UndercoverBryologist
also, not all military systems are a success
Just look at the:
B-1 (intended to be a tactical nuclear bomber but got derp'd by the B-2)
F-4, USA's first attempt at a universal fighter that turned like a pig
Comanche Stealth attack helo, obsolete when cold war ended
F-111
Just look at the:
B-1 (intended to be a tactical nuclear bomber but got derp'd by the B-2)
F-4, USA's first attempt at a universal fighter that turned like a pig
Comanche Stealth attack helo, obsolete when cold war ended
F-111
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:22 pm to jcaz
quote:
The F-4 was the only fighter-bomber that somewhat did the job.
I know what you're getting at but the F-4 had major deficiencies in the fighter category. The fact it didn't have a gun not withstanding, you couldn't turn the thing in a 40 acre field. When in a turning dogfight the severely handicapped it. But those J65 engines made TONS of thrust and saved it's bacon on more than in occasion.
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:22 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Just look at the:
B-1 (intended to be a tactical nuclear bomber but got derp'd by the B-2)
F-4, USA's first attempt at a universal fighter that turned like a pig
Comanche Stealth attack helo, obsolete when cold war ended
F-111
I see you these, and raise you the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) Program.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:24 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
F-4, USA's first attempt at a universal fighter that turned like a pig
wasn't too bad considering it was 50s technology, was overall a lot better than the century series man on a missile jets in that regard
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:28 pm to Lonnie Utah
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:30 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
FIFY. The Army and Marine Corps Brass loves the dang thing.
You are correct. I should have been clear. A low tech flying gun that does CAS is not sexy to the USAF. They want to spend BILLIONS of our money on swoopy planes that shoot missiles and go fast.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:31 pm to UndercoverBryologist
We just need to pump 300 billion more into the program and it's gonna work this time
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:34 pm to jbgleason
What do we honestly need more of, fast air-to-air interceptors, bombers, or CAS?
I acknowledge that there’s probably a role for all 3, but if you had to pick a role for America’s fleet of fighter jets and you could prioritize one role, what would it be?
I acknowledge that there’s probably a role for all 3, but if you had to pick a role for America’s fleet of fighter jets and you could prioritize one role, what would it be?
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:35 pm to LSUtiger17
quote:
Aren't the F-16 and A-10 vastly different aircraft designed to perform very different roles? Seems pretty obvious that one aircraft would have difficulty filling both roles.
The Air Force has almost zero interest in the close air support game. This was a way for them to get a shiny new toy while assuring the Army they were *wink* *wink* getting an improved CAS platform in the bargain.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News