- 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 1:38 pm to Centinel
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:38 pm to Centinel
quote:
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.
I've been a defense contractor for 30 years. It is not accurate. If it *were* accurate... Boeing would have protested and ended the contract with the quickness.
Anytime you have a contract altered which changes scope, anyone who originally competed on the solicitation has grounds for a protest. When a protest is made, there is an immediate Stop work order and review.
Back in the 80's yeah, lots of low-bidding to get the job and then amendments to kick up the price took place. However, probably the only thing Al Gore did right when he was president was over-haul Federal Acquisition Regulations to eliminate low-ball/amendment-riching contracts. (although, Al did frick up FAR with some other changes which give to much power to minority/disadvantage-owned shell companies).
Anyway, Boeing would've pissed all over your scenario - they wanted JSF baaaad. Boeing and Lockheed protest each other's contracts all the time.
2
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:38 pm to jbgleason
quote:
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.
That's why I said we need an A-10 "replacement". Take the GAU-8 and starting building a stealthy version of the A-10 with the latest technology under the hood. Keep the turbofan engines, keep the ruggedness and survivability. Give it a high thrust to weight ratio (something like an A-6). Best of both worlds.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:39 pm to UndercoverBryologist
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:40 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
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?
Given the war we just fought or the war we will fight in the future?
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:41 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:Actually it worked as intended. It was nothing more than a taxpayer funded jobs program. Just like the rest of our military spending.
Brown’s comments are a tacit admission that the F-35 has failed.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:41 pm to Floating Change Up
quote:
Boeing and Lockheed protest each other's contracts all the time.
Yes, I know. And the things that Lockheed has been doing to miss deadlines, underdeliver, extend costs, etc. are still happening regardless of what "should" happen.
Same shite I saw from Boeing with the Apache.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:42 pm to 777Tiger
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
bro, it didn't have a cannon...churned out lots of engine smoke making it easy to track, and turned like a bomber
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:45 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Given the war we just fought or the war we will fight in the future?
Based on the most likely scenario for a future war?
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:46 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
bro, it didn't have a cannon...churned out lots of engine smoke making it easy to track, and turned like a bomber
very familiar with the F-4, I was just saying that , in its era, it was pretty formidable, and yes, it was a mistake to not have originally put a gun on it, it still kicked the shite out of the NV Migs in kill ratio, and would have had better numbers if not for the unreliability of the missiles
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:47 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
Based on the most likely scenario for a future war?
Yes. In your opinion, what's the most likely scenario for a future war? What will we need in that conflict?
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:48 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
quote:
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?
Given the war we just fought or the war we will fight in the future?
From my understanding, the F-15 and F-16 were expected to be phased out by the F-35. I also thought the F-35 was supposed to be cheaper than a f-22 but turned out being more expensive
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:50 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Yes. In your opinion, what's the most likely scenario for a future war? What will we need in that conflict?
Okay, if you’re asking me to theorize, I would guess bombers and CAS.
We outmatch everybody in terms of tech (at least at this point). Our aircraft can intercept anybody, so there doesn’t seem to be the need to prioritize air-to-air superiority.
Edit: So long as we have soldiers and Marines on the ground, and they bear the brunt of wartime casualties, it would seem prudent to prioritize CAS capabilities.
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:56 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Yep, I have heard all kinds of mixed stuff on the F-35, but its shortcomings seem overly dramatized by some.
My brother in law flew the F-35. He loved the plane.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 1:59 pm to SugarAggie
quote:
He loved the plane.
what's not to love?
had an opportunity to be an instructor on it last year(civilian job with LM,) but couldn't take it because of some family issues(job was abroad,) if the offer is still open in about a year I'll take itPosted on 2/24/21 at 2:02 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
We outmatch everybody in terms of tech (at least at this point). Our aircraft can intercept anybody, so there doesn’t seem to be the need to prioritize air-to-air superiority.
I would disagree, almost completely. Here's why.
In ANY modern conflict, what you are trying to achieve is air superiority. If you can achieve that, then it really doesn't matter what you're flying. If the enemy cannot come up and challenge you, then you don't have to worry about climb rates and minimum turning circles and everything else we evaluate aircraft by. At that point, you want a platform that can best support the boots on the ground. No matter how good, no army ever captured territory simply by flying over it. If you can have a platform that is very good to outstanding in the Air to Air role, and decent in the air to ground role they you have yourself a winner. The perfect example of this is the F-15. It's never lost a dogfight and it a very good air to ground platform. It's why I said the best scenario is to restart f-22 production to compliment the F-35. The shortcoming of the F-35 are in the close in "knife fight" air to air role (hopefully the F-35 can take care of those threats BVR) and the number of hours of required maintenance on the ground per flight hour in the air.
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 2:05 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
In ANY modern conflict, what you are trying to achieve is air superiority. If you can achieve that, then it really doesn't matter what you're flying. If the enemy cannot come up and challenge you, then you don't have to worry about climb rates and minimum turning circles and everything else we evaluate aircraft by. At that point, you want a platform that can best support the boots on the ground. No matter how good, no army ever captured territory simply by flying over it. If you can have a platform that is very good to outstanding in the Air to Air role, and decent in the air to ground role they you have yourself a winner. The perfect example of this is the F-15. It's never lost a dogfight and it a very good air to ground platform. It's why I said the best scenario is to restart f-22 production to compliment the F-35. The shortcoming of the F-35 are in the close in air to air role and the number of hours of required maintenance on the ground per flight hour in the air.
Fair enough. I concede to your thoughtful insight into the matter.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 2:07 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
Fair enough. I concede to your thoughtful insight into the matter.
I'm not a military strategists, but I DID take Air Force ROTC about 1,000,000 years ago...
Posted on 2/24/21 at 2:08 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
but I DID take Air Force ROTC about 1,000,000 years ago...
at a Holiday Inn Express??
Posted on 2/24/21 at 2:09 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
at a Holiday Inn Express??
No. It was MUCH worse than a Holiday Inn Express.
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 2:22 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
The fact it didn't have a gun not withstanding
Ummm, the F-4E/F did.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News