JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
member_26535
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_26535 » 05 Feb 2014 06:25

High AoA testing video - F35C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6XofdlfJ0k

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21057
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 05 Feb 2014 17:12

While orders have been made,the number being confirmed by interested allies is far below their original intent.The Netherlands,37 instead of 85 for example.In fact,all US allies have cut their JSF numbers because of the uncertainties in the programme,both technical and costs,and are looking at alternatives to keep their inventory healthy.These are bound to impact upon eventual costs of acquisition and life-cycle support.The US have no alternative but to bite the bullet,in manner similar to India (requiring hundreds of MIG-21 replacements) and the LCA,which is a far healthier programme being less technially ambitious,despite the huge delay.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 Feb 2014 18:13

Philip wrote:While orders have been made,the number being confirmed by interested allies is far below their original intent.The Netherlands,37 instead of 85 for example.In fact,all US allies have cut their JSF numbers because of the uncertainties in the programme,both technical and costs,and are looking at alternatives to keep their inventory healthy. These are bound to impact upon eventual costs of acquisition and life-cycle support.

The aircraft has garnered several new customers, who were not original JSF participants - Japan, South Korea, Singapore & Israel. That's about 300 orders between them. More than enough to offset the reduction in orders from Europe. They'll also be joined by Spain (needs STOVL Harrier replacement). As long as US orders stay steady at 2,443 units, a total build order in excess of 3000 units is all but assured.


The US have no alternative but to bite the bullet,in manner similar to India (requiring hundreds of MIG-21 replacements) and the LCA,which is a far healthier programme being less technially ambitious,despite the huge delay.

Developing a 4th generation fighter, for an industry with negligible design experience and no ecosystem of subcontractors to rely upon, was as ambitious as the JSF program, if not more. Costs for both are relatively fair ($26M, $80-90M).

The problem, if anything, was that both programs advertised hugely overoptimistic development time-frames. 15 years for the Tejas and 10 years for the F-35. The actual time taken is quite reasonable (20y &15y respectively), but has left both with significant PR issues.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 05 Feb 2014 18:44

Gen. Michael Hostage, head of Air Combat Command

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20 ... r-aircraft

Q. So you remain committed to the 1,763 figure that has come out?

A. Absolutely. Not one plane less.

Q. What about upgrades to the F-22?

A. The F-22, when it was produced, was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console in somebody’s home gaming system. But I was forced to use that because that was the spec that was written by the acquisition process when I was going to buy the F-22.

Then, I have to go through the [service life extension plan] and [cost and assessment program evaluation] efforts with airplanes to try to get modern technology into my legacy fleet. That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet, I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 05 Feb 2014 18:49

What's the Latest Word on F-35 Unit Cost?

The F-35-specific data in the Omnibus' Joint Explanatory Statement (JES) calculate to a unit cost for a generic F-35 (only counting procurement costs, not research and development) at $185 million, each. The Air Force's F-35As are $159 million, each; the Marines' F-35Bs are $214 million, each, and the Navy's F-35Cs are $264 million, each. But none of that is the whole story; these calculations may well be undercounts of what F-35s will cost in fiscal year 2014.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 Feb 2014 19:17

Mihir wrote:Viv, I'm obviously talking past you. You're either not comprehending what I'm saying or deliberately choosing to misrepresent what I said. And I'm getting tired of reiterating the same thing again and again. I think it's time for me to bow out of this debate.


Mihir, for once please forget about what Bill Sweetman, Winslow Wheeler, Carlo Kopp, David Axe et al, have to say. Do your own, original research.

Find out the flyaway cost for yourself. Don't let Wheeler tell you its $180M (and therefore higher than the $75M promised).

Find out the flyaway cost over the last 3-4 years. Find out the procurement costs over the last 3-4 years. Compute the trend. Then decide how much truth there is to Axe's prediction of rising costs in the coming years.

Same for retrofit costs. Take a look at the DoD/USAF budget documents and see for yourself how much they're spending on modifications every year. Plus keep in mind that this applies only to the SDD aircraft, not to the units ordered post-2016.

As far as the performance goes, instead of accepting the claim that it has '700+ problems' remaining or that the DOT&E report was hugely critical, again, do your own research. The DOT&E report is very thorough and lists out the dozen or so issues facing the F-35A. The Block 2B for the USMC may be delayed, but aside from that only two vulnerabilities were identified; one relating to the fueldraulic shut-off system and the other relating to the high voltage electrical system.
Last edited by Viv S on 05 Feb 2014 19:37, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 Feb 2014 19:33

Austin wrote:What's the Latest Word on F-35 Unit Cost?

The F-35-specific data in the Omnibus' Joint Explanatory Statement (JES) calculate to a unit cost for a generic F-35 (only counting procurement costs, not research and development) at $185 million, each. The Air Force's F-35As are $159 million, each; the Marines' F-35Bs are $214 million, each, and the Navy's F-35Cs are $264 million, each. But none of that is the whole story; these calculations may well be undercounts of what F-35s will cost in fiscal year 2014.


^^ That's the procurement cost they're referring to. Includes support and initial spares. Flyaway cost still stands at $110M or so.

Austin wrote:Gen. Michael Hostage, head of Air Combat Command

That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.

Its to be expected really. The USAF isn't going to let the F-35 be an excuse for the Congress to delay/cancel upgrades to the F-22.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 05 Feb 2014 19:41

Viv S wrote:^^ That's the procurement cost they're referring to. Includes support and initial spares. Flyaway cost still stands at $110M or so.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -rise.html

we have a new unit production cost of a generic F-35 at $185 million: F-35As are $159 million each; F-35Bs are $214 million each, and F-35Cs are $264 million each. This new calculation compares to the absurd $75 million per unit cost that a senior Lockheed Martin manager recently asserted. Real world costs for a useable airplane are literally multiples of that.


In sum, the information coming out of the Pentagon on the F-35 program would seem to indicate that it's not efficiencies that are occurring in the program but alterations that can only have the impact of further delays and cost increases. The reductions Congress exacted from the program in 2014 will surely have an effect, but in the absence of more details and actual events it is unwise to assume that the trend is toward less cost, or a fulfilled schedule.

The unit costs that one can currently calculate from Congress' 2014 "Omnibus" (namely, $185 million each across all three models; $159 million for an F-35A; $214 million for an F-35B, and $264 million for an F-35C) are clearly unrealistic-unrealistically low.


Viv S wrote:Its to be expected really. The USAF isn't going to let the F-35 be an excuse for the Congress to delay/cancel upgrades to the F-22.


:)

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 05 Feb 2014 19:52

Viv S wrote:Mihir, for once please forget about what Bill Sweetman, Winslow Wheeler, Carlo Kopp, David Axe have to say. Do your own.. original research.

Winslow Wheeler's articles in Time magazine did not pull the numbers from the thin air. Data is quoted from the comptroller of defense accounts and graphs showing the trends are there for everyone to see.

http://nation.time.com/2013/06/07/on-final-approach-to-fighter-fiscal-sanity/

Unit costs are also likely to be impacted—upwards—by improvements and other modifications not yet a part of the F-35’s development. While some economies of scale may be achieved in larger production lots in the future, it is also reasonable to expect those economies to be offset, at a minimum, by additional disruptions and their resulting costs.
.....................

It is not unreasonable to expect the cost of future F-35s to be about where they are today, averaging more than $200 million per aircraft. It is also reasonable to doubt that F-35 unit costs—for a complete, operable F-35 force—will decline significantly, especially to a point anywhere close to the amounts currently projected for 2018 and beyond, pegged by Bogdan at $85 million.

The history of combat-aircraft acquisition warns us that F-35 unit costs will be much higher than are currently projected by the Pentagon and Lockheed-Martin, and will remain well above what can be characterized as affordable.


Another article http://www.pogo.org/blog/2014/01/the-latest-word-on-f-35-unit-cost.html
There have been some wild assertions about F-35 unit cost recently. See the Lockheed claims as reported in Breaking Defense, Defense News and others that we should expect F-35A costs to be $85 million in 2019. None of these articles acknowledged that there are ways to measure F-35 unit cost other than by mouthing Lockheed and/or Joint Program Office prognostications for the future. If you are interested in what they didn't report, see a five part analysis of F-35 costs in Time magazine from last June, summarized here.


The only way Lockheed Martin can show dramatically low cost for F-35 is by hiring the accountants from erstwhile Enron :mrgreen:

If you believe all these reports quoting the published data from various government reports doesn't amount to original research, why don't you post some of that research to prove these claims wrong?

Not just the cost overrun, even obtaining IOC by the dates promised seems to be in trouble.
The Navy's COMNAVAIRFOR recently sent a message to the Chief of Naval Operations in the context of the Navy's 2016 budget preparations. Among various program issues, the F-35C was described to be "severely underfunded" for "simulator operations, depot overhauls, engineering, maintenance, ALIS support, etc." If "the current shortfall" is not funded to minimum levels, testing and other activities will fall behind and "the planned IOC will become unexecutable." That shortfall was estimated at $96 million in 2016 and at $1.2 billion over the next five years in the Future Year Defense Program (FYDP). Given that the data in the message preceded the reductions extracted from Navy R&D in the Omnibus (a reduction of $190 million to a request of $1.0 billion, or 18 percent less), the delays and cost increases in future years for the F-35C can only be exacerbated.


We can argue about A,B,C versions are different etc etc. This entire F-35 program is in highly obfuscated and promoting any the case for it in India colors is really absurd. LM paid trolls like Ajay Shukla will keep on pushing F-35 because that's what LM and US govt wants, to hedge their costs onto another large buyer. This is like the multilevel marketing/Ponzi scheme, bring few other members and you will get a cut from their dealings. Suggesting that India should cancel MMRCA and FGFA and wait till 2016 or even a later date to make the decision on next plane is not feasible for our country. There is no need to buy bigger headache by spending $100billion (lifecycle cost)

Way forward for India should be to speed up AMCA and get FGFA for the 5th gen needs. For the current operations requirements get the more reliable 4 or 4.5 gen MMRCA.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 05 Feb 2014 20:09

Austin wrote:Gen. Michael Hostage, head of Air Combat Command

If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet, I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be.

Gen. Hostage is imagining things. Here is what my 'original research' shows.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35.html
Establishing air superiority in today’s complex global security climate requires the unprecedented capabilities and versatility that only the F-35 Lightning II can offer.

Conceived in the mid 1990s, the tri-variant F-35 represents the pinnacle of more than 50 years of fighter development technology. Designed to dominate the skies, the F-35 combines the 5th Generation characteristics of radar evading stealth, supersonic speed and extreme agility with the most powerful and comprehensive integrated sensor package of any fighter aircraft in history.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 Feb 2014 21:35

sattili wrote:Winslow Wheeler's articles in Time magazine did not pull the numbers from the thin air. Data is quoted from the comptroller of defense accounts and graphs showing the trends are there for everyone to see.

http://nation.time.com/2013/06/07/on-final-approach-to-fighter-fiscal-sanity/

The figures for the F-35A procurement (from the official budgets) for the 2013 and 2014 are already lower than the ones quoted in the article.

Unit costs are also likely to be impacted—upwards—by improvements and other modifications not yet a part of the F-35’s development. While some economies of scale may be achieved in larger production lots in the future, it is also reasonable to expect those economies to be offset, at a minimum, by additional disruptions and their resulting costs.

If Wheeler thinks that an increase in production rate from 30yr to 120/yr 'may' lead to 'some' economies, his 'reasonable' attitude is certainly in question.

It is not unreasonable to expect the cost of future F-35s to be about where they are today, averaging more than $200 million [/b]per aircraft. It is also reasonable to doubt that F-35 unit costs—for a complete, operable F-35 force—will decline significantly, especially to a point anywhere close to the amounts currently projected for 2018 and beyond, pegged by Bogdan at $85 million.

And here we have outright dishonesty, comparing procurement cost with projected flyaway cost. Unfortunately those not familiar with the distinction, will end up buying this tale.

If you believe all these reports quoting the published data from various government reports doesn't amount to original research, why don't you post some of that research to prove these claims wrong?

The procurement cost of the F-35A -

2010: $205M for 10 units (link)
2011: $188M for 22 units (link
2012: $195M for 18 units (link)
2013: $180M for 19 units (link)

Target-

2018: $135M for 50-60 units

Target procurement cost was $126.6M in 2010 dollars (acc to JPO), or $135M in 2014 dollars.

Not just the cost overrun, even obtaining IOC by the dates promised seems to be in trouble.

They're saying 6 months, but lets assume for the sake of argument that the IOC is delayed by a full year. So what?

We can argue about A,B,C versions are different etc etc. This entire F-35 program is in highly obfuscated and promoting any the case for it in India colors is really absurd. LM paid trolls like Ajay Shukla will keep on pushing F-35 because that's what LM and US govt wants, to hedge their costs onto another large buyer. This is like the multilevel marketing/Ponzi scheme, bring few other members and you will get a cut from their dealings. Suggesting that India should cancel MMRCA and FGFA and wait till 2016 or even a later date to make the decision on next plane is not feasible for our country. There is no need to buy bigger headache by spending $100billion (lifecycle cost)

Right. We should know about it before we get into it.

How about you list out everything you know about the PAK FA/FGFA's cost and production schedule.
Last edited by Viv S on 05 Feb 2014 21:49, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 Feb 2014 21:45

Mihir wrote:Gen. Hostage is imagining things. Here is what my 'original research' shows.


F-16 -> F-35
F-15 -> F-22

That should be easy enough for even you to understand.

Is the F-16 designed primarily for air superiority?
Can it be employed for air superiority missions?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 Feb 2014 21:53

Austin wrote:http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/151088/f_35-unit-cost-continues-to-rise.html

we have a new unit production cost of a generic F-35 at $185 million: F-35As are $159 million each; F-35Bs are $214 million each, and F-35Cs are $264 million each. This new calculation compares to the absurd $75 million per unit cost that a senior Lockheed Martin manager recently asserted. Real world costs for a useable airplane are literally multiples of that.


You'll notice that's an article by Winslow Wheeler.

He's making a fundamentally dishonest comparison here; flyaway cost to procurement cost.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 05 Feb 2014 22:04

Viv S wrote:
Mihir wrote:Gen. Hostage is imagining things. Here is what my 'original research' shows.


F-16 -> F-35
F-15 -> F-22

That should be easy enough for even you to understand.

Is the F-16 designed primarily for air superiority?
Can it be employed for air superiority missions?

So the F-35, which was "designed to dominate the skies" and offers the "unprecedented capabilities and versatility" to establish "air superiority in today’s complex global security climate" was "not built as an air superiority platform" and "needs the F-22", without which, it "will be irrelevant". But it can still be employed for air superiority missions because "F-16 -> F-35".

Got it. Clear as mud.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 Feb 2014 22:09

Mihir wrote:So the F-35, which was "designed to dominate the skies" and offers the "unprecedented capabilities and versatility" to establish "air superiority in today’s complex global security climate" was "not built as an air superiority platform" and "needs the F-22", without which, it "will be irrelevant". But it can still be employed for air superiority missions because "F-16 -> F-35".

Got it. Clear as mud.


When the USAF general says that F-22 upgrades are essential or the F-35 is irrelevant, do you think he's addressing you or the folks who're going to the sign the cheque for the F-22 upgrade?

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 05 Feb 2014 22:17

At this point, he's only addressing the Air Force Times and its readers. Why, does the answer change depending on whom he is addressing? Does the Lockheed website behave similarly too?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 Feb 2014 22:39

Mihir wrote:At this point, he's only addressing the Air Force Times and its readers. Why, does the answer change depending on whom he is addressing? Does the Lockheed website behave similarly too?

It isn't a private conversation between the general and the publication's select readers. It is a public statement that is expected to filter on through the media to the public and the political class.

In the 80s, the USAF refused to let the Aim-7 be carried on its F-16, to prevent it from threatening the production of the F-15. You think it will shy away during a mere interview, if the objective is to protect the F-22's upgrade program?

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 05 Feb 2014 23:24

Let's make this real simple, Viv. Are you saying that the General is lying? That's he has an agenda that he is not disclosing publicly? May we have a clear answer without bringing in irrelevancies like the F-16's design or the USAF's purported refusal to allow the F-16 fleet to carry Sparrow missiles.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 Feb 2014 23:35

Mihir wrote:Let's make this real simple, Viv. Are you saying that the General is lying? That's he has an agenda that he is not disclosing publicly? May we have a clear answer without bringing in irrelevancies like the F-16's design or the USAF's purported refusal to allow the F-16 fleet to carry Sparrow missiles.


The polite term would be being 'flexible with the facts'. The USN & USMC don't have an F-22 equivalent. Nor does the RAF/RN, IsAF, ItAF/ItN and so on. Either none of them are capable of conducting an air superiority exercise or the general is making a political statement (albeit to protect the interests of the his service).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 06 Feb 2014 00:00

That is a political statement, meant for a very, very specific audience and not a technical one for the general public.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 06 Feb 2014 00:07

Thank you. A senior USAF general, the head of the Air Combat Command, lying about what the F-35 was built to do. What has the service come to?

But then again, he has to do this to protect the interests of his service. I don't blame him; the F-22 upgrade program is already at risk, and Congress has been historically hostile to the program. /s

krish.pf
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 20:30

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby krish.pf » 06 Feb 2014 00:19

^ Exactly.

The level to which some posters stoop to peddle this flying box so that the country of their residence and the country of their origin come closer, is nauseating to say the least.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby PratikDas » 06 Feb 2014 00:35

Mihir, thanks for your tenacity with this. If getting through the chakravyuh of stealth surrounding the F-35's viability is taking a toll on you then please know that you've done admirably in giving it a cavity search ;)

Image
Last edited by PratikDas on 06 Feb 2014 00:37, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 06 Feb 2014 00:36

Mihir wrote:Thank you. A senior USAF general, the head of the Air Combat Command, lying about what the F-35 was built to do. What has the service come to?

But then again, he has to do this to protect the interests of his service. I don't blame him; the F-22 upgrade program is already at risk, and Congress has been historically hostile to the program. /s


The F-35 is a multirole fighter and that's what it was designed to do. The F-22 like the F-15C before it is an dedicated air superiority aircraft, though its been upgraded for limited ground attack.

The general is being less than straightforward when he says that the F-35 'needs the F-22'. That may be optimum combination similar to the F-15 + F-16 strike packages flown by the USAF as well as the Israelis. But that doesn't change the fact that the F-35, (like the F-16), was designed at inception to carry out the whole gamut of air operations.

As for 'what has the service come to' - a critical part of the general's job is to fight political battles on behalf of the service, same as that of his predecessors.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 06 Feb 2014 00:37

krish.pf wrote:^ Exactly.

The level to which some posters stoop to peddle this flying box so that the country of their residence and the country of their origin come closer, is nauseating to say the least.


:rotfl:

I live in India. Mihir lives in the US. Keep talking.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 06 Feb 2014 00:44

PratikDas wrote:Mihir, thanks for your tenacity with this. If getting through the chakravyuh of stealth surrounding the F-35's viability is taking a toll on you then please know that you've done admirably in giving it a cavity search


Allow me to ask you the same thing I asked Sattili. In light of the 'stealth' surrounding the F-35 (aside from the reams of info available), tell us a little about the PAK FA/FGFA's cost please.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby PratikDas » 06 Feb 2014 00:47

The word I used was "viability". Do read carefully.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 06 Feb 2014 00:56

PratikDas wrote:The word I used was "viability". Do read carefully.


Most of what anyone would want to know about the F-35 is available online. You can form a broad picture of its 'viability', fairly easily. Easier still for an air force or a govt. Much more so than the PAK FA anyway.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby PratikDas » 06 Feb 2014 01:08

And yet when people find information online, the moment it paints the F-35 in a negative light you discredit the author every single time. When some of the same authors glorify the F-22 then they're back in the blue team. How very convenient for you and disingenuous of you.

Viv S, if this thread is a Channel for information you have been constantly engaged in Channel Stuffing.

krish.pf
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 20:30

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby krish.pf » 06 Feb 2014 01:11

Viv S wrote:
krish.pf wrote:^ Exactly.

The level to which some posters stoop to peddle this flying box so that the country of their residence and the country of their origin come closer, is nauseating to say the least.


:rotfl:

I live in India. Mihir lives in the US. Keep talking.

I have been following this thread regularly for long time. I did say 'some' if you haven't noticed. But not surprised like the out of context replies I see from you countering the other side.
The real reason why certain individuals would like to peddle this lemon, is clear for all to see, even without going though the posts in the strategic forum.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 06 Feb 2014 01:18

krish.pf wrote:I have been following this thread regularly for long time. I did say 'some' if you haven't noticed. But not surprised like the out of context replies I see from you countering the other side. The real reason why certain individuals would like to peddle t his lemon, is clear for all to see, even without going though the posts in the strategic forum.


So you've been tracking the location of 'some' of the people on the thread?

And for the record, I'd choose the F-35 over any Eurocanard because it is far away better value-for-money, which will be evident to anyone not being spoon-fed information by Wheeler Axe & Co.

As for the PAK FA, it'll be a foolish thing to pay for it now (and foot the R&D bill no less) and find out what we're getting five years later.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 06 Feb 2014 01:21

PratikDas, thanks :)

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Indranil » 06 Feb 2014 01:56

People, stop indulging each other. Discuss the JSF. If you have exhausted all the points, start all over again. But don't start attacking other people, their "supposed" nationality, "place of residence" etc.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 06 Feb 2014 02:03

PratikDas wrote:And yet when people find information online, the moment it paints the F-35 in a negative light you discredit the author every single time. When some of the same authors glorify the F-22 then they're back in the blue team. How very convenient for you and disingenuous of you.

When did you hear me quote Bill Sweetman on the F-22? Also while I think, he's too deep into the F-35 debate to provide an unbiased opinion, unlike David Axe or Winslow Wheeler, he is a proper journalist and I do read his articles, even when I don't agree with them.

And rather than adopting opinions from columnists, wouldn't it be better to study the data itself. I'll admit was an F-35 skeptic, albeit not as strident as Philip or Mihir, until the its capabilities became clearer and more importantly the actual cost figures began to emerge (while those for the Eurocanards kept bloating).

Viv S, if this thread is a Channel for information you have been constantly engaged in Channel Stuffing.

This thread is over two years old. I'd didn't start posting until just three months ago. I did so because all recent news suggests that the program is over the hump. This is something that veteran critics choose to ignore..

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 06 Feb 2014 02:41

But you are defending the F-35 for all its inadequacies as they exist stating that they are teething problems, while preventing the same benefit for the PAK-FA. Besides which, even if the PAK-FA/FGFA is delayed and does not meet full TOT, it still comes with TOT that is an order of magnitude higher than what we'd ever get with the F-35, not to mention the political aspect of a more reliable supplier.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 06 Feb 2014 02:44

mahadevbhu wrote:I love the way you call the JSF a Turkey . Like the Manhattan project, it will be spent on, till it succeeds, and will make its opponents Turkeys.


followed by

Difference in technologies. Management of scientific programs has improved in general.


So spending on a project till it succeeds = management of scientific programs has improved in general?!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 06 Feb 2014 02:49

Mihir wrote:
Victor wrote:If anyone knows the Brahmos, it is the Russians and if an air version were viable, they would have made one by now. It is an interesting concept but highly speculative. However it does make for another very expensive time pass project for our PSUs.

How did you get to that conclusion? They are expecting a flight test in the latter part of the year! It has long gone past the "highly speculative" stage.


Simple. Anything made by Indians for India, as long as it comes from the PSUs is worthless in the eyes of the aforesaid gent. Meanwhile, anything made by the US will be a winnah and must be procured over anything and everything Indian or from the eebil Russians or fickle French.

Because, because, http://www.tickld.com/cdn_image_content/35021.jpg

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 06 Feb 2014 03:09

Slow times.......

A senior USAF general, the head of the Air Combat Command, lying about what the F-35 was built to do.


Normal ops.

In peace times that is what Generals do: politicking, clearing the path, protecting the turf (especially USMC).

However, what the normal person views as "lying" (and that is normal), the gamers know it as part of the game - jockeying or positioning (which is also normal). The question, in this case, is, did the person/s whom that message was for get it and how did they react.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 06 Feb 2014 03:39

Karan M wrote:But you are defending the F-35 for all its inadequacies as they exist stating that they are teething problems, while preventing the same benefit for the PAK-FA. Besides which, even if the PAK-FA/FGFA is delayed and does not meet full TOT, it still comes with TOT that is an order of magnitude higher than what we'd ever get with the F-35, not to mention the political aspect of a more reliable supplier.


I talked about 'teething issues' in the P-8I's context. In any event, the F-35A's hardware problems have almost completely been rectified while software issues remain which should not impact the aircraft's cost.

The PAK FA on the other hand still has a ways to go. At least I hope the final version will be far more evolved (something as basic as a sheath for that engine is still missing). While it'll no doubt feature tremendous brute performance, there are still doubts about its RCS, IR signature, sensor fusion, build quality, maintenance, acquisition cost, operational cost and so on.

I'm willing to grant that this may not be the final word on the PAK-FA. But what is incorrigible is that some still consider a 'joint-development' of the FGFA viable and are supportive of investing $6 billion for a mere 15% work-share. Or for that matter, negotiating a deal even before we know what production variant looks like.

If indeed, UAC offers a better package of cost, performance and ToT, then they should no doubt get the IAF/MoD's contract. But shouldn't we wait until we know that for a fact, rather than count on Russian assurances and sign up right away?

member_22605
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_22605 » 06 Feb 2014 07:25

The PAK-FA is not perfect, but there is a lot of activity going on in Russia(and India) to improve upon the things that you stated eg: RCS, IR signature etc and this is where we have an opportunity to learn. If we are able to understand from the problems the Russians are facing and also from the solutions they are coming up with, i feel its well worth the 6billion or whatever. The F-35 OTOH will be black box like everything else from that country and worse still it cant even enthuse our mango crowds in the air shows :lol:


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests