|
SocketWrench posted:Oh, it can pull more than one G, but then the engine starts to rub because important info was kept secret from the people designing it. But the one G thing is this thing called "satire". I know, how dare anyone try such on a satire site. God, grow a sense of humor or something literally in the post above yours. The engine thing isn't a problem any more. they ID'd it and fixed it. Granted the fact that it was a problem in the first place is amusing (but not unheard of in engine design and is really more an indictment of Pratt motors being poo poo than anything else), but the fact that you are trying to make it sound like the engine will still actively damage itself if you pull more than one G when that's not factually accurate is what mlmp08 was talking about. e: SocketWrench posted:When is that money limit acceptable though? the 400 billion it's at now? 500 billion? 700 billion? 1 trillion? lol okay. So you have no idea what you're talking about then. The F-22 suffered (and continues to suffer) from a lot of the same issues as the F-35...spiral development combined with schedule pressures forcing incomplete OFPs into the field early, delay of fielding certain capabilities because budgetary and schedule pressures meant that capabilities were deferred, hardware design problems forcing redesigns, etc. The F-22 was a more fundamentally sound aerodynamic design from a kinematic perspective, but that's because the F-22 was designed for different missions than the F-35. You don't design a strike fighter and then expect it to be this air supremacy machine, they're two fundamentally different mission sets. The fact that Gates did exactly that and forced the F-35 into that role isn't a slam on the F-35, it's a slam on Bob Gates's shortsightedness when it came to American airpower. The F-35's computer issues will be fixed. For starters, a lot of the "issues" are things like not having gun or other weapons capabilities built into the current OFP. That's not a problem, it's the way the program is designed and while you can gripe about whether spiral development is smart, the fact that the code is doing exactly what it was designed to do isn't a software problem, it's a programmatic discussion. Additionally, a lot of the actual OFP issues will be fixed, just not in the current software build. I addressed that in a previous post... iyaayas01 posted:
So the issues will be fixed, they just won't be fixed in the Block 2B software because there are schedule pressures associated with concurrency and the USMC's rush to declare IOC this year with Block 2B. Now there's a separate discussion to be had about whether or not it is wise to declare IOC with Block 2B OFP (I'd argue it's loving retarded...so standard for USMC Aviation). But that's not some overarching completely unfixable fatal design flaw with the entire system, like you make it out to be. The airframe thing is a canard. TRO/"drop-off" isn't near as big a deal as certain people are making it out to be. Yes, the F-35's entire design is a compromise (no poo poo) but it's not like it's impossible to have a design that can do more than one thing at once without literally falling out of the sky/catching on fire. As far as the plane not having any chance ever of being more than a photo op....it's already flying operationally relevant (-ish) sorties in T&E. And that's with the not quite ready for prime time OFP they're currently on. When it's fully developed with the Block 3F? As I've said previously it will be a very good strike fighter, will be decent at SEAD/DEAD, and should be able to hold its own in the A2A regime. This thread always makes me laugh because despite the fact that I am far from an F-35 supporter, it makes me sound like the biggest LM fanboy just because I have the temerity to actually use things like facts as opposed to dogpiling on about how the F-35 literally kills its pilots by going back in time and murdering their parents, no seriously guys it's that bad iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jun 7, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Oh, it can pull more than one G, but then the engine starts to rub because important info was kept secret from the people designing it. But the one G thing is this thing called "satire". I know, how dare anyone try such on a satire site. God, grow a sense of humor or something This joke just got real meta. E:fb
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Well think about it. The range of these things is so incredibly small they need carriers just to have these fuckers extend the range to the edge of their economic zones around the UK. Uh... the carriers have a range of 12,000 miles. That's enough to steam down to the Falklands, slap about the Argies a bit and get back to Ascension Island before needing a top-up. Whatever the rest of the carriers' problems range isn't an issue, especially when the Royal Fleet Auxiliary has more resupply vessels than there are in the French and German navies combined - the British military still does logistics better than any NATO country outside the USA - and no carrier, even a super-duper bazillion jiggawatt-engined US nuclear carrier, is ever going to be sailing on its own. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jun 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:I think one of the two carriers is going to be mothballed as soon as it is finished? Anyway its clearly a massive waste of money at this point but we can't get rid of the carriers because of the f35 and we can't ditch the f35 because of the carriers, but we can't really afford to run them either Yep, the penalty cost to cancel the construction of the second carrier is actually more than the cost of the carrier, so they're building it and then mothballing it straight away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Yep, the penalty cost to cancel the construction of the second carrier is actually more than the cost of the carrier, so they're building it and then mothballing it straight away. I think now Cameron has backtracked from the backtrack and intends to bring both into service, but with half the air wing (assuming every single plane is actually sitting on a carrier and not on land for training or whatever). Waiting for a further level of backtrack now. SocketWrench posted:Oh, it can pull more than one G, but then the engine starts to rub because important info was kept secret from the people designing it. But the one G thing is this thing called "satire". I know, how dare anyone try such on a satire site. God, grow a sense of humor or something please don't airframe shame, it is very triggering for planeself, tia
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 20:41
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
iyaayas01 posted:(Rafale is basically a less lovely version of the EF, except it's made in France which means outside of very basic MIL-STD-1760/Link 16 capability it doesn't play nicely with anything else.) Define "play nicely" and "anything else".  AFAIK there's been no real interoperability problems. Rafale M have landed on and taken off from US carriers; even changed an engine there to see if it was possible (it was). There have been no silly issue like the Gripen in Sigonella which couldn't use the same jet fuel as everybody else. The cannon uses 30mm ammo instead of the 20mm most US warplanes use but it's not like gun ammo logistics has been the greatest hurdle in coalition operations so far. GBU-12, -24, and -49 have been integrated without problem; Egypt also apparently requested integration of Mk 82 BLU without Paveway kit. The LITENING pods will be integrated if India ever manages to actually sign a contract, while the Sniper pod is planned to be integrated for Qatar. With more export customers, more materiel will be integrated. As far as communications go, besides Link 16, the software has been updated to support coordinates expressed in MGRS format. For the high-speed data links when Link 16 is insufficient, the Areos pod provides its own and for the aircraft itself researches have started last year to use the capabilities of AESA radar as high-speed data links, something which is planned for the next generation of radar (after RBE2 and RBE2-AA) that should be finished before 2020; this is similar to the approach used to fix the F-22's initial lack of data links. Don't forget that the boss of NATO's Allied Command Transformation is always taken from the French Air Force. Here's what the current one had to say shortly before taking the post. Yes they are taking interoperability seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
To be fair, I would be very confused if I got to a major airport and they didn't have any Jet loving A.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
One thing the Soviets did right was to integrate the military-industrial complex directly into the government and separate the design and production sides, so they got reasonably good equipment reasonably cheaply on a reasonable timeframe, which put them ahead of almost everybody else. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Or you can merely get competent and knowledgeable people in the procurement agency.  hobbesmaster posted:To be fair, I would be very confused if I got to a major airport and they didn't have any Jet loving A. Sigonella's a Navy base, though, not a major airport. On aircraft carriers, for safety reasons, the jet fuel used is one with a higher flash point (in other words: the risk of it spontaneously combusting is reduced), so the Navy uses that on carriers, and also on their land bases because why not? Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jun 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:One thing the Soviets did right was to integrate the military-industrial complex directly into the government and separate the design and production sides, so they got reasonably good equipment reasonably cheaply on a reasonable timeframe, which put them ahead of almost everybody else. Admittedly, this came at the cost of cut corners, inefficiencies and lack of innovation but the Soviets couldn't have afforded a military with the size it had otherwise. It was always impressive even with how clunky and often behind Soviet technology was they were still able to compete with a bloc of countries that always towered over it economically especially considering Russia/Soviet history. Today's Russia who knows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
I think a country as rich as the United States could have the most efficient R&D and production in the world by adopting a version of the Soviet OKB system but of course neoliberalism would never allow it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:I think a country as rich as the United States could have the most efficient R&D and production in the world by adopting a version of the Soviet OKB system but of course neoliberalism would never allow it. Usually wealth/excess resources tends to discourage efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:I think a country as rich as the United States could have the most efficient R&D and production in the world by adopting a version of the Soviet OKB system but of course neoliberalism would never allow it. The top of the military is full of chucklekfucks who prevent anyone officers having a reasonable opinion come in and fix the procurement system. I sat in on an Air Force officer one day that basically, unprompted, told everyone present that the semiconductors/circuit boards on board are now having issues dissipating heat. This was pretty recent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:literally in the post above yours. The engine thing isn't a problem any more. they ID'd it and fixed it. You heard it here, folks. No making jokes about anything ever after some made up point in time. quote:The F-22 was a more fundamentally sound aerodynamic design from a kinematic perspective, but that's because the F-22 was designed for different missions than the F-35. You don't design a strike fighter and then expect it to be this air supremacy machine, they're two fundamentally different mission sets. The fact that Gates did exactly that and forced the F-35 into that role isn't a slam on the F-35, it's a slam on Bob Gates's shortsightedness when it came to American airpower. I think if you calm down about people flaming your precious plane, you'll see this is a point I made that the F-22 and F-35 programs were entirely different in that one was designed to do one job and after the bugs were worked out went on to do a damned good job at it. Meanwhile the other plane is shitfucked because it can't do two jobs at opposite ends of the spectrum because it is impossible, not to mention the addition of a VTOL bullshit system. This plane can't fly slow enough to do one job because it's been castrated by another job design where it has to do the opposite. Through all of this i'm still not seeing an answer to my question; At what point have we thrown enough money at this waste to justify it maybe meeting one task in a kind of "meh, it works well enough"? Currently 400 billion doesn't seem to be that point. Will it be 500? 700? 1 trillion? more? Also, what officer is going to dare ordering one of these planes into hostile space knowing how much these things cost and how frail they seem to be? kapparomeo posted:Uh... the carriers have a range of 12,000 miles. That's enough to steam down to the Falklands, slap about the Argies a bit and get back to Ascension Island before needing a top-up. Whatever the rest of the carriers' problems range isn't an issue, especially when the Royal Fleet Auxiliary has more resupply vessels than there are in the French and German navies combined - the British military still does logistics better than any NATO country outside the USA - and no carrier, even a super-duper bazillion jiggawatt-engined US nuclear carrier, is ever going to be sailing on its own. Not the carrier range, they need the carriers to extend the range of the f-35 because the f-35 is so limited SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
A lot of the issues with the F-22 didn't come out until at least 15 years down the line when they actually started flying them. I think that approach is most correct for dealing with the F-35- especially in regards to long term issues that come along with its engine. As for its A2A/strike fighter capabilities, it simply doesn't have the payload capacity or the range to be that particularly useful. Even if you have a perfectly functioning aircraft, you're still having to deal with the 'how many places do I need to accomplish x", and saying that the F-35 can simultaneously replace the roles of the Hornet, Thunderbolt II, and Falcon simultaneously are absurd. The Air Force and Navy both got cold feet with the delays and cost overruns, which is why they're ordering block upgrades for the Viper and new jammers for the Growler. That said, I seriously don't know the Marines are expecting IOC any time this year. The Air Force's readiness should be the least conservative of them all, since they're plane is the most basic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:One thing the Soviets did right was to integrate the military-industrial complex directly into the government and separate the design and production sides, so they got reasonably good equipment reasonably cheaply on a reasonable timeframe, which put them ahead of almost everybody else. Eh, I'm not so sure about that. I know they've had to put up with failures and stop-gaps like the MiG-23 (more complex, much less produced/popular with client states than the MiG-21--come to think of it, the MiG-21 type that gave Phantom pilots heartburn over Vietnam came after a decade plus of refinement from a pure interceptor) and the T-62 (upgraded T-55 while the T-64 was experiencing delays). Also stuff like the BMP-1 having a bunch of weird design issues like the fuel tanks being in the passenger doors and behind the passenger seat backs. Not necessarily saying you're wrong, just that any big-ticket "failures" of the Soviet military-industrial complex probably don't get as much air time as stuff like the LCS just from lack of available research in Western hands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Not necessarily saying you're wrong, just that any big-ticket "failures" of the Soviet military-industrial complex probably don't get as much air time as stuff like the LCS just from lack of available research in Western hands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:You heard it here, folks. No making jokes about anything ever after some made up point in time. So I'm assuming this entire post following is a joke/satire. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense. I didn't know Jon Kyl posted on SA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:I sat in on an Air Force officer one day that basically, unprompted, told everyone present that the semiconductors/circuit boards on board are now having issues dissipating heat. This was pretty recent. So... its an airplane? :P
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Eh, I'm not so sure about that. I know they've had to put up with failures and stop-gaps like the MiG-23 (more complex, much less produced/popular with client states than the MiG-21--come to think of it, the MiG-21 type that gave Phantom pilots heartburn over Vietnam came after a decade plus of refinement from a pure interceptor) and the T-62 (upgraded T-55 while the T-64 was experiencing delays). Also stuff like the BMP-1 having a bunch of weird design issues like the fuel tanks being in the passenger doors and behind the passenger seat backs. Not necessarily saying you're wrong, just that any big-ticket "failures" of the Soviet military-industrial complex probably don't get as much air time as stuff like the LCS just from lack of available research in Western hands. The BMP-1 fuel storage isn't anywhere near as much a flaw as its armament package, something that was significantly improved in the BMP-2, along with its armor protection. All the IFVs are going to be at significant risk of fuel explosions because there's pretty much no way to put serious armor between the fuel tank and a round. I don't want to get into too much of a talk about it, though. The MiG-23 wasn't as popular as the MiG-21, but it was still really popular in export service because it was a significantly better bomb truck than the MiG-21 and brought some economical BVR capability(a moot point today, but the payload certainly isn't.) It just came out in a really weird spot in time and ended up being obsolete only a few years after its development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Not the carrier range, they need the carriers to extend the range of the f-35 because the f-35 is so limited Compared to what western naval fighter?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:Compared to what western naval fighter? The Super Hornet can fly 3,000 miles without external tanks and carrying a full load of ordnance. If you look that up and it's a lie, you don't understand satire 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Curious. What does IOC mean in this context?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:Compared to what western naval fighter? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Or you can merely get competent and knowledgeable people in the procurement agency. Yeah I serious posted in some thread (maybe this one) about the Gripen/Sig fuel issue. The problem is less why didn't Sig have Jet A (because as you say, the Navy runs on JP-5), it's why didn't the Swedes certify the Gripen to run on JP-5 (because it's a standard NATO fuel and literally every other aircraft in the US, and indeed, NATO as a whole's inventory is certified for it). Also point taken on the Rafale and interoperability. I'll be interested to see when/if any other air to air missiles are integrated...A2G muns are (relatively) easy, especially if you're just talking about LGBs or 1760-bus compatible weapons like JDAM that are basically plug and play. jaegerx posted:Curious. What does IOC mean in this context? Initial Operational Capability. It's a DoD term that means a system has achieved a level of maturity where it is capable of fulfilling some, but not all, of the operational missions that are/will be assigned to it. It also means that the system is ready for operational deployment from a logistics/supportability perspective, although the full logstics concept may not be in place yet (i.e., you may still be reliant on things like contractor FSRs to perform mx and stuff that will be performed by blue-suiters down the road once the logistics concept is fully ready for deployment.) I could sperg out and start quoting the formal definitions from the 5000.02 and other acquisitions guidelines but that would just further confuse everyone.The exact definition of IOC for a specific program is contained in the program's CPD (Capabilities Production Document, the formal document that lays out what capabilities/requirements a system is supposed to have/meet as it enters production). I don't know off hand what the F-35's CPD says about IOC but it must be a pretty loose definition because... This would be why everyone is heavily rolling their eyes at the USMC's continued plan to declare IOC this year with the Block 2B OFP, because by declaring IOC they are formally saying that "this system is ready to be used in combat for at least some things." Which is loving ludicrous. \/ To further the point, they're declaring IOC for political reasons; even USMC Aviation brass (for all their stupidity) aren't dumb enough to deploy Block 2B configured F-35s in an actual combat situation. IOC is being declared because the Marines are the ones furthest up poo poo creek when it comes to aircraft the F-35 is supposed to be replacing...the AF has boatloads of F-16s and the Navy has plenty of new-build SHornets, but all the Marines have are some old decrepit legacy Hornets and the death trap Harriers. So they are keenly interested in ensuring that they can start pushing F-35s out to the operational fleet as soon as possible in order to avoid the embarrassing situation of having a significant portion of their tacair fleet grounded for, I don't know, falling apart in midair. \/ e2: Just to further further the point, the F-35 has yet to undergo IOT&E (Initial Operational Test & Evaluation). It's slated for FY17 (although lol if you think that's going to happen, go back into my post history for a big effort post itt that I did on that subject). So the Marines are declaring IOC roughly two years before the system is scheduled to undergo the full-up DOT&E independently ran test event to determine what its level of effectiveness and suitability is when operating in an operationally relevant environment doing operationally relevant missions. Declaring IOC before conducting IOT&E is....unusual. I mean, even "the chart", for all its insanity, is quite clear (lol) that you need to conduct IOT&E well before making a Full Rate Production decision and proceeding to initial fielding in advance of declaring IOC. But this gets back to the heart of the problem with the F-35 as a program, which is concurrency. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
I like the marine corps press releases insisting they'll make IOC then in the same breath making it abundantly clear that they are not ready for any combat whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
This wouldn't be the first time the Marines hosed up procurement and ordered something expensive. See: osprey
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:This wouldn't be the first time the Marines hosed up procurement and ordered something expensive. See: osprey
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The Osprey actually works though and does pretty much exactly what it is supposed to do and may also gain the ability to shoot missiles at things in the not too distant future. Putting anything that costs over a hundred million to shoot at with small arms fire is not a viable alternative for the Blackhawk. The Opsrey program jumped into being because the Marines started whining about their aging arsenal. e: phone posting Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The Osprey actually works though and does pretty much exactly what it is supposed to do and may also gain the ability to shoot missiles at things in the not too distant future. And it only took killing 30 Marines in pre-fielding publicity stunts to get there! (As someone earlier in this thread said, at least the -B will only kill Marines one crash at a time).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:And it only took killing 30 Marines in pre-fielding publicity stunts to get there! Ah yes the crash was the solution was to add an audible sink rate warning so the pilots didn't try to double the max sink rate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:(As someone earlier in this thread said, at least the -B will only kill Marines one crash at a time).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:Compared to what western naval fighter? Rafale?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:And it only took killing 30 Marines in pre-fielding publicity stunts to get there! It's possible to do a lot of damage with only one crash, as the Greeks have demonstrated at Albacete.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
Someone remind me why our navy's army get their own navy and airforce.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Hurf blurf Henderson FIeld.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
recursion will continue until suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Someone remind me why our navy's army get their own navy and airforce. Because the USMC have fooled the rest of the country into thinking they're the most elite and indispensable fighting force in the entire United States Armed Forces.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Because the USMC have fooled the rest of the country into thinking they're the most elite and indispensable fighting force in the entire United States Armed Forces. Someone has to keep us safe from lava dragons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
paragon1 posted:Someone remind me why our navy's army get their own navy and airforce. Because the Navy "abandoned" them on Midway and the Marines hired an advertising agency after the war to guilt trip the Navy ever since.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2015 14:47
|
|