|
Is this for real? http://defensetech.org/2015/07/10/australian-navy-cancels-order-for-the-f-35b-joint-strike-fighter/ "Australian Navy Cancels Order for the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter"
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
Dusty Baker 2 posted:Is this for real? It's probably for real, but it's not really meaningful. Australia's commitment to the JSF program was always for buying a number of F-35A; then Tony Abbott dreamed up buying a number of F-35B in addition so as to pretend their Juan Carloses are aircraft carriers, partly because the Canberra and the Adelaide have ski jump ramps that are pretty much nothing but a waste of deck space when all you operate is helicopters. These F-35B were an extra, not a replacement for the F-35A. So canceling them doesn't mean anything serious for the program. If they had canceled the F-35A buy then yeah it would have been big news. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Yeah pretty sure the only people who ever seriously thought the RAN was going to operate -B's was Tony Abbott and maybe a couple of retarded admirals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Military acquisitions are poo poo. Just like any other privatized government function. My problem here is that I can understand the argument that we need to build some new planes because the old Flying Bombs are getting pretty ancient, but at the same time that doesn't necessarily mean we should get this plane. In an idealized world where a handful of military-grade developers didn't have our senators by the balls, the F-35 project would have been scrapped for being obviously garbage years ago, and instead opted to design improved individual planes for the roles intended to be filled by the Joint Strike Turkey. Obviously we don't live in that world, but I don't think there's any reason to get particularly mad that people are rightfully pissed off at a military vehicle that is obscenely expensive, subpar outside of the stealth system which is not a 100% given regarding (at least future) effectiveness, and being developed during a time when americans in general are just loving sick of war and war boondoggles. (Also also while it's true that you probably shouldnt spew classified information all over a comedy forum, at the same time the nature of Debate and Discussion means that "just trust me im Army Dude" doesn't really hold water for an argument. If the F35 is going to be a magical countrykiller that proves everyone wrong then just frame the posts calling it a turkey and take pictures of them when the f-35's classified systems Save The Day)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Well it's not like Russia is doing any better. http://theweek.com/articles/565028/russian-air-force-falling-sky Is that a normal amount of smoke coming out of that Mig-29 in the first photo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
That's a pretty tiny amount of smoke coming out of that MiG-29.Neurolimal posted:(Also also while it's true that you probably shouldnt spew classified information all over a comedy forum, at the same time the nature of Debate and Discussion means that "just trust me im Army Dude" doesn't really hold water for an argument. If the F35 is going to be a magical countrykiller that proves everyone wrong then just frame the posts calling it a turkey and take pictures of them when the f-35's classified systems Save The Day) No-one here is defending the F-35.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:
Who made this argument? All I have read is basically "The F-35 has capabilities that we can't talk specifics about but is still a giant turd of a program." crabcakes66 fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Who made this argument? Myself and a couple other made the "argument" when we've been talking about tangential discussions involving things like Russia's ability to allegedly totally and completely defeat stealth/LO, but I don't think anyone has made that argument when discussing the F-35 specifically. I mean, I've even made the point that there actually isn't a lack of open-source data out there on the program, that things like DOT&E reports provide a wealth of data available to anyone with an internet connection. And incidentally, they largely make the point that the program probably isn't as bad as the pop-mil media says but also has some significant issues due to stupidity like concurrency, the -B model, and rushing declaring IOC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
There is probably nothing in here that you guys don't know and haven't already discussed in this thread, but reading this whole article just makes me cringe. Especially the "Campaign Donations" section: The F-35: Is the world's most expensive weapons program worth it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
The Pluto mission cost the same as like 4 f-35s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
War is Boring did a bunch of simulations of the F-35B vs. SU-35S and it actually turned out pretty well for the F-35. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/don-t-think-the-f-35-can-fight-it-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4 The author also notes how demoralizing and frustrating it is for Red Team when missiles seem to be coming at you from nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:War is Boring did a bunch of simulations of the F-35B vs. SU-35S and it actually turned out pretty well for the F-35. I think it's safe to say that any simulation involving ECM, ECCM, stealth and radar between advanced US and Russian aircraft is going to be inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Also, it didn't seem to include ground controlled intercept for the baddies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:War is Boring did a bunch of simulations of the F-35B vs. SU-35S and it actually turned out pretty well for the F-35. quote:Interestingly, the game database merges fighter “generations” and “agility” to give one overall number — rather than as separate values. So the F-35 in CMANO has a fighter generation/agility in the “5” class — on a par with the F-22/Typhoon/Rafale — while the the Su-35 is 4.5 — which may account for the guns kill at close range by the F-35. Uh huh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:War is Boring did a bunch of simulations of the F-35B vs. SU-35S and it actually turned out pretty well for the F-35. lmao I'm sure a video game is a realistic way to accurately capture how a real world military conflict would pan out. F-35 fanboys always use the only BVR argument to claim the F-35 would be effective in a real shooting war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Honestly, this reads like an advert for CMANO and look there's a sponsored link to buy the game on Amazon in the middle of the article.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Asking some children which jet looks cooler would probably produce more accurate results for a post-1980 battle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Just want to throw out a quick  at everyone who quoted War is Boring like they were a font of Serious Citizen Journalism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Also we know its bullshit because in DCS AMRAAMs are garbage and you know DCS is the ultrarealistic flight sim. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
If you aren't simulating your air campaign in John Tiller's Modern Air Power, you may as well be sitting around your mom's kitchen table rolling polyhedral dice. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
This thread's gone on for over 40 pages- imagine how much time we would have saved had we just watched forums poster Baloogan play CMANO... https://www.youtube.com/user/baloogan Dilkington fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you aren't simulating your air campaign in John Tiller's Modern Air Power, you may as well be sitting around your mom's kitchen table rolling polyhedral dice. I want to see the critical failure chart for the F-35B. Half the entries should involve mattresses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
 http://www.marines.mil/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/3258/Article/611657/us-marines-corps-declares-the-f-35b-operational.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:
Relevant to the discussion on declaring IOC, DOT&E put together a report on the USMC's "operational" eval back in May on the Wasp. Sounds like Mission Capable/Aircraft Availability rate was pretty abysmal, staying below 50% for most of the eval period. That's unsurprising, given the state the overall system is currently in logistics/maintenance wise (still way dependent on Contractor FSRs....which you aren't going to have in large supply on-board a ship compared to a test/training airbase like Edwards or Eglin)...but it just further highlights how retarded declaring IOC at this point in time is. Also just a reminder that the USMC is declaring IOC with the 2B OFP...which is hopelessly flawed and never should have seen the light of day outside of a pure test environment, also it isn't going to be fixed because thanks to concurrency/limited test assets the program has to choose between fixing 2B or continuing development on 3i and 3F with rolling the 2B fixes into those later OFPs. It's a no-brainer choice that in a normal program wouldn't even be a choice because 2B would be a pure T&E OFP, so development would continue on the later OFPs to make sure those have all the necessary fixes to problems ID'd in testing 2B. But USMC Aviation is (as usual) full steam ahead retard on declaring IOC with an immature system, so now the 2B deficiencies are an operational problem. That Jane's story contains a doozy of a statement by a USMC PAO: "Although some of the report is factually accurate, the marine corps does not agree with all of the conclusions and opinions"  "We don't dispute your facts, we just prefer to draw a different conclusion from them."
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:But USMC Aviation is (as usual) full steam ahead retard on declaring IOC with an immature system, so now the 2B deficiencies are an operational problem. A similar funny story is after Desert Storm the Air Force found the A-10 was able to deliver more bombs and fly more missions than the vaunted F117 stealth fighter. It also attacked a wide variety targets in range of weather conditions and went up against well defended targets with minimal losses. However they concluded even though the A10 seemed like a better plane in terms of overall effectiveness the F117 was still needed and could also possibly become more effective over time. quote:Based on its performance in Desert Storm, advocates of the F-117 can argue that it alone combined the advantages of stealth and LGBs, penetrated the most concentrated enemy defenses at will, permitted confidence in achieving desired bombing results, and had perfect survivability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
So Dr. Gilmore (head of DOT&E) gave some F-35 testimony in front of the HASC Tactical Air and Land Forces Sub-committee back in March that talked about Block 2B OFP and the decision to declare IOC with it. It has some pretty  portions.Here's the bumper-sticker takeaway: quote:In general, using Block 2B F-35 aircraft, pilots Block 2B: Just as good as a Block 5 1970s Viper! Other highlights include: - There still aren't any dedicated OT&E aircraft loaded with the full version of Block 2B. This is because the USMC operational aircraft had priority on depot to get the mods required. So we are literally declaring an aircraft "operational" when that version of the aircraft has not been flown in an OT&E environment. There isn't a  big enough. This is where the road of concurrency leads you. It is utter madness.- Operational/non-test aircrew are restricted from using the current night vision camera associated with DAS/the helmet. This also means operational aircrew are restricted from flying in night IMC conditions. So the USMC declared IOC....but really it's only effective during daylight because you can't use night vision. - Weapons load is restricted to 2xA2A missiles and 2xA2G munitions of the same type, no mixed loads. Of course this is a bit of a moot point since the only A2A missile cleared for use with 2B is the AIM-120 and its only air to ground munition is the GBU-12. - Potential unspecified G limits for operational/non-test aircraft, related to a fuel siphon tank overpressure problem, as well as additional restrictions while carrying munitions. A little birdie told me the munitions restrictions for the -B were somewhere on the order of a 4.5 instantaneous g limit, which if true is absolutely absurd for an "operational" aircraft. - Sensor performance and fusion sounds like a complete shitshow, to the point where it sounds like the only way a 2B aircraft is going to conduct CAS is if the JTAC performs a dedicated voice talk-on. - Higher fuel burn than even a F-16 (much less an A-10)...hope the CAOC has a bunch of tanker orbits to dedicate to any notional F-35 CAS stacks! Most of this stuff isn't so much a slam on the program (since most of it will be fixed in later OFP releases), but it is a damning indictment of the USMC's decision to go ahead and declare IOC with 2B. etalian posted:A similar funny story is after Desert Storm the Air Force found the A-10 was able to deliver more bombs and fly more missions than the vaunted F117 stealth fighter. Uhhh........the A-10 most definitely did not attack "well defended" targets with "minimal" losses. - The F-117 went over downtown Baghdad with minimal (in many cases no) escort, into one of the most advanced (at the time) IADS in the world, and didn't lose one plane - The A-10 had multiple aircraft get shot down by assholes with unsophisticated short-range IR SAMs/MANPADS. Then they were restricted to attacking at medium altitude, where they were really no different from a F-16 (except that they were incapable of effective self escort). Almost a quarter of all US air losses in Desert Storm were A-10s (6 out of 25). And sortie throughput is relative based on mission set. Unsophisticated bomb truck aircraft != aircraft with bleeding edge technology that allows it to penetrate some of the most heavily defended airspace on the planet. In short, this sentence: quote:Therefore, despite a sharp contrast in program unit costs, based on their use, performance, and effectiveness demonstrated in Desert Storm, we find it inappropriate to call one more generally "capable" than the other. is an eminently reasonable one and I really don't see the parallel to the USMC PAO's statement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Also we know its bullshit because in DCS AMRAAMs are garbage and you know DCS is the ultrarealistic flight sim. DCS has more realistic missiles than BMS but don't tell the Falcon nerds that 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
etalian posted:It also attacked a wide variety targets in range of weather conditions and went up against well defended targets with minimal losses. Please define "well defended".
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
It seems like the aircraft industry can build good planes in a short amount of time, but they apparently dont. Like, how did the RQ-170 and RQ-180 get popped out? The RQ-180 which is still a largely secret program apparently went from the probably drawing board to probably operational in a little over 10 years [the desire for the plane started in 2005, contracts were probably signed in 2008, and it may be operational as soon as 2015], and the program is reputed to have excellent stealth capabilities. Even if one or two accidentally land in Iran, that is still pretty good results. In fact the whole drone program seems to be doing alright. Sure they occasionally have turds come out, or things not go right, but it shows the importance of not having all of your eggs in one basket.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:War is Boring did a bunch of simulations of the F-35B vs. SU-35S and it actually turned out pretty well for the F-35. This has less to do with the merits of the actual planes and more about the specific way that the CMANO developers decided to rate/rank/stat the respective planes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Torpor posted:Like, how did the RQ-170 and RQ-180 get popped out? The RQ-180 which is still a largely secret program apparently went from the probably drawing board to probably operational in a little over 10 years [the desire for the plane started in 2005, contracts were probably signed in 2008, and it may be operational as soon as 2015], and the program is reputed to have excellent stealth capabilities. Even if one or two accidentally land in Iran, that is still pretty good results. The only reason no one is up in arms about the dumpster fire that is our drone program is that A) there aren't a bunch or defense bloggers taking time out of their day to poo poo on it and B) the popular press only cares about drones when they're blowing up weddings. The RQ-1XX series are still secret, so unless you know something the rest of us don't, I'd hesitate before declaring them a success. Literally the only things we know about the Sentinel are what it looks like and that it once exported stealth technology to Iran and China via airplane crash.As for the rest of the drone fleet, let's go down the list. The Air Force tried repeatedly to retire the Global Hawk, because, as of Block 30, it still wasn't even close to having the same capabilities as the U-2, the plane it was supposed to replace. Unfortunately, Northrop-Grumman owns a stable of congressmen, so the Air Force was told they couldn't cancel it, and we're losing the U-2 instead. The Reaper is having the same struggle to meet key performance parameters as the F-35 and RQ-4, but has been pushed out the door anyway due to "urgent warfighter requirements." I guess you could say that the Predator is a "mature" system now, if you're really willing to pimp that word out, but "make a drone as cheaply as possible using as much off the shelf tech as possible and have it fly most of the time" aren't exactly ambitious design goals. Remember that, until recently, the US military had cruise missiles in the inventory that cost more than a Predator airframe and payload.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
An airplane named "Global Hawk" not having even rudimentary anti/de-ice is loving hilarious. It's like a convertible with the top removed, or in this case, a roadster with no provisions for a top to ever be installed. The people who wrote the requirements for that program should be hung from lampposts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
/\ pretty sure de-ice/anti-ice is/was a requirement...but due to "urgent operational needs" it was pushed out the door into operation without meeting all of its KPPs (just like Dead Reckoning said with the Reaper). Let's remember here that both the Global Chicken and the Reaper were being flown operationally almost immediately after Milestone B and well before Milestone C. That is loving ludicrous from a normal acquisitions perspective, but hey, "URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS" /\ I won't comment on the drone program in detail because a) I'll probably say something I shouldn't and b) I'll give myself a brain aneurysm. Suffice to say what Dead Reckoning said is just the tip of the iceberg and the only reason no one cares is because the amount of money that is being wasted in those programs is relative chump change (but rest assured, it is still being wasted). They suck just as much as things like the F-35, just for different reasons. If you want something more in depth, the MQ-9 is still on oversight so the DOT&E reports for it are available open source just like they are for the F-35. I'm really looking forward to the FY15 report, because a lot of promises and statements that were made in the FY14 report have blown up in everyone's face over the last 12 months, so I'm going to be interested to see how the SPO manages to tap-dance around that. I'm pretty sure Global Chicken is on oversight as well, so you should be able to dig up the reports on it as well if you are interested. I tell you what though, one of these days I'm gonna write a book about this place, a real smackeroonie. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
bunch of commercials during the debate last night (at least on CNN's web site) about how the f35b is now fully operational and totalllyyyy ready to go. thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
quote:"The [test] did not — and could not — demonstrate that the ... F-35B is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation, or that it is ready for real-world operational deployments," J. Michael Gilmore, director of the Pentagon's Operational Test and Evaluation Office, wrote in the scathing memo, dated July 22, which POGO received through the Freedom of Information Act. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/15/dod-report-claims-marine-f-35b-not-ready-combat/72332738/ Nope
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
bencreateddisco posted:thoughts? I'm waiting for the F-35G.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Bolow posted:DCS has more realistic missiles than BMS but don't tell the Falcon nerds that If we're using BMS as a benchmark, there is only one choice for the Navy and Marines. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Time to see if Trudeau keeps his word and pulls out of the F35 debacle. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
So how over budget is Northrup Grumman's Long Range Strike Bomber going to be by 2025?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
On the one hand, rumor is a lot of the prototyping/heavy R&D lifting has been done by classified tech demonstrators. On the other, it's Northrup. Either way, we'll have to wait until after the inevitable Boeing lawsuit to overturn the decision plays out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:31
|
|