Don’t get all excited about ALQ-99s and EA-18Gs. It is the diet coke of jammers and the Navy knows it.

The advanced jammer was being sold to the Navy based on a lot of statements of ALQ-99 weakness. It’s legacy, harder to maintain, won’t keep up with the threat and so on. Those statements go all the way back to 2003.

When the advanced jammer died the first time, the Navy just had to pretend everything is OK. As delivered the Grizzly isn’t anything special and the drag-o-matic design means it won’t be going too far from a tanker.

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee54/warpigelp/991.jpg

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee54/warpigelp/992.jpg

—

As for the Strike Eagle etc in Australia, forget it. While it may be practical for any number of reasons, little of Australian Defence procurement is about practical. Boeing isn’t going to let this one get away (Super Hornet). There is a huge risk that if the F-35 runs into trouble you will see yet another batch of Super Hornets purchased. The whispers are in the shadows. For Boeing, it is all about the sale.

The Super Hornet has a really good chance of making up the entire fighter inventory for Australia. And that has been Boeing’s plan for a very long time.

Australian fighter procurement looks more like this-

-F-35 goes great… existing plan
-F-35 has more problems… another batch of Super Hornets
-F-35 has even more problems….. A force mostly of Supers and some F-35s
-F-35 dies, ….. Super Force……

It comes down to a Defence establishment that is really good at wasting taxpayer money and giving little in return.

Maybe Nelson is a genius… after all it was he that jumped on the big Super Hornet sale via PowerPoint and spin in late 2006. Populating the rest of the RAAF with cheap 1 seat Super Hornets means the least waste to the taxpayer. Not my favorite platform. It isn’t the hammer of Thor but at least it can turn one engine off over water, is safe and easy to fly. After a few F-35s are dumped over water at the cost of gigadollars, it isn’t going to look like such a hot deal.

The Super Hornet can give Australia the ability to have instant plug and play with a coalition force right out of the box at the least amount of dollars. This is the ultimate low risk for a troubled Defence procurement system and if they made a stand for this, they could look like low risk heros.

The big promise for home industry participation for the F-35 to the tune of billions of dollars is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme to make the gullible politicians and industry show up for their cut. It is until the F-35 matures, a ridiculous proposal.

As for the F-15 Strike Eagle and Silent Eagle, under-rate it at your own peril.

No matter what gizmo’s & modifications are done to an F-15, bottom line its still, well, an F-15…Like I mentioned a little while back for a metaphor, you can give an old 1970’s Jaguar XJS brand new electronics, suspension, brakes, interior, sat-nav, all the great things you could get, technically its very good, but its still NO Jaguar XKR of 2009…

Sorry, not sure who would want to buy an F-15SE?…

And that video….Ouch….Is that the best they can do?…

Based on your experience of having seen Strike Eagle units? :rolleyes:

Range, Payload, Two-Aircrew Attack, Two-Engine, Low-level penetration, airframe growth room and known performance of what it can and can’t do. If there is a perceived need for those things,…..

LM isn’t the one claiming 3000+ test flights are needed before you’ll have any clue how it performs

Well certainly Lockmart is now worried.

Maybe you are right. Less test flying is better.

I am not the one making the outrageous claims. The seller of the aircraft is with nothing to back up their statements except PowerPoint slides and press releases.

Wrong Eric. The F-35 is designed to be a true multi role fighter with strike capability second to none and an air to air capability second only to the Raptor.

*** Which ignores things like flight testing that have to prove these wonderful claims. A go-to-war jet with all the systems hasn’t passed OPEVAL etc.

LM has stated publicly that while four AAMs will be carried internally at first, studies show that there is no reason why an additional 2 to 4 AMRAAMs could be carried internally if someone thinks it important enough to fund the integration. Obviously those who know much better than you don’t seem to think its an issue.

*** Those that market better than I do. Weapons clearance is no small thing and is always an “issue”.

What 30 plus year old design Eric? Does it really matter a clean Block 50 is going to outperform just about any combat loaded aircraft as easily as a clean F1 would to this day. Tell me Eric what would your sustained flight tests show that cannot already be extrapolated with data that they already have? Clearly you have no clue. In fact your “arguments” get lamer and lamer and this “there has been no extended flight testing therefore F-35 is bound to fail argument of yours only goes to paint you in a less than complementary light.

*** My arguments are certainly less “lame” than top DOD officials lying to elected officials in public hearings (everything is all happy…. { just don’t look at the GAO report… or the schedule or the cost or the delays… }) . Certainly less lame than dumb statements in PowerPoint briefings, like “go it alone”, “acquisition cost similar to an F-16,” and so on. The most expensive program in Defense is going to need more than “trust me” and “I’m sorry but its secret” . “Lame” are the platitudes used to sell this unproven great white hope.

What vibration, what heat issues? But then again no the catBird does not have the same vibration and heat profile as the F-35. You collect that data during flight tests with the F-35 and you model it with the data from the catBird testing. Then you compare your sample results with that which you collect using the actual F-35 and see if the model produces the same results as your sample from the actual F-35. YOU DON’T NEED HUNDREDS OF FLIGHT TESTS OF EVERY SINGLE COMPONENT TO DO THIS. I don’t know how clearer I can put it to you Eric. It’s not 1969 anymore.

*** Yeah less flight testing is always better isn’t it? I can see that from the flight test plan. It is 4 months till the end of FY 2009 and where are the three hundred some flight tests that were supposed to happen this FY? They must be on a new enhanced “risk reduction” method that delivers more platitudes to the customer.

Which ones haven’t been? Which ones are at risk for not being met? Name one with a verifiable source.

*** That is quite amusing. The jet has to demonstrate KPPs it isn’t something that is declared in a press release or PowerPoint. The program has specifically stated that the program should meet its KPPs. That is a huge difference from demonstrating them in real life. At the current program progress, they won’t be able to demonstrate them for some years until they have a full system jet tested in all areas. But I am sure there are more press releases right around the corner stating this or that for the sheep.

I see your understanding of macro economics is easily as bad as your understanding of modern fighter jet development. I won’t go into a long winded argument but I will list a few things for you to ponder. Global reserve currency, debt as a percentage of national wealth, exchanging hard durable goods for slips of paper, who controls the most gold.

*** Maybe if you wish hard enough it can be. Yet that is a huge difference from real proof. The only thing your “understanding” of modern fighter jet development has shown is that you are willing to believe just about anything with no proof. The economics argument goes about as far as another credit app for Chicom investment.

And your point is? The test was delayed one month? Two? Most of September is still summer of 2009.

*** You may want to look at the program history. First STOVL flight has been delayed and pushed back before. For example a dud engine. That cost about a year or more. Before that with the 2004 SWAT that killed a year of the program. Everything stopped just so the STOVL could meet weight requirements which in turn killed its most affordable ace. Part commonality was reduced significantly. This and other events killed commonality. That is the short answer. There is more.

More lame Eric Palmer arguments. Face it you are clutching at straws. Let me know when there is a major problem or shortfall that has yet to be resolved and then we can talk, otherwise your arguments are nothing more than trolling in order to draw attention to yourself.

*** It is tough to see those clutching at straws accuse others of the same. Maybe if you back off and take an honest look at the program as opposed to happy-face press release/PowerPoint spin and sophistry you can get a better picture They may actually pull it off. With CAIV you can trade away just about anything. This program has a very long way to go. Using Ponzi scheme selling methods with not much product to show for it isn’t helping things. It does show though that even in the day of the “information age”, there are still enough gullible people to depend on.

double post sorry….

Funny, no JSF Partner has ever left the program nor even cut back on any projected orders. As a matter of fact as time goes on more and more countries express interest in the F-35. This is all backed up by Leading Military Experts and there respective Governments.

Sorry, your doom and gloom hardly hold up to the light……:eek:

Personally, I am going to enjoy watching you and the other F-35 Critics after the F-35 starts to enter service. As you rexplaination for the F-35’s success is no doubt going to be interesting reading…………..or should I say fiction???

Here is one for you too.

Where do we start Eric? I like that first graphic of yours. I noticed it had a lot of the terms you coined but no one else much seems to buy into them. What did you use MS Paint to make the circles? Did you hang the picture on the fridge with a gold star you gave yourself?

Hmm super maneuverability and speed. The last I looked M1.6-1.8 is plenty of speed and everything other than a Raptor is only going to go maybe M0.9 – M1.2 for any period of time. I won’t go into how long you can go on military power is a far better indicator of an aircraft’s ability to escape a foe than absolute speed, rather since I am pinched for time I will point out two very big holes in your “argument”. Missiles pull upward of 30gs and go M3.5. The ability to detect and track your foe long before he can do the same allows you to chose the terms of engagement.

As for WVR you still have anywhere between 4 and 6 AMRAAMs in your weapons bay and they still allow for off bore site shots. Who says all your F-35s have to carry all internal weapons? You can hang them on the wings, take your BVR shots with them and then use the internal missiles for WVR if it gets down to it. You see Eric, stealth and an internal weapons bay gives you options that you don’t otherwise have. Oh did we mention the F-35 in combat trim has about the same performance as a clean F-16 Block 50? Not too shabby. But again, you said it. WVR is pretty much 1:1 so why would I want to even do that?

No flight testing is not over rated it’s just that modeling, simulations and the use of flying test beds like Catbird have made the number of flight tests less important.
http://mae.pennnet.com/display_article/363148/32/NEWS/none/none/1/Lockheed-Martin-F-35-CatBIRD-shows-key-avionics-capability,-reliability-at-Edwards-Air-Force-Base/

How much flight testing do you have to do to verify your test results? How much flight testing do you have to do to verify predicted flight parameters?

See Eric I do this sort of thing for a living. You model and simulate as much as you can and you compare those results against prior results. What do you do besides fix MS Word problems for secretaries, blog and act as Kopps mouthpiece?

Where does the article say it does not have unlimited AoA?

Do what for a living? Maybe LM needs your help. They think a software upgrade is the next PowerPoint briefing.

But lets move on. No kidding that missiles have high g. So do the ones coming out of an F-22 which by the way with altitude and speed, give AMRAAM shots a 40-50% push on reach and of course a better NEZ. The aircraft has no peer and the F-35 is in no way just a less expensive F-22, no matter how much LM does their “5th generation” marketing hype that rides on the coat tails of the F-22.

I find it amusing that people push the F-35 as some kind of air superiority machine without anything to back it up. 4-6 A2A missiles in an F-35 weapons bay? Show me the real weapons clearance from real weapons drops. The 6 will be especially interesting. Anyone for 8?

CATBird. Lets see. Not much vibration, and what? The performance envelope of a 737. But not the fighter itself (heat, vibration, big G). Definitely a good thing to do. And well LM is pushing it like it has never been done before (look at the old briefings). Yet the F-22 did this with a special 757 lab. And the F-35 has over three times as much software. What was the reason that Block 1, 2, and 3 definitions were watered down in 2008 from their 2006 requirement? Don’t know. But it makes for some interesting thinking. With CAIV (cost as an independent variable) driving the whole program, “Anything is possible if you are willing to lower your expectations.” You can trade away almost anything except an equal number of take-offs and landings.

I am of course confident that the USMC will get IOC by 2012. After all they are doing such a great job managing the MV-22.The USAF is out of money. The USN? They have to pay graft to the shipbuilding industry every year as part of a fief for those grey floaty things.

The F-35 program had a lot of potential until the marketing crew got ahold of it. Yet we have so much more entertainment ahead of us. The F-35 plan had 317 test flights lined up for FY 2009. Where are they? There are over 1200 for the FY2010 schedule not counting the make up work.

The 1st Quarter 2009 LM vid says first STOVL flight this summer. Just a little bit of time later at the Navy League gathering it was pushed to September. Funny how that didn’t show up in a computer sim. It showed up at the end of the latest hover pit test done in primo drag racing weather. Real testing.

Any meaningful flight testing will be interesting to see as fatigue testing is months off from being done. Until then it will be flight envelope restricted.

Here is a snap shot since 2007.

BF-1 – first flight on time. Hover pit testing delayed by a year. First transition 9-15 months late.

BF-2 – first flight on time. Aircraft grounded since then, start of flutter and flying qualities testing now four months late and counting.

BF-3 – first flight six months late if latest (Jan 09) Milestones chart is met.

BG-1 – Was due to enter static test at FW early 2008.

AF-1 – first flight six months late if latest Milestones chart is met.

AF-2 – first flight five months late if latest Milestones chart is met.

AF-3 – first flight five months late if latest Milestones chart is met.

AG-1 – six to nine months late. Static was supposed to commence in mid-3Q08

CF-1-3 All about six-to-seven months late, again if latest Milestones chart is met.

But we are told from the program that everything is under control. So when are the shareholders going to get the truth?

Yet the U.S. taxpayer is asked to build hundreds of mistake jets.

Lets look at some of the partner nations that need some whipping in shape to get with the program. Australia. Now in serious debt on the budget. Yet lets go put $40 billion of total expense on the taxpayer for the F-35 program based on hope ( a nation of a tad over 20 million for you all in my hometown in Lapeer, Michigan) in a country that likes its entitlements.

The U.K. , the MOD is imploding but lets press ahead.

Canada. Funny how a recent LM brief still showed them for 80 some when Canada told them 2 years ago they are only good for 60 some. Yes I sincerely believe Sure, Canada will step up for the full lot. They spend so much on Defense already.

Denmark. Fighter decision delayed. Rocko and Moose should pay them a visit.

Netherlands. Ungrateful. Ungrateful. Ungrateful.

There goes the super low price in a package deal LM was trying to push as part of Operation: Lightning Strike.

How about Norway? It is coming out now that maybe that super price deal was shady. No!!!! It can’t be.

Israel if they “buy” will have the tab picked up in part by the U.S. taxpayer.

And other FMS….. where is that stack of Middle East Arab nations to show off in the latest briefing, that were potential FMS customers for the future shown in a 2007 briefing? Maybe we need them to pick up abandoned production slots. Does the LM shareholder know that maybe the sales force isn’t pushing the F-35 enough?

FY 2011 budget is going to be even more unworkable for a Federal government that is trying to buy everything on credit.

We should all be fanboys for the F-35 though. And soon. When you wish upon a star, it shows how gullible you truly are.

Things like goalposts are indeed changed by LockMart. You remember the issue, right?

The F-104G only crashed a lot when it was flown.