ELPI have been reading the aviation press for more than half a century, so probably have a fair understanding of its capabilities and shortcomings.
Congratulations.
The fact remains that when bad news comes, the trade press has not been vigorous in a journalistic sense. I am not picking on AV Week in particular, but one only has to look at the long line of interviews where softballs were thrown.
The trade press is just that. They are not Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. And because of the business model, the trade press cannot be journalists in that sense.
ELPDo you have an effect on the content of APA ? Unless you do, I would not even bother, as I have stated before, throw away comments cheap jibes and not answering direct questions seems to be fine on here if you are bagging the F35 program. But any hint of supporting the program leads to one person leading the charge with the lap dog’s following with simular tripe, and no effort to quantify whay they are saying, I am neutral in my current opinion on the program, and was merely pointing out that there is selevtive use of information on both sides in response to a previous post, the reply I got back totally supports my view that on here if you put forward even a hint of support for the program, you are wrong, and no one even considers that the “anti” (for lack of a better word) group would not dare to use misleading information, selective information etc in analysis, only the devil machine of LM marketing would dare do such a thing. My jibe at APA is pretty simple, they have a biased view due to financial interest at the begining of the whole debate within Australia, that has now been lost and replaced by a dire need to try and prove the establishment wrong after what appears to be a major fall from grace for Peter and Carlo, that is how it is coming across to me and many others, but hey, like I said I am neutral on the subject, feel free to educate me, I am a factual person ?
Sorry for late reply, have been away for work again
I am curious about the “fall from grace”. Re: the topic of this thread, APA have been more consistent about risks of the F-35 program than various governments, industry to include all those supposedly knowledgeable people with special program access.
Re: Australia and air power, I am curious about your opinions on this.
ELPSo Carlo and the contributers of APA you are more then welcome on this forum but please do understand this is a critical environment.
We should feel lucky that you are the one to determine who is welcome on this forum and signify that it is a critical environment.
ELPThanks for validating my comment, now have a look at the posting history of both sides of the arguement ? Many more throw away attempts without any attempt whatsoever by the “against” arguement. ELP’s throwback of the LM Program managers and marketing machine comes to mind, must be every third of fourth post of late as an answer, you might not think so, but from a neutral follower of the thread, and I have been a member and reading this forum for a couple of years now, and have watched over the last 6-8 months threads take a major dive. That is why I have started posting, are there actually mods on here ?
So you are against an opinion on this forum and now your feelings are hurt. That is very sad.
ELPWhen “the shoe fits” I would imagine.
I often wonder about some of the posters on this site. I am sure there are more than a few schoolchildren who have plenty of time on their hands but there also seems to be a cadre of “serial posters” which seem to come out of the woodwork every time there is an issue about the F-35 that is detrimental to the program. They seem to have so much time for charts and in depth research. I actually do hope they are paid to do it because if they aren’t, then they have too much time on their hands.
IMHO the owners of this forum do themselves no favors by allowing all the trolling. I know it puts me off and I imagine it tends to put off a lot of other people who would otherwise contribute if the conversation where fact based and not some dominated by these self appointed experts and critics.
It is a forum. Care to state what conversation points you disagree with in detail? The topic of this thread is the F-35. There are many other threads on different topics if this one bothers you that much.
ELPElp Almer, my Turkish friend, what do you suggest Australia’s alternate path be where it does not need the JSF
For the faith-based followers; the NACC gives us the answer in a 2004 brief. If the F-35 program fails, they start over with the government process. However, the bridging “solution” Super Slow Hornet will continue on. Government will say they are committed to the F-35, and order more Super Hornets as a bridging solution until (if) the Just So Failed shows up. Much to Boeing’s delight. Just keep rolling the dice on Boeing in that manner and it cuts out any rational process. But, Defence leadership has been cutting out rational processes for years. They are experts in that area of management.
ELPGiven my advancing years, my eyesight is not as good as it once was. Who are you claiming is the puppet and who the puller of the strings?
***(Take a guess: The United States Marketing Corps aka USMC)
The reasons are cited in the Aviation Week story: “improvements in five key areas: structural shortcomings in the Stovl bulkhead, flutter in the auxiliary inlet door, problems in the lift-fan clutch, unexpected wear and tear on the drive shaft, and heating on the roll-post actuator.” No engineering details are given but I would not have expected them. Panetta was making a speech, not delivering a technical report.
***(Which doesn’t mean very much when you look at the two recent reports: The Quicklook in Nov2011 and the DOT&E shortly after. There are no “improvements” as such but there is added schedule with lots of future testing that has to verify suggested fixes.. )
Where in the Aviation Week story does Panetta make such a statement?
***(It doesn’t. He does say that in the full DOD transcript of the speech at Pax)
No such statement appears in the Aviation Week story. I suspect we are being treated to your personal opinion.
(I suspect I have a personal opinion. I also suspect you give the bought and paid for trade press too much credit for “journalism” skills which they do not possess or refuse to exercise for fear of upsetting advertisers. If ones job depends on the F-35 doing well, they are unlikely to report or edit otherwise. No happy story or an “awe shucks thats too bad” when finally “reporting” negative F-35 events means no lunches, junkets, access)
ELPNope this is what Kelly said about the F-35C:-
Its CF-3 and being tested in the 2nd half of the year rather than the 2nd Qtr Burbage said earlier in the week. So that means we will have to wait another 6 mths or more to discover if the the revised hook will do the trick or a more involved redesign is needed :confused:.
Any ideas when the UK is supposed to formally decide and order its first batch of F-35C for JCA as pretty sure its coming up ?
Don’t know. This story doesn’t inspire confidence.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1847805
ELPOne can almost see the puppet strings in the announcement. He states the F-35B is off probation but can’t offer a good reason why. Then adds, that it isn’t out of the woods yet.
And the big one: the U.S. can win wars without the over-hype of STOVL. Also, we don’t need STOVL at any price.
ELPSome Defense contractors may label the F-35 as an improvement. Look how far we have come. $16+ billion is way more than 300-some million :diablo:
Picture a graph illustrating defense value to the taxpayer reaching that magic point where as we spend more we get less combat capability.
We have arrived.
ELPFlawed analysis and selective information in the form of powerpoint presentations on the opposite side of the debate does very little to ad credability to the subject. So don’t believe everything you see from sites like APA etc
Even if they–and others–have been more accurate on F-35 risk than the keystone cops with all the allegedly valid special access to the program
ELPThe Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) to the US Congress on the JSF Program of Record in 2002 had this to say about the initial operational capability (IOC) for the services:
Meanwhile, the estimates for the unit costs, in TY$s, averaged across the whole program (including the economy of scale benefits from the planned buys of Partner Nations) were listed in this report to the US Congress as being :
In June 2002, when asked how much the JSF would cost Australia, the Chief of Air Force said:
..
Fortunately, the stalwart efforts of the NACC have helped keep the Australian government “on-track” with this issue.
ELPAustralia’s original in service date for the F-35 was to be 2012……some history…
—
“We are looking at the conventional take-off and landing F-35 being about 18 months late at this stage.”
Tom Burbage to Australian press 2004
—
Lockheed will next month release an updated estimate of the plane’s cost, and executives said it would be in the $US45 million to $US65 million range in 2002 dollars, with the Australian variant on the low end of the range.
Tom Burbage to Australian press 2007
—
First JSFs should begin arriving in 2014 and Australia should have its first operational squadron of 24 JSF fighters in 2016.
Burbage to Australian press 2007
—
(US defence company Lockheed Martin has assured the Rudd Government the RAAF’s new F-35 Lightning aircraft will begin arriving from 2014 as promised.)
“We believe we can deliver those airplanes,” Mr Burbage said yesterday.
“We don’t see an issue facing us today in our ability to build and deliver the CTOL airplane on whatever schedule Australia decides it wants.”
Burbage to Australian press 2008
—
” Well let me put it in a different context. The US Marine Corps will be the first service to actually enter initial operating capability and that will occur in December of 2012, OK, that’s two full years before the first Australian airplane is built and about four years before the first Australian airplanes actually come to Australia. So, they’ll have the bugs worked out long before that. “
Burbage to Australian press 2010
—
“The version that the Australian Air Force is buying is the least expensive of the three and in today’s dollars it looks like it will be right around $60 million.”
Burbage to Australian press 2010
—
ELPThe F-35 is a lot cheaper to the Navy than the Navy building its own fighter (A/F-X) or the ATA and NATF
How expensive is agreeing with the F-35 project management office in 2007 that the F-35C passed critical design review when it was overweight, had questionable hook placement and a raft of other problems? Given lessons learned from A-12 and Super Hornet, would the Navy fail in their upcoming FA-XX?
ELPJSF was not defined by STOVL, of course. As long as you consider the following as minor details: Number of engines, OEW, overall length, A/B-version span (which does affect C design because of edge alignment and wing-body geometry), relationship of forebody cross-section area to length, forward location of main nozzle.
JSF was absolutely defined by STOVL. The reason for STOVL was to operate from LHDs. The limitations of the LHD’s elevator set airframe size/weight restrictions. The weight limits were reinforced by limited engine direct lift capability. The result is the stubby, fat jet you see today.
I could be wrong. But I think he was employing sarcasm.
Sign In
