Yet, after all that, (10 years and counting) the F-35 is unsafe to train non-test pilots.

Eglin is grounded.

And the system-of-systems religion needs a working system.

That does not yet exist with the F-35.

That is not a conspiracy. It is real.

I suggest it is the F-35 cheerleaders that need an upgrade to TinfoilHat version 2.

Ohh I’m sorry I didn’t realise the standard of discussion here at KeyMags was that whenever RCS was mentioned you have to provide a full spherical measurement across all radar wavelengths.

Ohh really? So using the nose RCS against the most common wavelength used by radars, you know that part of the aircraft that is most often pointed at threat radars, as a base of reference isn’t good enough for you. Perhaps you’d like to explain to everyone how important it is not to forget the high point of the RCS of a moving LO shaped aircraft on the bow tie points at 45, 135, 225 and 315 degrees?

Here is some more stealth ideas for the Just So Failed fans.

When the F-117 was shot down (regardless of the reason) LM came out and stated that even a simple turn can increase RCS by a factor of 100 or more.

Since the F-35 has no credible defensive suit like the Super Hornet Block II it will get bad when stealth goes naked. Some expendable decoys, IR dazzlers and gross over-hype of AESA as a credible jammer. A poor idea for many reasons.

The F-22 has extreme high altitude and super-cruise. Helpful for lowering NEZ of enemy missile shots. The requirement for ATF was part of a red-team look stating that stealth for stealth’s sake was not good enough.

So the idea that performance doesn’t matter, is amusing.

Given today’s unresolved flight envelope limits on the F-35, it will be unlikely it can stand up to any credible threats over its alleged lifetime.

And this as a comparison; note that many of the F-35 items at this time do not work.

What are you saying: I can’t see events that are on the public record?

Haven’t you heard of extrapolation?

On the page previous Sintra quoted a post by Mercurius who demonstrated it in action and in quite a humorous way.

Public statements have indicated the F-35 will have a RCS of -30 to -40 dbsm, Northrop Grumman have uploaded video of a trial version of the F-35’s radar in action. All of this data and more provides some pretty compelling evidence of the low observability and situational awareness of the F-35. There are some who put a lot of effort into pulling down the extrapolations one can make from these insights and the claims of those associated with the F-35. But to believe all that one has to close your own eyes and accept that all the professionals in the 15 air forces that have chosen the F-35 are all drinking “Kool Aide” as the metaphor is put.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

Such arguments are ridiculous.

Ridiculous may be the word but not how you think it is.

I think it is even ridiculous where someone passes off the major problems in the quicklook as easily fixable over time.

You are aware that all the mission systems have to work in a combat relevant configuration.

Unreliable IPP, thermal issues, paper-thin weight margins, hopeful schedules for software blocks, unsafe fuel dumping, poor fuel inerting–(Betty Bomber II for Japan, except the Betty was operationally useful), helmet and DAS issues, actual comments that the aircraft can’t cut it as an air-to-air or air-to-ground system.

Yeah, no worries.

None of this has any logical connection. You just keep regurgitating these anti F-35 statements without any real concern if they match the actual point at hand. .

Well, on the flip side, you would have to have read all of those glowing F-35 releases and briefings. Pretty misleading stuff. A lot of it just confidence man tricks.

And now there is a defective F-35 design with all kinds of problems. All that after over 10 years of healthy funding with not much to show for it.

If you want to debate by making ad hominem arguments then I guess that is better than the slander against the defence force you have been using to date.

I would never slander the Defence Force. Lots of good people in it. However the slander going on is with the over-all senior Defence leadership.

They slander the taxpayer and think no one will know the difference.

The problem with your equation is the point 3 is not true and for everyone else other than the USA neither is point 2. Now if you are just going to reject this challenge as ‘marketing guff’ or whatever then you can keep going from 1 to 5. But one would hope you would notice that there are 15 of the world’s most professional air forces that disagree all based on not supporting your point 3.

The UK MOD is having a yard sale. They dumped their 150 B models to the C model later in the decate; a handful. And now the hook doesn’t work. That’s one down.

Denmark has not agreed the F-35 will be its replacement.

The Dutch. Significant problems here and a significant lowering of numbers due to cost rise. BTW it ended one government. de Vries acted like a defacto seller of the aircraft for LM. That government got canned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_de_Vries

Italy. Still can’t get over that “best value” thing. Now that they have seen FMS deals they are even less happy.

Turkey. A wild card.

Norway- Whole chunks of their military suffer from poor readiness. The F-35 gambit was also based on a fantasy price that was unsupportable. Great confidence man play by the sales force.

Canada. You do realise that this went from 80-some down to 65…. price again, but also the real acquisition cost of the deal is up in the air. Current government used (surprise) Lockheed Martin talking points for their “analysis”… and their “requirement”.

Australia. We will see what Smith does in 2012. I am sure the great analysis by NACC will keep him good.

Pauper USAF– can’t afford more than 48 per year (that was from the plans and programs people in 2008) … things are worse since then.

USMC– In the case of the F-35, the M is for marketing. How long the STOVL lasts before it is canned is anyone’s guess. That and there is no tactical use for STOVL in US wars. A B-model will arrive at Eglin on Friday. Then parked because the whole F-35 fleet is unsafe to fly for new pilots.

Navy— no working hook, can’t trap. Bad deal there.

Not 15? … No.

Maybe more later.

Overall design unsafe and riddled with problems.

There’s a whole bunch of hopes, wishes and faith coming from the F35 proponents.

Not a lot of fact.

The key points:

1) It’s late and getting later.
2) It’s expensive, for a platform sold on it’s “affordability” that’s criminal.
3) The capabilities when it does eventually reach service will likely be unremarkable.
4) The cost sucks funds away from other programs.
5) How are any of the above 4 positives for the armed forces?

I’ve made these points a number of times previously and not once has any F35 supporter been able to address them with any fact based logic to justify point 5.
Program marketing guff has certainly been posted in response along with a few insults, but not one piece of solid fact that shows how the F35 is in fact the aircraft, or system if you prefer, claimed with the cost and elongated timeframe being justified.

They have PowerPoint.

No you’re absolutely right. Obviously Lockheed Martin should start weapons testing in black-out conditions and conduct high altitude and supersonic launch of live weapons and then work their way back to inert captive carry scenarios?

That’d be the “real” engineering work example you currently find so lacking would it?

Personally, I would suggest slow, but steadily clearing the envelope for weapons release would be the way to go. Exactly as they did on the superlative F-22, but I guess you know best.

Out of interest and if he’s still hanging around, what does Horde suggest in this matter? A slow and steadily building up weapons clearance program, or straight into supersonic, high altitude launch scenarios using live ordnance, that appears to be the only thing that will satisfy Eric?

Finding gross error in the entrenched Defence bureaucratic cabal is easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Or in this case; finding lepers in a leper colony. Defence procurement management in the Australian public is synonymous with “stuff up”. These days it is ingrained in the fabric of the society.

There was a time when Australia was an intelligent purchaser of military equipment. No more.