SatorianThe 48,000 is quite clearly a typo. Either transposing the “3” in 43,000 to an “8” by mistake or (less likely) someone thinking ahead to obvious upgrade potential.
I’m guessing that’s the most likely explanation.
There is not “current” 41,000 lbs from testing. The F135 is rated at 43,000 lbs & is exceeding expectations (note for example the 41,100 lbs demonstrated hover thrust ve the 39,400 lbs rating).
It is only GE/RR who use 41,000 lbs in a deliberate misleading way.
Beesley has used the 41k figure in his TWR calculations as well. Was he deliberately misleading?
Satorianhttp://www.afa.org/ProfessionalDevelopment/IssueBriefs/F-22_v_F-35_Comparison.pdf
Page 2
There’s a lot of vanilla info there, but that’s where the 48,000lb thrust figure came from.
Thanks for the link.
This is not an USAF presentation though. AFA, in their own words, are “an independent, nonprofit, civilian education organization”. Sadly this document cites no sources, so I’d be reluctant to use the 48k figure rather than the current 41k figure from testing or 43k figure typically given for the F135 by PW.
SatorianI was looking for it, and if I can find it, I’ll repost it.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
SatorianThat figure was on a slide from a USAF presentation. Perhaps a typo. Perhaps not, but that’s why I included it to provide the range of numbers that had been seen.
Interesting. I’d assume that as a growth path projection for a medium term future, considering the current engine rumblings.
Got a link handy for that USAF presentation?
SatorianBoth the procurment and operating costs include EVERYTHING. This includes spares, simulators, setting up logistics and infrastructure modifications to the Goldhaube were supposed to be included as etc. Austria had to pay some 57 mln € penalties for the cancelation of 3 aircraft.
I think there was also some financing arrangement included that increased total costs.
The winners are the Luftwaffe in the long term
And in the short term we are lacking units for training (not to speak of deployment) and have even less time per frame for training as Austrian pilots are using our frames for that as well. Well, yes, they are paying for the training, but that doesn’t make the current aircraft availability any less dire.
Satoriangiven that we know the F-35 has more than 40k lbs of thrust(between 43k and 48k)
Where from do we know that the F-35 has up to 48k lbs of thrust?
SatorianOf course he does, I never said he didn’t. But as a test pilot (as opposed to a marketing spokesman) he also has much greater responsibities.
Yes, he indeed has, and those don’t lie with providing exact and reliable information to the public. That doesn’t take the PR responsibility off him though. And everything he says to the public is not an immediate public service, but service to LM, the USAF, DoD, etc and then hopefully in a roundabout way service to the public by supporting those instances in their intentions.
Of course, the ‘hard numerical data’ you speak of has not yet been cleared for public release. But the ‘hard numerical data’ does exist & a significant number of people have seen it and if it contradicted what Beesley has said you would hear about it. More so than just hearing about it, the release of such would prompt investigation into the program to discover what else the program was not being truthful about & the results of said investigation could result in the cancellation of the program.
My problem isn’t with Beesley. My problem is with people who take his roughly qualitative statements and turn them into unreliable quantitative ones. Because that’s really the point: He does not provide information to the public in a way one would expect it presented was it meant for external review. If you ask me about the weather and I tell you “It’s better than I expected, would have surprised many, and being better than days last year the same time, allowed me to get my tasks done”, you’d have a hard time pinning a lie on me no matter whether rain, snow or sunshine.
Just for the record: I’m convinced that LM will hit their KPP requirements (+- some odd, practically mostly uninteresting deviation). I just don’t think the requirements are hung as high as some other proponents of the program think. Where I do expect the program to fall significantly short though is the promised price. Just three or four years ago a price of ~50m USD was repeated over and over again by the larger fansphere, but I’d expect it to be at least between 50% and 100% higher than that.
The point is that, contrary to what some here are claiming, he would not lie & say the he expects F-35 pilots to be surprised by the F-35’s high-altitude performance &/or that is was similar to a clean Block 50 F-16…
I don’t know. The statements are pretty useless to me. Too many subjective variables. What do I know about pilots’ expectations?
And by the way, yes, I do think that a military person would lie to the public if it suited larger interests. Information management is a large part of their work.
First a quick correction…it is 18,000+ lbs internal fuel capacity, which is 9 tons.
Yup, my mistake. I had the 18k figure floating around my head and didn’t have the mental capacity left to assign the correct unit or check for plausibility while thinking about what else I was writing at the moment.
There is a huge difference between being deliberatly vague in order not to disclose still classified information. It is something quite different to, as some here are claiming he is doing, deliberately lie/mislead.
Well, I think he’s being very opaque and typically does not give enough context to make his statements very useful.
For the record: What are the firm, reliable insights about the F-35 you have gained about the F-35 from his statements so far? Can you give me four or five significant pieces of information as derived from his words? I’d be interested to compile a list and file it away for later reference. Doesn’t hurt to keep reevaluating one’s own assessment. 🙂
SatorianThats right, he is a test pilot, not a marketing spokesman.
Which doesn’t mean that he hasn’t any marketing/PR responsibility when it comes to interaction with the public. Every company employee has.
He reports to his superiors is LM’s systems test & development division. The only reason why he even speaks to the public at all is because of his 1st hand knowledge (it is one thing to see/read a report or flight test data [note if the flight test data did not back up his claims it would be discovered], it is something else to have actually experienced flying the aircraft) and is reputation as an honest & truthful individual.
For me the thing is that he hasn’t said much that was quantified and could be subjected to any kind of test by the public. How many and which statements of his about the F-35 do you remember where he gives exact numbers? That’s something I would really like to see: A compilation of hard numerical data Beesley has shared with the public so far.
Also, assuming he noticed the F-35 falling short in some way, let’s speculatively say high-altitude performance, do you think he’d call the press and ask them to run the story, or when asked about it instead and without his prior initiative, tell the truth instead of saying something like “it’s meeting our expectations at this stage of the program”?
The only reason it “has” to be discussed at all is because some people don’t like what he has to say & how it debunks much of their BS so they have to put forth the ridiculous notion that he is nothing more than a marketing spokesman with no credibility or reputation for hunesty.
I wouldn’t go as far as say that he would lie, but I would claim that he doesn’t offer much usable by the public. For example, if asked “How fast does a F-35A with full fuel load and A2A armament fly in maximum dry thrust at 36k feet?”, he would answer something like “It more than exceeds our tactical needs, but what you really should also look at is how far you can fly at its speed, and here comes one of the F-35A’s strengths into play, because, really, we got 18 tons of fuel on board, which corresponds to a fantastic fuel fraction, which means we can stay on station much longer than our competitors. No other current fighter can offer you 18 tons of fuel in a package as advanced and sophisticated as the F-35.”
The rules of PR as pertaining to fighter jets:
1. Don’t give numbers. If you do, avoid context so they aren’t of much use.
2. Divert. Respond in an abstract way to the point raised and then segue to another point you want to make instead.
Just look at the Beesley videos posted at the DEW line.
For the record though: I don’t think that’s something bad to do, because I see their task in doing just that when confronted by press or public. And I think every test pilot does it, no matter the affiliation.
SatorianJust like to point out the typhoons MMI and Rafales for that matter is on a whole new level to latter F-15 derivatives. Quite a big selling point if you know how importnat it actually is 😉
Hmm. I still have a hard time believing that, to be honest. It may be slick and streamlined and working very well, but judging by the short video clips available of it (and the leaked avionics manual), it does not seem revolutionary or being a level above other US 4th gen MMIs.
The videos of the F-35’s cockpit sim on the other hand, should the implementation succeed without cuts and changes in scale, looks to be truly a level ahead.
SatorianYou don’t understand the difference between a test pilot & a marketing spokesman?
If you don’t see how Beesley’s task is not to report to the public, but to his superiors and the program, then you are either incredibly naive or currently just dishonest. He is not an oversight instance to communicate shortcomings to the public.
I find it hard to believe that this point is being discussed at all. Especially with someone who so often bangs on the “intellectual dishonesty” drum.
SatorianTrue, but how many on this forum will either want to or be able to grasp the difference.
Because there is only one true gospel. Or prophecy, rather.
SatorianIt was kicked out of the Swiss competition
I think Boeing’s line is that they “retracted” it, due to being too advanced and sophisticated for that particular tender. :rolleyes:
SatorianLook again. The only jobs being saved by oBambi’s “stimulus” belong to union thugs whose union dues fund Democrat political campaigns.
Please leave your political arguments unrelated to military aviation at the door.
SatorianWell, what I have been wondering about is:
Can one F-22 notice another F-22 on its RWR? Can an irresistible force move an unmovable object? Can an almighty deity create an object so heavy it is unable to lift it?
In an effort to make sure that everybody knows the F-22 is just about perfect at everything, some advocates of the F-22 often claim that the APG-77 is LPI up to the point of undetectability, while the AN/ALR-94 is claimed to notice any emissions with its near-SIGINT-level of antennas and processing.
But, the question arises: Can the F-22 RWR detect the F-22 radar?
One of them has to give way: Either the F-22’s radar emissions can be detected by sophisticated RWR gear, or the F-22 can be surprised itself by radar it’s unable to detect.
SatorianNote that “stealth issues” only added 10% to the total…
Between 60 and “mid to high seventies” is a bit more than 10%.
And you could look at it from another angle.
Availability including stealth issues: 60%
Availability without stealth issues: mid to high seventies, so lets say 77%.
Now look at non-availability.
Without stealth: 23%
With stealth: 40%
That means that about half the F-22s not available are so due to stealth-related issues.
Sign In
