aussienscaleSorry, not understanding what sort of “credible independent analysis” you want.
I’d say that anyone who was challenging the JSF cost and schedule as depicted before early 2010 counts as “credible” because they were right and the inside “experts”, the paid shills and the fans were wrong.
If you want the historical facts on Concorde and its opponents, they’re out there for all to find.
By the way, none of Concorde’s critics became rich or famous. If you want to make money in aerospace and defense media, boy, its “PA all the way”.
Definately not debating the cost and schedule, never have denied nor tried to defend this, more interested in anything on capability of the JSF not the Concorde
aussienscaleFunny someone should mention Concorde.
The program has been under full-scale development for ten years. It was supposed to be in service by now, but nobody can guarantee a date. About four years in, weight and performance problems led to a complete redesign so the first prototype was not representative.
But the press releases inform us that flight testing is going well and all the world’s leading operators have signed commitments. How can they be wrong?
The opposition to the project is confined to a few journalists and a handful of independent analysts who claim that its acquisition and operating costs will be unaffordable and that its very expensive technology is advantageous over a small range of likely missions.
They’re clearly misguided fanatics.
Enough of this malarkey. I am now jamming people who contribute nothing but wind here, and advise others to do the same.
PS That comment about Paul Bevilaqua was hilarious, for reasons that I am not at liberty to discuss at this time.
Any links to credible independent analysis ?
I would not say that the journalists are all misguided fanatics, I think some of the, let say more outspoken, have a vested financial interest to keep the arguement going, some have made a name for themselves on the back of this. So to keep it going from a financial and career point of view makes sense. Keep the argument going, stay in the public eye, keep getting your face on television programs, keep your name in print and more importantly keep the money rolling in 🙂
aussienscaleAnd buying the F-35 is a mistake, IMHO. Maybe not for a country which has enormous supporting structure of force multipliers, AWACS, jammers, ECM or F-22 cover but definitely a mistake for a country which places its bets on the F-35 as a mainstay of their future fleet because it can’t do much on its own.
So what you are saying here is that you don’t have a problem with the JSF ? It’s just that you have an issue with it because your country does not have the supporting capability ? What is missing ? Does your country not have, or have planned the above ?
aussienscaleA Viper on steroids?
Yes, it grew breasts, its testicles shrank and it attacked people without warning…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroid#Adverse_effects
Sounds like half of the Chinese Olympic team 😀
aussienscaleNo, it does not explicitly say that they were different in burn time, intensity and separation compared to US designs. They could have been different even compared to each other.
That is how I read it, smart thing to do really if that is the case. To have a multiplicity of variations in burn times, heats, intensities etc makes it pretty hard to pick out the target from such clutter
aussienscaleThose drones can’t emulate an agile fighter with MAWS + pilot.
But since Shaw made an instruction set on what to execute in most situations,
it should be possible to install autopilot in an old F-16 and program it
according to Shaw’s principles
Absolutely, but firings can (to a certain extant) be set up to simulate/emulate such manouvers. Combine that with analysis of the firing data should be enough to get the idea, but always nice to have the youtube video of an actual plane getting shredded though 🙂
Cheers
aussienscaleIsn’t that why they have target drones ?
aussienscaleGuy’s I can go at this forever in a day, so keep it coming. So rather that side swipes, make it direct and we can continue
Cheers
aussienscaleI was referring particularly to the whole range of design compromises enforced by STOVL/LH-compatibility. And, by the way, the F-35 is intended to replace the F-15E.
Amiga – One problem is that the LHA-6 and later are not new designs, but evolved Wasps, and the Wasp was based on the Tarawa class, which was designed before the Marines ordered Harriers.
WOW I actually agree with you there LO 🙂
Squeezing in the STOVL requirement was/is a definate compromise to the overall project, only time will tell us the effectiveness or if you like, what history ends up telling us what the pro’s and con’s end up being, lots of conjecture on what that will be, I tend to sit on the back end, its here so time will tell.
And yes America Class is a follow on design from Wasp and Tarawa, they tend to follow the Evolution of ships rather than revolution, Their aircraft carriers are a good example of this as well. The start of the evolution started with USS Makin Island, she was fitted with twin LM2500 gas turbines instead of twin boilers and twin geared turbines, among other things.
The omission of the well deck was an interesting decision with a lot of conjecture on the exact reason ? Officially it was not needed due to the planned/increased use of the MV-22 for troop insertion etc, if that is the case makes you wonder why the EFV then ? The other is the obvious increase in hangar space, and the increase in capacity of F35B’s, so a lot riding on the B’s especially to work ?
aussienscaleYeah maybe your right ? would not want to be caught out in public being a liar or a fraud would we ?
Was a stupid idea for here, my bad 🙁
Was that grammatically correct ?
Cheers
aussienscaleWithout wanting to intervene the technical part of this debate I have to agree with the guys here that without putting down true credentials any poster will most likely be treated as an average armchair aircraft expert.. Mere saying I’m some Dickson, this is my post #1 and I’m deeply involved with the F-35 program so from now on you take my word as holy bible won’t do.
Of course, there is still that remote possibility that the respective poster will at least blow our minds with tons of precious information which lead to logical outcome which most folks can identify themselves with. That would provide the required respect towards the poster even without teh necessity to reveal any aforementioned credentials..
So, Mr. Dickson, after your initial 14 replies full of useless rant, can you please finally provide something useful?
Maybe the site should instigate some form of checking such claims then ? It is not difficult to scan and email enough of the required information to the Mods. I for example have a raft of stuff from my previous service, statement of service, qualifications, promotions, service record and posting history etc
Give the poster making such claims a certain period of time to supply such information or get banned, pretty simple really 🙂
Just a though ?
Cheers
aussienscaleWith posts like this do you honestly wonder why people are questioning your (supposed) credentials? :confused:
Of course the headline is going to say that to grab people’s attention – and you know what – its right. You wanna beat an F-22 with a Eurofighter (or similar) – you get him into a knife fight or stalk them from the rear quarter.
Compared to the F-22, yes, the Eurofighter has limited VLO characteristics.
A 1 v 1 is a basic training exercise. It is blindingly obvious that is what the journalist meant. For your signal management/signature management read maneuver/exercise.
What a load of rubish. Yes the article headline is designed to grab peoples attention, but is also mis-leading in its intent. You as usual have taken what I have said out of context, did I dispute the comment in the article about the knife fight ? No I did not, and as usual you make a quote and reference in your reply having a go at me which had absolutely nothing to do with what I had said, this is trolling at its best and rather pathetic. I still do not see you offering up any evidence of your self proclaimed expertise, continue the attacks, it brings a daily smile to my face, I rather enjoy it 🙂
So if you were unclear about what I was getting at, let me clear it up for you. The article heavily features indications that the F22 being “stealthy” and the Typhoon “not stealthy” was beaten, insinuating that this was a big “win” for the Typhoon over its “Stealthy” counterpart, may I ask what you think “Stealth” will bring to a close combat action ? The article also show’s a complete lack of understanding of how these exercises are planned and conducted, they are not simply lets get into the air and fight it out, they are very much staged events with very specific parameters. I am not disputing that the Typhoon did what the article said, and good on them if they did 🙂
The outcome is possibly what they were expecting, without seeing the purpose of the exercise, they could have been aware of this and were running the particular scenario to develop outcomes to counter this, once again these things do not operate in a vacuum
aussienscaleWhat about stopping that little contest right here, and right now?
Alternatively, I can close the thread, and give out some time to think away from the forum.
More than happy to, but would like to have my identity clarrified from the previous insinuation for the record ?
Cheers
aussienscaleAccepting what’s in the article as correct, that Typhoons were having success against the F-22 by gettting them into a knifefight, it raises a couple of interesting points/questions.
-The F-22, even with TVC, was not as good as anticipated in close. Was it showing all of its cards?
-What does this mean for the F-35 that is no where near a agile as the F-22?
It is a crap article to put it bluntly 🙂
For starters the title “How to defeat the Airforce’s powerfull stealth fighter”
Then highlights the Typhoon’s as being “Non Stealthy” and then goes on to say the exercise was close range dog fighting using “basic” manouvers ? Obviously has a great understanding of the subject, and a complete lack of understanding of how these exercises are run in the real world
Cheers
aussienscaleNope the RAF may get the initial unit but the priority with those 48 aircraft is Carrier Strike so the Navy will be getting a full squadron and another will be mixed. The first carrier is due for operational service by 2021 and a full squadron by 2023.
Typhoons will cover the Tornado shortfall, as the F-35s will still be being delivered and developing their operational capabilities, as most of the RAF weapons won’t be initially certified for F-35 use .
Cheers for that, so it is still the intention that the RAF will be running pilots alongside the FAA/RN off the carriers ? Also curious are there any plans to set up a deck mock up of the QE’s on any of the bases complete with ramp for training pilots, aircrew etc ?
Sign In
