And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It was not. It IS not. I was running programs for the Navy when this shitshow was in development. Sigh, it was a black hole of waste and infighting and sucked money away from programs that were actively trying to make the Sailors/Marines/Airmens lives BETTER. Safety, Health and Welfare, Weapons systems, defense systems: ALL took it in the shorts on giving money away to this...travesty. Sigh
Sort of like the A-12 Avenger II in the late 80's-early 90's. It turned into a money sponge, soaking up the funds for re-winging the A-6's. Sure they were old technology, slow and ugly, but they could carry their own weight in fuel and ordnance.
Upgrading the F14, F16 and F18 would have been a much better option. Upgrading diesel submarines the same. Going with a mosquito fleet would be better option.
No tool 'designed' to do everything can do anything well. Check out the F35 against just the venerable A10 in a ground-support role. I simply caan't do it. Now check out how the F35 performs against older but much more agile fighter jets. The F35 is a loser.
Nope. As others have pointed out - the AF is buying 'new' F-15s & the Navy 'new' F-18s. No reason to abandon the A-10. This piece of crap cannot do the A-10 job, nor will the military put this horrendously expensive aircraft that close to danger. In the fighter role, they should have reopened the F-22 production lines & upgraded them. On most lists, the F-22 is still considered THE premier fighter aircraft in the world. It's like the Pentagon WANTS to have shitty (but expensive) goods.
The F-22 probably isn't going to come back. For reasons inexplicable to me, many people in the military and Congress went to great lengths to choke off production at under 200 units and dismantle the production line. That happened during the Obama years and Sen. John McCain lead the charge. The usual suspects.
I designed a dolly for carrying the F-35 fuselage down a constantly-moving assembly line in Lockheed's Fort Worth plant, so people could add parts to it. Others in my company designed another dolly for supporting a finished A/C in a robotic painting cell. Another team designed a "drawbridge" for accessing the 3-axis flight simulator. When Lockheed won this job they had to ramp up (including the addition of staff), and a principle figure was a sharp manufacturing engineer on loan from Grumman. (When my company got our contracts our product specs were pretty nebulous, and things changed radically as the program progressed.) This was my first exposure to an airplane factory (and if you ever get inside one you'll understand what makes aviation so expensive), but it seemed chaotic to me. "Do we build the wing in one piece, or in two pieces?" The whole "two-types-of-engine" deal seemed flaky; more an international back-scratching gesture than a realistic necessity.
The Harrier could be a dangerous airplane, and the hot exhaust could be a problem for VTOL ops. I lost a college classmate in one. (I was told he was making a shipboard takeoff with an asymmetric weapons load - an experiment? - and it rolled into the drink when he moved from over the deck to over the water. I also lost an upperclassman in a Cobra; low-altitude engine failure, no time or room to autorotate. And my college roommate survived a CFIT in a CH-53. All good Marines.)
But I started talking about the Harrier. The picture at the top of this post is of the USMC version of the F-35. Unlike the Harrier (which had no "tail" nozzle, and whose jet engine directed all of its exhaust to 4 rotatable nozzles on the sides of the fuselage - with maneuvering "jets" front-and-rear and on the wingtips) the Marine F-35 can point its nozzle aft for normal operations, or down for VTOL. The big hatch you see behind the cockpit opens to allow air to pass down through a huge fan, to support the front of the aircraft for VTOL. That fan doesn't do anything for normal flight, except add useless weight and complexity, and take up space that could otherwise be used for fuel, weapons, electronics, etc.
I'm very low on the information chain for F-35 and there are probably very smart and very decent people who could defend it, but . . . to me, it doesn't pass the sniff test.
It was not. It IS not. I was running programs for the Navy when this shitshow was in development. Sigh, it was a black hole of waste and infighting and sucked money away from programs that were actively trying to make the Sailors/Marines/Airmens lives BETTER. Safety, Health and Welfare, Weapons systems, defense systems: ALL took it in the shorts on giving money away to this...travesty. Sigh
ReplyDeleteIt was not a waste lots of people became wealthy as was intended just not you and me. It's a small club not a big one.
DeleteSort of like the A-12 Avenger II in the late 80's-early 90's. It turned into a money sponge, soaking up the funds for re-winging the A-6's.
DeleteSure they were old technology, slow and ugly, but they could carry their own weight in fuel and ordnance.
Stolen money is NEVER worth it.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty certain YOU can spend your money better than THEY can.
Upgrading the F14, F16 and F18 would have been a much better option. Upgrading diesel submarines the same. Going with a mosquito fleet would be better option.
ReplyDeleteWhen's Biden's military going to transition the F-35s to all electric?
ReplyDeleteNo tool 'designed' to do everything can do anything well.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the F35 against just the venerable A10 in a ground-support role. I simply caan't do it. Now check out how the F35 performs against older but much more agile fighter jets. The F35 is a loser.
You can cut through all the noise by looking at purchase orders. The Air Force is buying new F-15’s, and the Navy is buying new F-18’s.
ReplyDeleteNope. As others have pointed out - the AF is buying 'new' F-15s & the Navy 'new' F-18s.
ReplyDeleteNo reason to abandon the A-10. This piece of crap cannot do the A-10 job, nor will the military put this horrendously expensive aircraft that close to danger.
In the fighter role, they should have reopened the F-22 production lines & upgraded them. On most lists, the F-22 is still considered THE premier fighter aircraft in the world.
It's like the Pentagon WANTS to have shitty (but expensive) goods.
The F-22 probably isn't going to come back. For reasons inexplicable to me, many people in the military and Congress went to great lengths to choke off production at under 200 units and dismantle the production line.
DeleteThat happened during the Obama years and Sen. John McCain lead the charge. The usual suspects.
That would be due to the aged and retiring over the last several years cashing out and screwing the young commanders.
DeleteWhat EVERYONE above said.
ReplyDeleteThe F-35 Thunderjug is nothing but a receptacle for nightsoil, always was, always will be, and everyone who can has abandoned it with prejudice.
They will be mothballed before the paint is dry, and reduced to scrap, which mainly entails removing the "s" from "scrap".
I designed a dolly for carrying the F-35 fuselage down a constantly-moving assembly line in Lockheed's Fort Worth plant, so people could add parts to it. Others in my company designed another dolly for supporting a finished A/C in a robotic painting cell. Another team designed a "drawbridge" for accessing the 3-axis flight simulator. When Lockheed won this job they had to ramp up (including the addition of staff), and a principle figure was a sharp manufacturing engineer on loan from Grumman. (When my company got our contracts our product specs were pretty nebulous, and things changed radically as the program progressed.) This was my first exposure to an airplane factory (and if you ever get inside one you'll understand what makes aviation so expensive), but it seemed chaotic to me. "Do we build the wing in one piece, or in two pieces?" The whole "two-types-of-engine" deal seemed flaky; more an international back-scratching gesture than a realistic necessity.
ReplyDeleteThe Harrier could be a dangerous airplane, and the hot exhaust could be a problem for VTOL ops. I lost a college classmate in one. (I was told he was making a shipboard takeoff with an asymmetric weapons load - an experiment? - and it rolled into the drink when he moved from over the deck to over the water. I also lost an upperclassman in a Cobra; low-altitude engine failure, no time or room to autorotate. And my college roommate survived a CFIT in a CH-53. All good Marines.)
But I started talking about the Harrier. The picture at the top of this post is of the USMC version of the F-35. Unlike the Harrier (which had no "tail" nozzle, and whose jet engine directed all of its exhaust to 4 rotatable nozzles on the sides of the fuselage - with maneuvering "jets" front-and-rear and on the wingtips) the Marine F-35 can point its nozzle aft for normal operations, or down for VTOL. The big hatch you see behind the cockpit opens to allow air to pass down through a huge fan, to support the front of the aircraft for VTOL. That fan doesn't do anything for normal flight, except add useless weight and complexity, and take up space that could otherwise be used for fuel, weapons, electronics, etc.
I'm very low on the information chain for F-35 and there are probably very smart and very decent people who could defend it, but . . . to me, it doesn't pass the sniff test.