Forbes: Ten Signs The F-35 Fighter Program Is Becoming A Smashing Success

[h=1]Is the F-35 the worst fighter ever?[/h]

Viperfixr said:

Ten Signs The F-35 Fighter Program Is Becoming A Smashing Success

Click to expand...

That's ecouraging news althought most of it is fluff and projections. Many of the "10 signs" don't even match the title premise of "Ten Signs The F-35 Fighter Program Is Becoming A Smashing Success." But don't get the idea that I'm going to slam the plane because I'm not, just the article. The more I read, the more I'm impressed by the plane, but not by reading garbage like this article.

On all of the cost projections given, history has shown that cost projections by the DoD should be trusted about as far as you can throw the system they're projecting costs about. So other than the possibility of promising downward trends, I disregard. However, while that means they can't be taken as proof that it's a smashing success, the system really can't be criticized any more than the bazillion other DoD projects that have exceeded their intentionally low-ball pre-Congressional-approval estimates either.

The fluff:

"1. Flight tests are over two-thirds complete with no show-stoppers" - this far into the program one would certainly hope so, right? "All of the key performance parameters for each of the variants have been satisfied" - but from what I've read, they've lowered some of them when they weren't met.

"2. Risks associated with a revolutionary design are being steadily retired." Well, that's good, but a sign it's a "smashing success"? "It introduces a host of innovations that have never before been integrated into a combat aircraft. ...developers have successfully resolved every problem that arose with the new technology." Well that's really encouraging although I hope the two examples he provides are due to the limits of what can be seen in unclassified reports - "For instance, a deficiency in the data that pilots see displayed on the visor of their high-tech helmets has been eliminated" although the recent air-to-air combat with the F-16 showed that the helmet was too large in the small cockpit to allow the pilot's head to be turned enough to track the F-16. "...a tailhook on the Navy variant of the fighter that wasn’t consistently grabbing arresting wires was redesigned and now works 100% of the time." Really, the great success that makes the program a "smashing success" is a tailhook that works "100% of the time"? I'll definitely allow that the classified nature of the program limits what he can be told, but the examples given aren't impressive examples that support his title premise.

"The Marines will declare initial operational capability this summer. For the first time ever, the Marines will have a highly survivable, versatile attack aircraft that can land on a dime pretty much anywhere." Great. But as I have previously pointed out, there's at least one study that I unfortunately can't find now but I've read that shows that that capability isn't highly mission essential and is not really that flexible/mobile because, among other things, of the FOB assets required for refueling and rearming and the lack of equal mobility of THOSE and, as a result, their vulnerability. Not very useful to be able to land anywhere if the primary reason for doing that can't be supported by significant, highly mobile FOB assets that aren't far more vulnerable than what they're supposed to be supporting. Also, those resupply assets, if aircraft based, won't be stealthy. How many stealth Blackhawks do we have left after crashing that one in Pakistan and how many gravity bombs, missiles, and fuel can each carry?

"4. Sea trials of the Navy version were the most successful ever." Says who? Not specified. Most successful ever for the F-35 or no new plane has ever been more successful? Not specified.

"8. Nearly 200 pilots and 2,000 maintainers have been trained." Gosh, who'd expect that for a plane that's due to go operational? I mean, come on... That's a sign that the program has become a smashing success?

"10. The political system has closed ranks behind the program." And that proves that THE PLANE is a smashing success? Or that lobbying is?

This article is exactly the same sort of fluff that I see in the finance/investing/economy related GARBAGE spewed from mainstream financial sites (Hey, like Forbes!) that I then see picked completely apart and obliterated daily by those too few who actually analyse the data or realize that the data presented is garbage through an analysis of IT. As Ben Franklin said, “Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.”

For me, the following two points he made are the most encouraging in the entire article, ESPECIALLY the second one which I think is BY FAR the most important and the one which is really making me like this plane more. Even though I can't know the details, from the many tech articles I've read about those sorts of systems and capabilities I know they are extremely advantageous as long as no Achilles heal is found. However, as another example of this cheerleading ignoramus's bias, to his comment "one recent story noted the complaint of a test pilot who said he couldn’t turn his head to see where an adversary was behind him — something pilots wouldn’t do in a fully-equipped F-35" I can only say, "Really... NEVER do? But wouldn't that be a really, REALLY nice thing to have if it ever does come down to a dogfight and, if so, is it impossible to provide?":

"test pilots described the harrowing experience of (aircraft carrier) final approach as “carefree” thanks to new technology that captures and maintains an optimum glideslope, substantially reducing pilot workload and enhancing safety."

"There is better understanding of fifth-generation fighters. The F-35 program has been dogged from its early days by the secrecy surrounding much of what makes it unique. Experts use the shorthand term “fifth-generation” to describe the unique combination of stealth, sensor fusion, networking and other features that will make it the most formidable tactical aircraft in history, but it has taken time for people to grasp the operational implications (one recent story noted the complaint of a test pilot who said he couldn’t turn his head to see where an adversary was behind him — something pilots wouldn’t do in a fully-equipped F-35). As more and more pilots actually fly the plane though, the logic of its design and features is becoming obvious."

What about the recent air combat tests where the F16 was able to repeatedly blast it out of the air?

jderimig said:

What about the recent air combat tests where the F16 was able to repeatedly blast it out of the air?

Click to expand...

I believe Viprfixr post a link that addressesd that, that test was a development test with a flight envelope inhibited F-35 as the software was still being developed.

It's hard to judge a system when it's still in development.

Rather than write again what I have already written, I'm just going to link:

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?121670-AN-F-35-DISCUSSION&p=1405663#post1405663

Greg

F-35 pilot talking about the $400K flight helmet

https://theaviationist.com/2015/07/13/f-35-pilot-about-flight-helmet/

Very cool:

[video=vimeo;124614167]https://vimeo.com/124614167[/video]

Personally I wouldn’t use the word “Smashing” in any article about aircraft.

Am I the only one who wonders if all these cost overruns in projects such as the F-35 and the F-22, isn’t just a means to hide the costs of “Black project” developments?

$400 Gazillion for the F-35 when in fact $200 Gazillion went to the development of some new combat drone we won’t hear about until it’s used for the first time.

boomtube-mk2 said:

Am I the only one who wonders if all these cost overruns in projects such as the F-35 and the F-22, isn’t just a means to hide the costs of “Black project” developments?

Click to expand...

Probably not, but I'm not really with you on that theory.

Mon Nov 18, 2013
Special Report: The Pentagon's doctored ledgers conceal epic waste

https://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/18/us-usa-pentagon-waste-specialreport-idUSBRE9AH0LQ20131118

In its investigation, Reuters has found that the Pentagon is largely incapable of keeping track of its vast stores of weapons, ammunition and other supplies; thus it continues to spend money on new supplies it doesn't need and on storing others long out of date. It has amassed a backlog of more than half a trillion dollars in unaudited contracts with outside vendors; how much of that money paid for actual goods and services delivered isn't known. And it repeatedly falls prey to fraud and theft that can go undiscovered for years, often eventually detected by external law enforcement agencies.

The consequences aren't only financial; bad bookkeeping can affect the nation's defense. In one example of many, the Army lost track of $5.8 billion of supplies between 2003 and 2011 as it shuffled equipment between reserve and regular units. Affected units "may experience equipment shortages that could hinder their ability to train soldiers and respond to emergencies," the Pentagon inspector general said in a September 2012 report.

Because of its persistent inability to tally its accounts, the Pentagon is the only federal agency that has not complied with a law that requires annual audits of all government departments. That means that the $8.5 trillion in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996, the first year it was supposed to be audited, has never been accounted for. That sum exceeds the value of China's economic output last year.

@boomtube-mk2: The overruns are because of a concept called Concurrency. In essence they are doing the TESTING while they are also DEPLOYING the systems. If something goes wrong in testing, they have to in essence recall every plane already put there to fix the problem as opposed to doing all the testing at once then rolling out with the final project. They did it with the F35, they did it with the F22, and now they are doing it with the new Ford Class carriers. As long as the military relies on concurrency testing, the budget of any project will be inflated.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-pentagons-concurrency-myth-is-now-available-in-supe-1689810660

Has an excellent article on Concurrency, and a massive section on the F35.

jderimig said:

What about the recent air combat tests where the F16 was able to repeatedly blast it out of the air?

Click to expand...

Take a look at Post #2 and the info found there--provides a more balanced perspective than most for someone outside the program.

Mark,

That is an awesoem article. There is a lot of anti F-35 stuff out there. The more I read, the more confident I am this a great aircraft.

Next? Drones?

Tanarin said:

@boomtube-mk2: The overruns are because of a concept called Concurrency. In essence they are doing the TESTING while they are also DEPLOYING the systems. If something goes wrong in testing, they have to in essence recall every plane already put there to fix the problem as opposed to doing all the testing at once then rolling out with the final project. They did it with the F35, they did it with the F22, and now they are doing it with the new Ford Class carriers. As long as the military relies on concurrency testing, the budget of any project will be inflated.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-pentagons-concurrency-myth-is-now-available-in-supe-1689810660

Has an excellent article on Concurrency, and a massive section on the F35.

Click to expand...

That's not the only cause as concurrency is a relatively new thing and so many previous programs that didn't use it were also grossly over-cost.