Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 12-23-2016, 09:52 AM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Not to pick on the quoted poster, but it's amazing to see people who have been calling the F35 a piece of shyt for years suddenly learning to love it when Trump expresses that same opinion.

The Guardian newspaper for one.
I did a quick search of F-35 related articles on the Guardian and didn't see any old articles that called for it to be canceled, or any new articles saying it should be continued. Got links?
  #152  
Old 12-23-2016, 09:53 AM
AK84 is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
I'd be curious for a ref to that if you have one. It seems to me ... implausible.

The airplane was built very lightly wherever it wasn't needed to carry Gs. That's part of how it performed so well.

The main gear's gross design was akin to that on the A-7, another joint USAF/USN aircraft. I could imagine some non-expert writer observing that similarity and writing something along the lines of "With its Navy style main gear and its hook it could easily be adapted for carrier use." Which IMO would be bunk. But externally plausible bunk.

OTOH, there's no guarantee I've got it right here either. I just worked there; I sure wasn't involved in the design stuff.

I feel like an idiot. I went back and found the article in question........and it turns out the plane they considered was the F15.

ETA: Although in my search I just discovered that a carrier capable Viper was planned at one time.

Last edited by AK84; 12-23-2016 at 09:55 AM.
  #153  
Old 12-23-2016, 10:00 AM
AK84 is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
I did a quick search of F-35 related articles on the Guardian and didn't see any old articles that called for it to be canceled, or any new articles saying it should be continued. Got links?
I did'n say they called for it to be cancelled, just that it was shyt.

But here.

Australia's F-35 jet acquisition has hallmarks of Ponzi scheme, inquiry told

British U-turn on US jets damages credibility of UK defence chiefs
  #154  
Old 12-23-2016, 11:56 AM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post

I feel like an idiot. I went back and found the article in question........and it turns out the plane they considered was the F15.

ETA: Although in my search I just discovered that a carrier capable Viper was planned at one time.
Cool. Thanks. The rest of that link is interesting. The carrier F16 would have been 25% heavier at empty weight, need all new landing gear, etc. It might better be described as a whole new aircraft derived from the F-16.

No need for a .

The more I learn and the older I get the more I recognize that a huge memory such as yours or mine contains a lot more inadvertent cross-links than I wish it did.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 12-23-2016 at 11:59 AM.
  #155  
Old 12-23-2016, 12:35 PM
AK84 is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,086
Thanks for the kind words.
Do you think the Navy's objection re the carrier F16 (as related in the article) were valid or were a case of "will take an Air Force fighter over our dead bodies".
  #156  
Old 12-23-2016, 12:57 PM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
After the F-111 fiasco which set the Navy's acquisition for that mission back about 10 years I bet politics had a lot to do with it.

But more legitimately ...

The YF-16 vs. YF-17 fly-off showed two excellent aircraft which nonetheless had significant differences. The Venn diagrams were each large, but so was the area of non-overlap.

USN & USAF have different metrics for what they valued. One thing USN particularly valued / values is twin engines. Something that was a non-starter from the git-go for the F-16.

USAF found the YF-16 scored best in their metrics. USN found the YF-17 scored best in theirs. Both production -A models were a lot different from their YF- prototypes. Mostly because both YF-s were built unrealistically small to boost maneuvering performance which USAF said would score very highly.

Once GD won, the practicalities of getting enough radar, fuel, and ordnance on board led to a 15%-all around stretch from the YF-16 to the F-16.

Last of all, there was plenty of politics on the USAF side too. The F-16 had to be mildly crippled to avoid encroaching on the vaunted F-15. Had they not done so, the project would have been killed by the so-called F-15 Mafia as a threat to their numbers. The Navy at that point in history didn't have that issue; the F-17/18 was to be a replacement for, not a supplement to, their then-current premier F-type, the F-14. So USN didn't want to buy as their front line F-jet something that had been partly crippled to satisfy USAF internal politics.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 12-23-2016 at 01:00 PM.
  #157  
Old 12-24-2016, 04:38 AM
AK84 is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,086
Interestingly the blog War is Boring said on the whole Trump v F35

Quote:
Congressional appropriations showed us that the total costs came down again to $128 million for a generic F-35. That’s $113 million for an F-35A, $142 million for an F-35B and $241 million for a F-35C.

However, an old Congressional Research Service report on the F-35 tells us that in 1994 the Pentagon was promising F-35As for $31 million, F-35Bs for $31 to $38 million and F-35Cs for between $30 and 35 million. In 2017 dollars, those costs would be $53 million per F-35A, $53 million to $65 million for each F-35B and $51 million to $60 million for a single F-35C.
Put another way, in 2017, a F-35A costs about twice what the Pentagon promised Congress more than two decades earlier. Compared to this initial estimate, the F-35B costs more than twice as much now, while an F-35C is about four times more expensive.

I suspect Trump can recognize when he is being scammed. In this case, the Pentagon is telling him American taxpayers can get F-35s for only two to four times what they originally advertised.
Emphasis mine: Takes one to know one I guess.
  #158  
Old 12-24-2016, 11:40 AM
UberArchetype is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 534

Trump the Terrible Tweeter


Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
But again, Putin will love it if Trump cancels a major threat to his potential air-superiority in any conflict.
Trump cannot unilaterally "cancel" the F-35 program, or any major defense program, for that matter. Government and government contracting simply doesn't work that way. There is a very small chance the new administration could spend political capital stirring up trouble on this front by soliciting contract modifications for things like the Presidential transport and the F-35. But everybody knows those forays into fiscal stupidity always end up costing more and providing less capability. Rampant speculation fomented here and in the media is somewhat amusing, if basically irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
Trump probably knows that Congress will keep the F-35 program alive. He gets to sound brash and strong, and gets to blame Congress for the spending.
Were you under the impression anyone (any"thing") other than Congress is to blame for Federal spending?

And what's this nonsense comparing 4th generation aircraft? Anyone flying or buying 4th gen fighters today is doing so either because they cannot get F-35s in service quickly enough, or simply cannot or will not buy them for any number of reasons.* It is not because they don't desperately "want" or "need" them. It is simply because for whatever* reason they cannot have them - either now or ever, in some cases.
  #159  
Old 12-24-2016, 02:03 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by UberArchetype View Post
Trump cannot unilaterally "cancel" the F-35 program, or any major defense program, for that matter. Government and government contracting simply doesn't work that way.
What do you mean he can't cancel the program? There's always the chance that Congress can step in and reverse the decision - more or less what happened with the V-22 Osprey. But I'm not following how the program can't be terminated for the convienece of the government.
  #160  
Old 12-24-2016, 02:12 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 36,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What do you mean he can't cancel the program? There's always the chance that Congress can step in and reverse the decision - more or less what happened with the V-22 Osprey. But I'm not following how the program can't be terminated for the convienece of the government.
Contracts.
I'm assuming that Trump is well accustomed to breaking contracts whenever he feels like it but I'm assuming the President can't just order a contract canceled on a whim.
  #161  
Old 12-24-2016, 04:22 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,923
Government contracting is unlike business contracting. For one thing, only in rare occasions does the government issue contracts that bind the government to paying for something more than one year at a time.

For example, both production and R&D contracts for the F-35 are basically annual contracts with options for future years. If Trump didn't want to buy any F-35s in his next budget, the government would most likely be liable for various shutdown costs (moving the tooling into storage, compensating Lockheed for some limited actions taken in good faith, etc.) The government is in no way, shape, or form obligated to buy any F-35s next year.
  #162  
Old 12-27-2016, 01:44 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,115
Sure, but Trump can't cancel the program on his own. Congress has to agree not to allocate funding for the buy.
  #163  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:01 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Sure, but Trump can't cancel the program on his own. Congress has to agree not to allocate funding for the buy.
Right. Hell, recently submitted Presidental budgets are basically ignored completely, and I have no doubt that this trend will continue under Trump as well. In this case, that's probably a really, REALLY good thing actually.

Last edited by XT; 12-27-2016 at 02:02 PM.
  #164  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:04 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,115
Well, maybe. Considering how little reason they have to compromise it wouldn't surprise me if the GOP submits a "no money for anything except the military and anti-abortion charities" budget.
  #165  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:24 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Right. Hell, recently submitted Presidental budgets are basically ignored completely, and I have no doubt that this trend will continue under Trump as well. In this case, that's probably a really, REALLY good thing actually.
This is a misunderstanding of what constitutes a budget proposal. Each presidential budget includes a few fiscal policy measures - reform the tax code, reform entitlements, etc - and these are rarely acted upon.

The budgets for individual agencies are generally accepted with some degree of modifications, ranging from mild tinkering to modest reforms. I'd say Congress approves 97% of the defense budget as proposed by the President each year.
  #166  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:32 PM
UberArchetype is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 534

Possible? Of Course.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
But I'm not following how the program can't be terminated for the convienece of the government.
Assuming enough political pressure came to bear and all the necessary parties (including numerous global partner customers and manufacturers) lined up for another F-22 style fiscal bloodbath, yes of course the program can be stopped. But the term "convenience" would not be remotely imaginable in the characterization of any such deal. In fact, it would be stupendously expensive and ill-advised for numerous reasons well beyond the scope of this discussion.

Anyone familiar with the F-22 program immediately preceding, knows exactly what I am talking about.
  #167  
Old 12-27-2016, 02:44 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by UberArchetype View Post
But the term "convenience" would not be remotely imaginable in the characterization of any such deal. In fact, it would be stupendously expensive and ill-advised for numerous reasons well beyond the scope of this discussion.
Wait - you said something earlier to the effect of, "Trump can't cancel the contract because government contacting doesn't work that way." This implies that you have some understanding of government contracting.

However, you don't seem to recognize the term of art for the government terminating a contact in cases where the performer did not default on its obligations. "Termination for the convience of the government" is the proper term for the government ending a contract prior to full performance.

Seriously, how can you say that this is "not remotely imaginable in the characterization" of ending a defense contract? It's the damned proper term for what we are talking about.

Based on your apparent unfamiliarity with the term, I must question whether you know anything about government contracting. So once again, what point do you think you are making?

ETA: and I have quite a bit of knowledge of the F-22 cancellation, and I don't have a clue as to what you're obliquely referring to.

Last edited by Ravenman; 12-27-2016 at 02:45 PM.
  #168  
Old 12-27-2016, 03:43 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This is a misunderstanding of what constitutes a budget proposal. Each presidential budget includes a few fiscal policy measures - reform the tax code, reform entitlements, etc - and these are rarely acted upon.

The budgets for individual agencies are generally accepted with some degree of modifications, ranging from mild tinkering to modest reforms. I'd say Congress approves 97% of the defense budget as proposed by the President each year.
The point, though, is that it's still Congress that has to approve it. Trump can't just unilaterally decide 'hey, let's ax the F-35 program!' and it gets done that way. He can submit a budget defunding the project...which would simply mean that money not previously spent on the project or already allocated would be cut back, not that whatever we have already committed to would be given back as some seem to be implying.

As for the first part I'll bow to your knowledge of presidential budget procedures. I know presidents submit the things but I thought Congress basically went with its own compromise budget and didn't really pay that much attention to what the President submits...at least not in the more recent administrations. If I'm wrong about that then learned something today.
  #169  
Old 12-27-2016, 07:50 PM
UberArchetype is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 534

Term your Own Art


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
...you don't seem to recognize the term of art for the government terminating a contact in cases...
I however certainly do recognize the pedantic prattle of someone who has completely missed the point in their rush to be the smartest person in the room. As a former employee of The U.S. Defense Contract Management Command, Northern Europe, I'll just smugly stop interacting with you now so the semantic wordplay games may continue unabated.
  #170  
Old 12-27-2016, 10:36 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by UberArchetype View Post
I however certainly do recognize the pedantic prattle of someone who has completely missed the point in their rush to be the smartest person in the room. As a former employee of The U.S. Defense Contract Management Command, Northern Europe, I'll just smugly stop interacting with you now so the semantic wordplay games may continue unabated.
Well, fantastic. So you surely know that the government has very broad powers to cancel contracts for convenience, in which case I have not a damn clue what you're disagreeing with me about. I especially have no idea why you vaguely allude to some sort of problematic outcome of the F-22 cancellation. If you were going to point out a horror story of cancellation, the most obvious case would be the A-12, which of course was a T for D.

Specifically, what are the "stupendously expensive" costs of curtailing the F-35? (I continue to maintain that such a cancellation would be foolish, but I cannot see how it would be stupendously expensive. The production and R&D contracts are such that the limit of the government's liability should be the amounts appropriated in any year. I have a hard time seeing that there would be any liability on the government for things like dealing in bad faith or whatnot. So where do these outrageous termination costs come from?)

Last edited by Ravenman; 12-27-2016 at 10:40 PM.
  #171  
Old 12-28-2016, 10:02 AM
LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,035
Agree with Ravenman's larger point.

Yes, there would be significant costs for contract termination for government convenience. And that would mean substantially 100% of the money spent on F-35s to date would be wasted. In that sense it would be colossally expensive.

But when you factor in all the spending foregone in future years on not buying the other 1000+ F-35s, now you're talking a yuuuge net savings. Not net cost.


The real OTOH is that just because the F-35 is cancelled doesn't make the reason we started the project in the first place go away. Instead of doing without essentially forever, instead we're going to have to start designing & building something else. And those costs may well swamp the costs of the planned F-35 program. Viewed at that level, cancelling the F-35 "bakes in" the cost of inventing and fielding the "F-40" or whatever. Which is almost certainly going to be even more expensive. Absent some miraculous step-change in tech.


As always, what looks like a good move in short-term tic-tac-toe can prove to be a bad move if we're actually playing long-term chess. A hell of a lot of what goes wrong in society and in politics can be laid at the feet of different factions being utterly focused on one timeframe or the other, not on all of them as wisdom would dictate.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 12-28-2016 at 10:05 AM.
  #172  
Old 12-28-2016, 10:45 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,923
Just for everyone's reference, I tried to find a dollar figure associated with the cancellation costs of the F-22. The figures I found were a low-end estimate of $80 million, a claim of actual costs of roughly $150 million, and a high-end estimate of $400 million.

Now, we never built more than 20 F-22s in any year, and we are now producing something more than 100 F-35s in a year (including international buys). Yes, the costs would be higher for terminating the F-35, but we are not talking billions of dollars. More likely, a few hundred million in termination costs as a very rough swag. We're talking on the rough magnitude of what a few airplanes cost.
  #173  
Old 12-28-2016, 10:50 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Just for everyone's reference, I tried to find a dollar figure associated with the cancellation costs of the F-22. The figures I found were a low-end estimate of $80 million, a claim of actual costs of roughly $150 million, and a high-end estimate of $400 million.

Now, we never built more than 20 F-22s in any year, and we are now producing something more than 100 F-35s in a year (including international buys). Yes, the costs would be higher for terminating the F-35, but we are not talking billions of dollars. More likely, a few hundred million in termination costs as a very rough swag. We're talking on the rough magnitude of what a few airplanes cost.
I've kind of lost the overall focus of the discussion at this point (sorry, seriously distracted lately). Just curious, are you suggesting we should cut the F-35 program, or just explaining that we could in fact cut it and what it would cost?
  #174  
Old 12-28-2016, 11:18 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,923
What I'm responding to is posts that assert something between "Trump can't cancel the F-35 program" to "it would be horribly expensive to cancel the program." Those are just factually untrue assertions.

I think cancelling the program would be silly, and there's a decent chance that Congress might keep it afloat for a while if he did so, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
  #175  
Old 12-28-2016, 11:38 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What I'm responding to is posts that assert something between "Trump can't cancel the F-35 program" to "it would be horribly expensive to cancel the program." Those are just factually untrue assertions.

I think cancelling the program would be silly, and there's a decent chance that Congress might keep it afloat for a while if he did so, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
Ah, gotcha. Sorry that I wasn't following along very well there. I agree, it could be canceled...obviously, since other programs have been in the past. I guess 'horribly expensive' is going to be subjective...to ME, millions of dollars are 'horribly expensive', since I don't have that sort of money, but to the US government it's a drop in the bucket. While it's true that Trump can't unilaterally cancel the program he could recommend cancellation on his budget and if Congress agrees then it could be canceled as you noted.

I also agree it would be 'silly' to cancel it...I think it would be really stupid and a waste as I've said in other threads on this subject. This is an airframe and combat system that will probably be with us for decades, and based on the pilots assessments I've read it's going to be a winner once the teething pains are overcome.
  #176  
Old 12-31-2016, 01:24 PM
UberArchetype is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 534

Thanks for the Insight!


Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
...to ME, millions of dollars are 'horribly expensive', since I don't have that sort of money, but to the US government it's a drop in the bucket.
Once again the SD faithful demonstrate their peculiar lack of insight or understanding, especially with regard to the bigger picture. Some rather opt to post their ill-conceived rants considering only their own limited, inaccurate perspectives. Countries all over the world are depending on the F-35. The cost of modifying or cancelling the program cannot be measure in U.S. government money, and the costs are not just monetary.
  #177  
Old 12-31-2016, 06:40 PM
UberArchetype is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 534

Whatever


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What I'm responding to is posts that assert something between "Trump can't cancel the F-35 program" to "it would be horribly expensive to cancel the program." Those are just factually untrue assertions.
Both things I said. Both factually true. And last but certainly not least, considering measuring intangibles including everything from foreign relations to war-fighting capability to numbers of dollars, pounds, yen and lots of things in between, cost impact from negatively funding the F-35 program on an F-22 scale (just as a reference point - it could be anything right? we are after all speculating here.) would be unprecedented by an order of magnitude.

Paying contractors for things not providing combat power would be the tip of the iceberg.
  #178  
Old 12-31-2016, 07:06 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by UberArchetype View Post
Both things I said. Both factually true.
WTF? You think that Trump cannot cancel a defense program despite other ACAT 1D programs being terminated in recent years - VH-71, EFV, DWSS, F-22, and on and on.

You also cannot say why the F-35 program, if terminated, would lead to huge termination costs. Now you're backtracking and throwing in "intangibles" as some measure of cost. This is patent nonsense. I've shown a rough order of magnitude of termination costs for a large defense program, and you've provided nothing in terms of verifiable facts.

When come back, bring something else than your unfounded opinions.
  #179  
Old 01-04-2017, 12:03 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by UberArchetype View Post
Once again the SD faithful demonstrate their peculiar lack of insight or understanding, especially with regard to the bigger picture. Some rather opt to post their ill-conceived rants considering only their own limited, inaccurate perspectives. Countries all over the world are depending on the F-35. The cost of modifying or cancelling the program cannot be measure in U.S. government money, and the costs are not just monetary.
Definitely a WTF moment. Did you actually read what I wrote? Have you followed along with anything I wrote in this thread? Did you understand what I was responding to and what my response meant? Because based on this rather silly reply I'd have to say the answer to all of this is 'no'.
  #180  
Old 01-30-2017, 09:34 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,923
The President has weighed in on the F-35 again. It makes me want to do this:

Anyone in this thread, or the others that have been like it, are surely familiar with my position: I'm generally a supporter of the program despite its warts, and I think most people don't have a clue as to what is really going on, so they decide it is a disaster. Well, now the President weighs in with a few thoughts:

He claims that he cut the cost by $600 million. This is like the fly that rides on the chariot saying, "My, what a dust I do raise!" The costs of production are coming down, and barring any more specific evidence, I think these savings were already baked in the current negotiations which have been ongoing for many, many months.

He also said that "Boeing will be competing during the process." Uh, no, there's no F-18 vs F-35 competition. It doesn't exist.

But then the President offers his view on the F-35: "A great plane, by the way... Lockheed is doing a fantastic job... There were great delays, tremendous cost overruns... We've ended all that. We've got that program now in really, really good shape."

This is a really dumb thing to say. As much as the program has stabilized over the last few years, it will soon be entering operational test, and, ladies and gentlemen, this is where the remaining warts show up. I bet you anything that R&D costs are going to spike in the next few years, but nobody knows how much that will be. But it will take money to fix things, no doubt. Meanwhile, production costs will continue to come down, as everyone knew they would.

Again, as a supporter of the F-35 -- I'd never say that delays and cost overruns have been ended. That's a pretty dumb thing to say.
  #181  
Old 01-30-2017, 10:39 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,115
Look, man, the President managed to shave $600 million off the program cost in a week. Let's just celebrate his effectiveness, okay?
  #182  
Old 01-30-2017, 10:59 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This is like the fly that rides on the chariot saying, "My, what a dust I do raise!"
LOL no emoticon on this forum suffices.
  #183  
Old 01-31-2017, 09:48 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Look, man, the President managed to shave $600 million off the program cost in a week. Let's just celebrate his effectiveness, okay?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-f-35-program

The Washington Post gives Trump's claim to credit of knocking $600m off the program Four Pinocchios.
Quote:
Trump, yet again, claims credit for decisions that were already made before he became president. Trump stated he “was able to get $600 million approximately off those planes,” thereby ending the “difficulty” and “no movement” in the program.

Yet the Pentagon had already announced cost reductions of roughly $600 million before Trump began meeting with Lockheed Martin’s chief executive. Once again, we award Trump Pinocchios for taking undue credit.
  #184  
Old 01-31-2017, 10:29 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,115
Whoosh.
  #185  
Old 01-31-2017, 11:01 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,923
(I just quoted you to continue that train of thought, not to dispute your fine suggestion that we simply look into Trump's heart and see how good and effective he is.)
  #186  
Old 03-05-2018, 02:12 PM
voltaire's Avatar
voltaire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 6,188
**Bump**

Footage from the first operational deployment of an F-35 in a Marine Expeditionary Unit, on location in the East China Sea.
  #187  
Old 03-05-2018, 03:25 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Ravenman if you want to argue please do a better argument than "appeal to authority". It's boring and a logical fallacy.

The article I quoted above confirms as an undeniable fact that the F-35 has zero margin for extra heat dissipation, because it can't function if it's fuel is too hot and it's fuel is the coolant. So yeah actually since image / signal processing is my specialty for 20 years I have an insight here. Dr Gilmore is undoubtably a smart man but is his specialty image and signal processing? Note I am not doing an appeal to my authority, I'm telling you what is required in terms of processor power and heat dissipation from my experience to achieve what they have promised in Block3F, feel free to independently do some research and confirm this.
Wait, what?

Ok, so your main thesis is that some of the fancier software for the aircraft is years late.
And that some of the features that they plan to offer need more processing power than what is specced for the plane.

Well, first of all, optimization can work wonders if you're willing to pay the cost in labor. It is entirely possible to get enormous speedups with better algorithms, inner loop optimizations, and so on. The field of image processing has in fact found many such tricks over the years - the methods they started with 7+ years ago are already obsolete.

And second, umm, over the last 7 years there have been ever smaller and more powerful processors available. In fact, Nvidia just released a new wonder-architecture that is supposed to be enough for level 4 autonomy on 50 watts. Now, yes, going to a new hardware platform would be very expensive. There are all these verification steps, interfacing to the old architecture, qualifying the new circuit boards with the new chips, and so on. Probably take 3-5 years with 100+ people. But if that's what it takes, it can be done. And the F-35 is very much flyable and somewhat fight-able even without these features.
  #188  
Old 03-05-2018, 03:57 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
... Now, yes, going to a new hardware platform would be very expensive. There are all these verification steps, interfacing to the old architecture, qualifying the new circuit boards with the new chips, and so on. Probably take 3-5 years with 100+ people. But if that's what it takes, it can be done. And the F-35 is very much flyable and somewhat fight-able even without these features.
While it probably will end up costing an appalling amount (like most government work) the concept was that the F-35 was designed to make hardware updates easier: The F-35 With Software Upgradeability Built In
  #189  
Old 03-05-2018, 04:29 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
While it probably will end up costing an appalling amount (like most government work) the concept was that the F-35 was designed to make hardware updates easier: The F-35 With Software Upgradeability Built In
Yeah, makes sense. And coremelt keeps ranting on about not having anywhere to dissipate the waste heat or not enough power. Like, really dude? It's a jet fighter. I don't think he has any idea what he's talking about.

In fact the aircraft can potentially produce so much power that on paper it can drive a laser weapon. Mere machine vision is 2-3 orders of magnitude smaller. Now, yeah, you won't be able to just cram in a circuit board festooned with the most power hungry GPUs into the same slot that whatever it currently has occupies. There are limits and any major modifications to the airframe such as upsizing it's alternator (I assume that is what it ultimately has - an engine driven alternator) or adding new cooling channels aren't going to be cheap.

But I'm beginning to get the idea that coremelt is not a credible or rational poster.

Last edited by SamuelA; 03-05-2018 at 04:30 PM.
  #190  
Old 03-05-2018, 05:02 PM
voltaire's Avatar
voltaire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 6,188
As a reminder, I bumped the thread earlier today after it had been dormant over a year, so "coremelt keeps ranting" is a bit inaccurate.
  #191  
Old 05-22-2018, 07:29 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,281
According to the commander of the Israeli Air Force, the F-35 has popped its combat cherry.
  #192  
Old 10-11-2018, 11:05 PM
PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,513
Updating this thread:
Quote:
The US military has temporarily grounded its entire fleet of F-35 fighter jets in the wake of a crash in South Carolina last month.

Inspections are to be carried out on faulty fuel tubes.

An official report questioned earlier this year whether the F-35 was ready for combat after dozens of faults were found.

The F-35 is the largest and most expensive weapons programme of its type in the world.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45827795
  #193  
Old 10-12-2018, 10:35 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,058
I think Japan has followed suit. I haven't heard about the UK, but they have probably done similar things. It's pretty standard with a new fighter when they encounter what might be a systemic problem. I think that some of the original fuel tubes had faults, but the newer ones don't, so they are going to ground everything until they figure out where the older ones are and replace them.

That said, the US has nearly 400 of the things in service or working up at this point, and we've been delivering them to the allies who bought into the program, so it doesn't seem to be in a death spiral. The program actually seems to be accelerating, this small set back aside. The other 5th generation planes being deployed are far, far behind this, and F-35 now has more active air craft than our other 5th gen fighter, the F-22.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #194  
Old 10-14-2018, 08:15 PM
Tangent's Avatar
Tangent is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cowtown
Posts: 9,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
and F-35 now has more active air craft than our other 5th gen fighter, the F-22.
And it sounds like several of the F-22 were likely damaged at Tyndall Air Base during Hurricane Michael.
  #195  
Old 10-14-2018, 09:27 PM
PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangent View Post
And it sounds like several of the F-22 were likely damaged at Tyndall Air Base during Hurricane Michael.
How much do these cost?

Why wouldn't you fly them out of the way?
  #196  
Old 10-14-2018, 09:55 PM
flurb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
How much do these cost?

Why wouldn't you fly them out of the way?
Read an interesting article on this very question the other day. Among the reasons: the planes can be in various states of readiness depending on the maintenance being done, they're not designed to be simply loaded onto a transport, and priority was given to evacuating personnel and dependents. Frankly I don't know enough about military aviation to judge the credibility of the article but it seems legit.

Of course, the primary question is why you would locate these planes in a hurricane zone to begin.
  #197  
Old 10-15-2018, 12:01 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by flurb View Post
... Of course, the primary question is why you would locate these planes in a hurricane zone to begin.
Air superiority fighters (like the F-22) are often positioned near the coast to be able to intercept hostile (or potentially hostile) foreign aircraft. Not much point in sticking them all in Kansas and leaving the coasts undefended. We want them in places like Alaska, Guam, California, and yes, Florida.
  #198  
Old 10-15-2018, 01:40 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Air superiority fighters (like the F-22) are often positioned near the coast to be able to intercept hostile (or potentially hostile) foreign aircraft. Not much point in sticking them all in Kansas and leaving the coasts undefended. We want them in places like Alaska, Guam, California, and yes, Florida.
Yeah, but you'd think they'd build them protected hangers or something.
  #199  
Old 10-15-2018, 04:30 AM
smithsb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: mid-Pacific
Posts: 2,960
There was no NEED to station air interdiction fighters at Tindale. Alas, the stationing of aircraft and crews/ ships/ army/ marine units is a political football. See any of the previous Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC) attempts. How influential are your congress critters and senators? Does the president need votes for some legislation? Can the party maintain their majority?

Hardened hangers for bomb or wind defense aren't cheap. The military is just like many on the gulf coast; never had one that powerful in XXXX years and the storm did intensify dramatically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_R...nt_and_Closure
  #200  
Old 10-15-2018, 04:51 AM
AK84 is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by flurb View Post
Of course, the primary question is why you would locate these planes in a hurricane zone to begin.
Same reason the Russians keep fighters and interceptors in Tundra, Pakistan high up in the Himalayas, the Chinese on their coasts and the RAF in Scotland. Since that is where the likely enemy attack is going to come from.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017