The sky-high aircraft and aviation thread

Is that an F-35-specific issue or a fleet-wide issue, because it sits about middle of the road for readiness. Also, good job citing a Bloomberg (laughable for defense topics) article based off of reports from two years ago, an article that doesn’t even mention combat capability anyways.

The F-35 is a meme because it checks all the boxes for pop defense journalism. A decade ago your complaints would have been valid, today they’re just hot air as usual.

To me, the funniest part is that despite the numerous perfectly valid criticisms of the program, you insist on regurgitating the same tired old lines.

"Reports 2 years ago"

No, that is based off the end of 2018 evaluations of the aircraft, you know, 3 months ago, seems you didn't read that and just assumed that because its those problems it means its the same reports, when the reality is that the problems have been the same for the last 3 years, with no signs of fixing them in sight, because they cant be fixed.

The citation there, is because I am tired of fetching the DOD reports directly, a process which takes a bit of effort because google only likes to pull up articles quoting them.... just for them to be ignored... again... because the US military obviously cant make a flying blunder, that some how with the better chunk of a century making aircraft, and dozens of models, most of which are admitantly pretty damn good planes... its not possible that one is just... bad... that and I would need to fetch one I don't have bookmarked for once. Though I can guarantee you it will read just the same as the other 3 from the quoted samples.

Edited by Imca on Mar 19th 2019 at 1:23:46 AM

The FY 2018 report they’re citing (2,100 service hours for B model aircraft) was released at the end of 2017. And again, the article made no claims about combat performance, and the maintenance/logistics issues they’re citing are for the early block B models, which I’m sure I don’t need to tell you are not representative of the entire fleet as a whole.

But hey, your hate for this aircraft isn’t based in reality. Like with Giuliani, this is kind of a “truth isn’t truth” situation. Your feelings on this are more important than the facts of the situation, which is why no amount of evidence will ever change your mind. F-35 hate at this point is like moon landing theories, it exists in spite of evidence, not because of it. It fills an ideological need, plain and simple.

Really though, the avenues for criticism are endless here, it’s just that they’re rarely taken. The best way to look at it is as a failed program that produced a successful product, but the issue is the Do D is showing no signs of learning from the failure of that program. Concurrency, which set development here back by close to a decade, is somehow still considered a viable model for procurement. The cost-plus floating contracts that led to the initial death spiral are still being offered. Hell, even the mistakes made in the original JSF flyoff are being repeated in current Air Force flyoffs. That the F-35 found success in the end isn’t exactly a good thing, considering the path we took to get there.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 19th 2019 at 1:45:23 AM

Read Again, that was the end of 2018 report, obtained earlier then it would be released, in 2019... that is not the report you are thinking of, its that literally nothing has changed. It is not getting better.

That is not one of the older reports, it is less then 2 months old.

Edited by Imca on Mar 19th 2019 at 3:03:23 AM

That information has been publicly available for quite a while. It’s not a new report.

But good job conveniently forgetting to respond to the whole rest of the post. Again, the data in that report pertains to early-block B models, which are far from representative of the entire fleet. A and C models are almost an entirely different subject, and newer B models have all but resolved those deficiencies. Even better, the development benchmarks ffom previous years are still being met, and the combat performance is still exceeding all possible expectations. I shouldn’t have expected any better though, it’s clear your far past the point of listening to reason or reality on this topic. I think you might want to ask yourself why it’s ideologically critical for you that this aircraft be a failure.

It’s not like we’re in any great disagreement about the issues with the program here, you just seem utterly unable to admit that a flawed project could develop a useful aircraft. Could we have gotten something better for the money we spent? Almost certainly. But we got something highly capable, and it’s a little too late to go back and spend that money more carefully.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 19th 2019 at 3:29:18 AM

It is not, rather, I think you need to do the reverse and ask why it is critical to you that it be a sucess, because the avialiable report was the 2017 one, not the 2018 one.

Those reports are released the year after they are for, I know because I have been the one to dredge up all the previous ones, and it was impossible to get the 2018 report while actually in 2018... instead it was just the 2017 report.

I am not ignoring the rest of the post either, I am just not bothering with it because it is based on the faulty argument that the plane isn't a total failure beyond just the development... You have it backwards, it is the defense of it that is like the moon landing, because every single DOD report, for the last 3 years has been nothing but scathing criticism, about how the plane will never live up to demand, the weapons don't work, and it never leaves the hanger because it is always under repair. But nope, lets just ignore that.... Lets ignore the fact that it looses practice engagements to an F-16 that mounted external tanks, you know a couple hundred pounds of dead weight and extra drag... lets ignore literally every thing about it because it looks cool, and a pilot has said some nice things... Seriously, I have provided official government documents as sources about how bad the airplane is doing, yet in return for counter, it is nothing but what you say, articles about its weapons, and opinion pieces.... none of which hold up to the primary source that is the DOD reports themselfs, if you insist that the airplane is capable go find some government reports that say "This aircraft works great and it is not a mess of mechanical and software issues" because I will wait... I don't mean the article from the pilot again either, I mean an actual report like the DOD ones, made by a department.

Even the vaunted role which it has had the goal posts moved too by you of going from a multi-role aircraft, to a missile spotting unit for missile trucks, doesn't work with the fact that its cyber security is still incredibly vulnerable even now... Even when the goals are moved to give it the best possible chances, it finds a way to sink lower.....

And the worst part is, at this point the for a lot of the nations involved, there just is flat out no other options.... that's the use that it has, For the US it is that it "Flies" and every other airplane is starting to fall out of the sky from age... that doesn't make it a "highly capable" airplane... For the SDF it is that is is capable of taking off of the Helicopter Destroyers, because they weren't built with a catapult.. Same with the British.... these don't make it good, they just make it necicery, and it is quite possible for necicery things to be bad.

Edited by Imca on Mar 19th 2019 at 3:50:45 AM

At this point I’m starting to think you’re being purposely obtuse. Let’s go down the list of all your ridiculous PRAT Ts:

What do you think these reports are for? When things are working as intended they’re not in the report, the whole point is to identify deficiencies. If you had been able to read the reports they put out for the F-15 and F-16 you would have been swearing up and down those aircraft would never make it just like you are now, and you’d have been just as wrong.

I’ll also just add that “no you” isn’t exactly the best look for you here. Especially considering half the reports you link say things are pretty much going fine.

Now, that’s funny, because their assessment seems to be pretty positive. Reliability is about the only thing where there’s an issue and even that is arguable, in terms of unit cost, performance, weapons integration, mission systems integration, everything has been meeting benchmarks.

This hasn’t been true for years and you know it. The combat demos with the early-block control laws that you’re referencing here took place in 2015, for heavens sake.

I’m not sure how this is moving the goalposts, considering multi-role means it can fill many roles....missile spotting being one of them. In fact, that’s a role 4 and 4.5 gen multi-role aircraft are unable to fill, making this arguably a more capable multi-role aircraft.

I think Tuefel has explained this about a dozen times now, but the fears of cyberwarfare pulling planes out of the sky amount to nothing but scaremongering. Hacking simply doesn’t work that way.

Discussing this with you is like trying to prove the earth is round to a denier. There’s no point that could possibly matter, because it’s not even about the points. It’s about the meme, and the meme you’re regurgitating is a decade dated, at best. We can agree to disagree here if you’d like since you obviously have no intention of seeing any sort of sense, but give it some time and you’ll be eating your words just like defense journalists did when they were moaning about the F-4, the F-15, the F-16, the F-22, hell basically every modern aircraft we have.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 19th 2019 at 4:08:27 AM

Air disasters raise worries of an ‘eroding’ FAA. Apparently there is concern that the FAA is becoming ovetly lax and is also trusting companies a bit too much. Specific examples listed are cracked wings in Southwest Airlines and Boeing 737 MAX planes of Ethiopia and Lion Air (in)famy.

Rightio, no sources except your own post, where as I have provided reports, from the DOD you know, the department in charge of overseeing development.

You say things like the other planes are just as bad, yet provide zero proof except your word.

Your right that no you isn't normaly a valid argument, but in this case only one of us has actual bothered to suport there arguments with primary sources and not opinion peices.

For all you have to say the fact that you can't back it up is honestly kind of disapointing. :/

Edited by Imca on Mar 19th 2019 at 12:46:48 PM

Are we seriously going to do this every time someone suggests the Lightning isn't utter garbage?

^ More or less. The F-35 program has been an utter boondoggle of underperformance and bloated budget overruns.

It's over a decade late and still not ready for full production, it's missing quite a few weapons in its arsenal and it's lost so many times in the performance aspect they're trying to salvage it as some kind of spotter for better planes.

If that's the 5th generation of fighter jets, just cancel the F-35 as we need to go to drones. If air combat really has devolved into long range missile spam and spotting for others, there's no need for any further manned combat aircraft of any kind. Not F-35, not F-15, not Su-35, not B-52, not anything.

We missed our window to cancel the F-35 a while ago.

Nothing to do but make it work.

^ Sunk Cost Fallacy.

The PAK FA program (Su-57) has fallen apart and is cancelled. The Eurofighter wannabe competitor hasn't even made it to a drawing board. The Chinese J-20 has gone very quiet.

Overall there really isn't much reason to keep to the F-35.

Except you know the fact that the US's other options are literally falling out of the sky from age, and the equipment to make the older models is gone.

^ Hence why the Air Force is getting the F-15X. Brand new plane, none of the problems of the F-35. It could theoretically (budget allowing) replace every F-15 in inventory within 5 years or less.

With minimal change in training or maintenance compared to simply going all-in on an unproven design that is the F-35.

And what about all the other types that the Lightning replaces?

Or are we living in a world where you can throw Eagles off the deck of an LHA?

The Air Force is also rather unhappy with the F-15X and would rather have a working F-35 anyway.

The F-15 has reached the capacity of how it can be upgraded and they don't want to keep using such old platforms.

So it's probably going the same way as the SE then?

It's a stopgap because we just absolutely cannot keep using the F-15C anymore.

The Air Force is gonna ditch it when the F-35 is ready, they've all but said as much.

The idea that the F-15X is meant to replace or cover for the F-35 is laughable. They’ve outright said that it’s a fix for the aging F-15 fleet, which will at most serve as a compliment to the F-35. They don’t want to fly the wings off their 5th gen fleet the way they’ve done to the 4th gen fleet. An F-15X can’t fly off carriers, can’t penetrate air defense networks, and it isn’t going to counter other countries high end air assets.

Even if the F-35 was garbage, we’ve come too far to possibly replace or let go of it now. The PAK-FA isn’t really comparable, it’s a significantly less mature program with a fraction of the airframes flying.

Imca, my sources are the very reports you link to which read the exact opposite of what you claim they do. My sources include the red flag results showing the F-35 kills legacy jets 10 to 1. It’s the rave reviews from pilots, the haste with countries move to purchase after seeing tech demos. That you’re too blinded by your own biases to see reality doesn’t change anything, though it is disappointing.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 19th 2019 at 6:30:22 AM

Fighter pilots, are not a good source, they are easily won over by shiny things and tech, our cling to the F-4 because of its speed, even though it got kicked in the face by Migs in Vietnam.... there is a reason that pilots are called zipper suited sun gods. The red flags, where again it got its ass handed to it by an F-16 with drop tanks, the reports which are very clearly negative... and your still failing to provide any evidence that there just as bad for other jets.... And new buyers which have not been made since 2009, or in the case of Taiwan and Switzerland which were made but then abandoned for F-16s and other aircraft.

At this point it is easiest just to assume you have family who work for Lockheed or something, since you refuse to provide proof to your claims unlike I have, you do nothing but quote opinion pieces, and skip on the links... Its not worth it.

The reality is that the F-35 has some nice ideas, and looks great, but is just a dumpster fire at every single level, and no amount of saying "this is fine" is going to make it actually fine.

Edited by Imca on Mar 19th 2019 at 6:59:14 AM

Neither can the F-35A.

Nothing flying today is going pass through a modern IADS without either detection or risk of being shot down.

Stealth aircraft are not invisible.

All 28 stealth fighters not presently used by either the US military or its allies? That's how many J-20s are presently known to exist and that's all there is. The Su-57 is canceled and buried both in India and Russia.

There's not a single peer country either ally or adversary who has a significant quantity of aircraft more advanced and better than the Eagle, Hornet, Rafale or Flanker series. 28 J-20s is nothing worth worrying about.

You know, that little screed on fighter pilots I think finally clues me in to why this is an ideological do or die for you. The whole “Lockheed shill” angle would be almost hysterical, if it wasn’t one of the most tired and overused lines in this whole debate.

Frankly I find it a little insulting, but that’s to be expected from someone who’s been obtuse to the point of outright ignorance at every turn. It’s like arguing with a Trump supporter.

The red flag against F-16s was in 2015. Any aircraft would lose if they had their control laws limited to 4G and half their weapons locked thanks to early block software. But hey, you stick your head in the sand, go on happily ignoring the results of more recent red flags:

That one’s from 2017 even, we know they’ve gotten more capable since.

No purchases since 2009? Did you forget how Japan practically doubled its order last year? I’m going to assume you did. South Korea ordered them in 2014, and Singapore just announced they were buying too.

Face it, your view on this doesn’t match up with the facts.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 19th 2019 at 7:31:08 AM

Also as addressed, the SDF has no other option since the only other aircraft capable of launching off the Hyuga class and the Izumo class are harriers and helicopters, and Singapore bought 4... that's not any kind of adoption purchase.

For the most part it is sunk costs.

You cant write shitty software as a non issue, when the software is necicery to control the airplane, and one of the main issues with it.

That's like saying, "Yea of course it gets bad fuel efficiency it weighs 80 tones", when some one is complaining a vehicle is too big.

Also the aircraft was in service in 2015, so it wasn't per-service teething issues either, and was defended as a non issue by you then too.

Edit: Also looked into the red flag, the aggressors were limited to ground based radar, no infrared systems, not allowed to bring jamming pods or any kind of cyber warfare equipment and the scores were team based. It skews the result in favor of the missile guidance role, because the aggressors were not allowed any method to fight back against it.

The results from it where that the F-35 performed acceptably in reality, in that it suffered few losses, but no better then any existing aircraft, and with the odds stacked in its favor.

Thats... encouraging to see, but with the mountain of issues relating to its mechanical and software issues, it is still far from proving itself. Especialy since it required stacked odds to get there... and had the same effectiveness as the F-4 did at its... and that thing turned out so wonderfully itself.

Edited by Imca on Mar 19th 2019 at 11:40:29 AM

Singapore’s purchase was limited more by their purchasing power than any lack of interest. Writing Japan’s 2014 purchase off as only for their carriers falls apart completely when you take into account that most of the fighters they purchased were the A model, not B.

I can’t tell if you honestly don’t understand the point being made or are deflecting on purpose. I’ll explain very carefully so you can get it.

Typically when aircraft are in development there are limiters put on their software to keep them from pushing the envelopes of their performance in case there’s an issue. This is not “shitty software”, but an intentional cap. The F-16 was limited to 3G during its development, for example. At the time of the much-vaunted dogfight you’re referring to, the F-35 was using the early block software which had a 4G limit, meaning that its ability to maneuver was massively limited, not due to a flaw in the aircraft but due to intentional caution. With those shackles on it’s not surprising at all the F-16s were able to claim a victory. Those limits have since been removed, and as we’ve seen it’s performed admirably in more recent showings, making the conclusion you’re attempting to draw invalid. If an formula 1 car raced a Toyota Corolla with a 30 MPH limiter on its engine you wouldn’t try to claim corollas are faster than F1 cars in all situations, which is exactly the claim you’re making.

As an aside, personally I think that pilot experience is a huge factor in the radical difference between early and recent dogfight results. A pilot coming out of an F/A-18 or F-15 is going to be bringing old habits with them, not to mention the manual really hadn’t been written back then on what the F-35 could do. The pilots participating in these more recent exercises are ones brought up on the platform and have a much more comprehensive understanding of it, and I’d bet that makes a big difference.

The conclusion you’re drawing about red flag I’d say is valid, in that they did stack the odds a bit, but given the F-35’s performance in independent jamming/GPS denied tests, and the fact that it showed a similarly dominant performance in 2018’s flyoffs, your ultimate conclusion that the aircraft is still struggling is off the mark. I’ll also point out that aggressor F-16s in 2017 did use jamming equipment during Red Flag, specifically Israeli-made self escort pods, which apparently were not enough. Combine that with statements like this from commanders at the event:

Taken as a whole, between high readiness rates at Red Flag and other flyoffs, good performance in degraded/denied conditions, good performance in general in addition to the unique capabilities being brought to the table, the program itself finally reaching mature levels, and commanders and pilots singing the thing’s praises left and right, a pretty clear picture is painted. Troubled doesn’t even begin to describe this aircraft, but like with the F-16 or F-22 the final result seems to be doing well. Personally I don’t think it’ll last, my guess is that there’s gonna be another rough patch in a year or two. That’s how it usually goes, but at this point in time and with this aircraft I don’t think the Do D is going to be able to adequately handle it.

Don’t forget either that this whole conversation started because the Air Force is integrating a new weapon for their F-35s that will make it a nightmare for enemy emitters, and you tried to claim it probably wouldn’t fit even though it’s already been fitted on Navy F-35s.

I was a harsh critic of the F-35 in the early 2000s, but has come a long way from what it was. Your criticisms of it are falling behind the times.

I’m also not too sure where the shots at the F-4 are coming from, considering that aircraft had an excellent track record.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 20th 2019 at 1:29:36 AM