Re: No more F-22s for you!
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:38 pm
Go back and read the second paragraph that I quoted.
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
I understand that but I'm not sure the solution is to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a plane that does not work. It was designed as a jack of all trades but unfortunately, that usually means that it is a master of none, and that means second class all the way around. It was a terrible decision to try and design a plane that would meet the need of every service:Isgrimnur wrote:Go back and read the second paragraph that I quoted.
The U.S. Air Force general in charge of the F-35 fighter jet program disputed President Elect Donald Trump's contention that costs have run out of control, saying the days of price and schedule overruns in development of the new fighter jet largely ended in 2011.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan on Monday cheered Mr. Trump's emphasis on cutting waste in defense spending, but disputed the president elect's characterization of the program. He said that since a 2011 reboot of the program, it had basically been on time and on budget.
"The program is not out of control," Gen. Bogdan said in a media briefing a week after Mr. Trump took aim at the fighter-jet program.
...
"I have no doubt that given the controversy in the F-35 program over the years that there is a perception that this program is out of control," Gen. Bogdan said. "The first F-35s cost twice as much as we thought they were going to. That's in the past."
He said he hoped to talk to the new administration, lay out the facts and let them make their own judgment on whether the course-correction was effective.
Separately, the civilian head of the U.S. Air Force said earlier Monday that the incoming administration may find it tougher than they expected to bring down the cost of big military programs such as the F-35.
Guess the General still doesn't want to look at the elephant in the room, the fact that the F-35 is a do everything ok, do nothing great piece of crap. lolIsgrimnur wrote:Fox Business
The U.S. Air Force general in charge of the F-35 fighter jet program disputed President Elect Donald Trump's contention that costs have run out of control, saying the days of price and schedule overruns in development of the new fighter jet largely ended in 2011.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan on Monday cheered Mr. Trump's emphasis on cutting waste in defense spending, but disputed the president elect's characterization of the program. He said that since a 2011 reboot of the program, it had basically been on time and on budget.
"The program is not out of control," Gen. Bogdan said in a media briefing a week after Mr. Trump took aim at the fighter-jet program.
...
"I have no doubt that given the controversy in the F-35 program over the years that there is a perception that this program is out of control," Gen. Bogdan said. "The first F-35s cost twice as much as we thought they were going to. That's in the past."
He said he hoped to talk to the new administration, lay out the facts and let them make their own judgment on whether the course-correction was effective.
Separately, the civilian head of the U.S. Air Force said earlier Monday that the incoming administration may find it tougher than they expected to bring down the cost of big military programs such as the F-35.
Which were a downgrade from F-14s anyways, so the Navy should be used to it at least.Holman wrote:You ask the impossible. Trump had lunch with a Boeing exec, so F-18's it is.
Thanks for linking that! Very interesting.Isgrimnur wrote:A Super Hornet pilot's take on the whole debacle
That was a fascinating read, thanks.Isgrimnur wrote:A Super Hornet pilot's take on the whole debacle
His style is predicated on keeping allies and adversaries alike on-guard and off-balance. Nobody knows what he really believes or will really do, and that gives him a strong hand. Fear, doubt, and uncertainty are his tools in trade...so the hits have to keep coming faster than we can sort them out.Skinypupy wrote:That was a fascinating read, thanks.Isgrimnur wrote:A Super Hornet pilot's take on the whole debacle
I guess my biggest question is just...why the fuck is the POTUS (elect) tweeting his random thoughts to the world about ANY of this?!?
That's part of it, but I think it's also part of managing the media. He starves them for official information by never talking to reporters, so when he tweets whatever random thing is floating through his brain at 3 in the morning, it's suddenly all many in the media will talk about for the next day... picking it apart and trying to figure out what he actually means and why he posted it.Kraken wrote:His style is predicated on keeping allies and adversaries alike on-guard and off-balance. Nobody knows what he really believes or will really do, and that gives him a strong hand. Fear, doubt, and uncertainty are his tools in trade...so the hits have to keep coming faster than we can sort them out.Skinypupy wrote:That was a fascinating read, thanks.Isgrimnur wrote:A Super Hornet pilot's take on the whole debacle
I guess my biggest question is just...why the fuck is the POTUS (elect) tweeting his random thoughts to the world about ANY of this?!?
Sure, I can see that. And when he doesn't like the direction it's going another tweet changes the subject. That fits what I said about keeping his adversaries off balance -- the media are certainly an adversary. When there's a fresh outrage every few days, they can only ever react.Sepiche wrote:That's part of it, but I think it's also part of managing the media. He starves them for official information by never talking to reporters, so when he tweets whatever random thing is floating through his brain at 3 in the morning, it's suddenly all many in the media will talk about for the next day... picking it apart and trying to figure out what he actually means and why he posted it.Kraken wrote:His style is predicated on keeping allies and adversaries alike on-guard and off-balance. Nobody knows what he really believes or will really do, and that gives him a strong hand. Fear, doubt, and uncertainty are his tools in trade...so the hits have to keep coming faster than we can sort them out.Skinypupy wrote:That was a fascinating read, thanks.Isgrimnur wrote:A Super Hornet pilot's take on the whole debacle
I guess my biggest question is just...why the fuck is the POTUS (elect) tweeting his random thoughts to the world about ANY of this?!?
If he gave a speech the media could pick and choose what they want to talk about from the speech, if he gave a press conference he has even less control over what is asked and what the media will talk about, but if he limits his media exposure to tweets it gives him a surprising amount of control over the conversation.
It's a style that also keeps HIM off-balance, as we already know from the campaign. Erratic reactive rage is something you absolutely don't want in the president.Kraken wrote:
Sure, I can see that. And when he doesn't like the direction it's going another tweet changes the subject. That fits what I said about keeping his adversaries off balance -- the media are certainly an adversary. When there's a fresh outrage every few days, they can only ever react.
While the president can determine whether to cancel a weapons program or direct the military to start a new one, the Air Force remains a strong supporter of the F-35 program, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James told Defense News in a Jan. 5 interview.
“The Air Force does not view the F/A-18 and the F-35 to be substitutable at all,” she said. “They fulfill different requirements. They’re both fine aircraft, don’t get me wrong. But it’s fourth generation, and F-35 is fifth generation.”
“The leaders of the Air Force will have the opportunity when the time comes to advise the president-elect on this,” she added. “But based on everything I know, the two are not interchangeable and the Air Force has not expressed interest in the F/A-18s.”
A recently launched Pentagon review comparing F-35C carrier-variant Joint Strike Fighters with F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets will involve Marine Corps aviators and aircraft, the Corps’ deputy commandant of aviation said Wednesday.
Speaking to reporters in Washington, D.C., Lt. Gen. Jon Davis said the review, commissioned by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Jan. 26, would study the two aircraft “apples to apples” to determine whether the 4th-generation Super Hornet can fill the shoes of the brand-new F-35C.
...
Davis noted that the Marine Corps owns a significant portion of the program’s institutional wisdom as well.
“I probably have the most experienced F-35 pilots in the department of the Navy on my staff right now,” he said.
Mattis’ directive, aimed at finding ways to shave cost off the infamously expensive Joint Strike Fighter program, dictates that the review assess the extent that improvements can be made to the Super Hornet “in order to provide a competitive, cost-effective fighter aircraft alternative.”
...
If F-35Cs are taken out of the picture as a result of the review, attrition rates of the 4th-generation Super Hornet may become an issue, Davis said, suggesting such a move would limit the aircraft’s ability to deploy in some situations.
“We’re not going backward in time, we’re going forward in time,” he said. “The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, we’re deployed, naval and expeditionary, and we want to make sure our Marines and our sailors have the very best gear in case something bad happens. And that’s 5th-generation airplanes.”
Now-retired Dr Michael Gilmore, until recently the Director of Test and Evaluation for the US military, has published his final evaluation of the F-35 program, and it's a treat.
In his parting report (PDF), deliciously dated April 1, Gilmore details a host of issues remaining with the US$391 billion-and-counting project, with everything from its combat-readiness to its wing design under the microscope.
On Friday, the U.S. Air Force cancelled all F-35A Lightning II training flights at Luke Air Force Base just outside Phoenix, Arizona after it was reported five pilots had been experiencing hypoxia-like symptoms since May 2. The one-day pause at the base was to further examine the cause and further educate F-35 pilots on the effects of hypoxia. Officials originally stopped short of calling the suspension of flying operations a “grounding” and fully anticipated returning the jets to flying today, but that has not been the case.
The Air Force issued another statement late Monday morning extending the halt in flight operations at the base.
...
The 56th Fighter Wing at Luke AFB is the largest operator of the F-35 and is the central training hub for not only the Air Force but partner nations participating in the F-35A program. Approximately 55 F-35s are currently based at Luke with plans to bring the number to 144.
Yet F-35s at other bases are not affected by the issues at Luke and have continued normal flight operations. According to one report, the incidents occurred with five different jets from different squadrons and were not from the same production batches. It was not reported if only Air Force pilots experienced the symptoms or F-35 pilots from partner nations were among the five pilots who reported the problems. Apparently the backup oxygen system worked as expected in each case.
...
This is not the Air Force’s first experience with a stealth fighter causing hypoxia. In 2011 the F-22A Raptor was grounded for nearly five months after several pilots were affected by hypoxia during flight, including one who scraped the belly of his Raptor across trees as he was landing—and had to be told it happened after he landed. While the issue of hypoxia was first documented in the Raptor fleet in 2008 it was not until a fatal crash in late 2010 that forced the Air Force to fully address the growing problem, but even then only reluctantly as the service sought to protect its $67 billion fighter program.
The new F-35 program executive officer, U.S. Navy vice admiral Mat Winter, said his office is exploring the option of leaving 108 aircraft in their current state because the funds to upgrade them to the fully combat-capable configuration would threaten the Air Force’s plans to ramp up production in the coming years.
These are most likely the same 108 aircraft the Air Force reportedly needed to upgrade earlier in 2017. Without being retrofitted, these aircraft would become “concurrency orphans” — airplanes left behind in the acquisition cycle after the services purchased them in haste before finishing the development process.
Left unsaid so far is what will become of the 81 F-35s purchased by the Marine Corps and Navy during that same period. If they are left in their current state, nearly 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for.
...
The services will have nearly 800 F-35s either on hand or in the manufacturing pipeline before the design is fully proven through testing under the current plans.
Upgrades are unusually complex for the F-35 because of the design process being used for the program. The program is developing the F-35 in several phases, called blocks. Each block has more capabilities than the earlier version. According to the Lockheed Martin website, Block 1A/1B combined basic training capabilities with some security enhancements.
Block 2A remained a training version, with the ability to share data between aircraft. Blocks 2B and 3I are the first versions with any combat capabilities. The only significant difference between 2B and 3I is the aircraft’s computer processor.
The first version expected to have full combat capabilities is Block 3F. This version has yet to be completed and is only expected to begin realistic combat testing next year.
The Marine Corps controversially declared Initial Operational Capability with Block 2B aircraft in 2015. But this version is hardly ready for combat. The Pentagon’s testing office has repeatedly said that any pilots flying Block 2B F-35s who find themselves in a combat situation would “need to avoid threat engagement and would require augmentation by other friendly forces.”
Trump introduces Marillyn Hewson, CEO of Lockheed Martin, as Marillyn Lockheed. Tells her of the F-35: “It’s stealth. You cannot see it. Is that correct? It better be correct.”
Holman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:02 pm Trump appears to believe that the F-35 is literally invisible.
As ugly as his ignorance is, the worst part is making up a dialogue that puts it into someone else's mouth.Commander-in-Chief wrote:"The Navy, I can tell you, we're ordering ships, with the Air Force I can tell you we're ordering a lot of planes, in particular the F-35 fighter jet, which is like almost like an invisible fighter. I was asking the Air Force guys, I said, how good is this plane?
They said, well, sir, you can't see it. I said but in a fight. You know, in a fight, like I watch on the movies. The fight, they're fighting. How good is this? They say, well, it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it. Even if it's right next to them, it can't see it. I said that helps. That's a good thing."
Officials in the F-35 Joint Program Office are making paper reclassifications of potentially life-threatening design flaws to make them appear less serious, likely in an attempt to prevent the $1.5 trillion program from blowing through another schedule deadline and budget cap.
The Pentagon’s entire fleet of F-35 joint strike fighters is grounded after the jets’ fuel tubes were suspected to be the cause of a crash last month, the Defense Department announced Thursday.
“The U.S. Services and international partners have temporarily suspended F-35 flight operations while the enterprise conducts a fleet-wide inspection of a fuel tube within the engine on all F-35 aircraft,” the F-35 Joint Program Office said in a statement.
“If suspect fuel tubes are installed, the part will be removed and replaced. If known good fuel tubes are already installed, then those aircraft will be returned to flight status.”
Inspections are expected to be completed within the next 24 to 48 hours, the program office noted.
...
The office also said the inspections were prompted by “initial data from the ongoing investigation of the F-35B that crashed” on Sept. 28. near the Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, S.C.
More than a dozen F-22s were left behind as Hurricane Michael bore down on the base Oct. 10. Now, in Michael's wake, many of those are damaged, and some beyond repair, at a cost of more than $1 billion, Air Force officials said.
...
The F-22s left behind could not fly for either mechanical or safety reasons, said a spokeswoman, who also said all the hangars on base were damaged. Aerial video showed roofs and siding torn apart by savage winds and some hangars suffered severe structural damage.
“We anticipate the aircraft parked inside may be damaged as well, but we won't know the extent until our crews can safely enter those hangars and make an assessment,” the spokeswoman said.
...
At Tyndall, one F-22 could be seen in aerial footage taken the morning after the storm struck. The empennage of the airplane was visible through the missing roof of a hangar where at least five QF-16 target drones and several propeller-driven aircraft had also been sheltered. One of the QF-16s appeared to be resting on top of another, and three more were apparently pushed together by wind or water. The F-22 was surrounded by debris.
A still photograph of another damaged hangar, circulating on the internet, showed an apparently intact F-22 within.
I'm surprised USAF powers that be didn't fly all the A-10s they could find into Tyndall just before the storm. They've been trying to get rid of A-10s forever despite not having anything that can match them in their duties.Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:02 pm Air Force Magazine
More than a dozen F-22s were left behind as Hurricane Michael bore down on the base Oct. 10. Now, in Michael's wake, many of those are damaged, and some beyond repair, at a cost of more than $1 billion, Air Force officials said.
Why are we parking multi-million dollar machines in hurricane zones, outside or in inadequate hangars? I get that no place is perfectly safe, but given the expense of these weapons, an expensive weather proof hangar seems in order.Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:02 pm Air Force Magazine
More than a dozen F-22s were left behind as Hurricane Michael bore down on the base Oct. 10. Now, in Michael's wake, many of those are damaged, and some beyond repair, at a cost of more than $1 billion, Air Force officials said.
...
The F-22s left behind could not fly for either mechanical or safety reasons, said a spokeswoman, who also said all the hangars on base were damaged. Aerial video showed roofs and siding torn apart by savage winds and some hangars suffered severe structural damage.
“We anticipate the aircraft parked inside may be damaged as well, but we won't know the extent until our crews can safely enter those hangars and make an assessment,” the spokeswoman said.
...
At Tyndall, one F-22 could be seen in aerial footage taken the morning after the storm struck. The empennage of the airplane was visible through the missing roof of a hangar where at least five QF-16 target drones and several propeller-driven aircraft had also been sheltered. One of the QF-16s appeared to be resting on top of another, and three more were apparently pushed together by wind or water. The F-22 was surrounded by debris.
A still photograph of another damaged hangar, circulating on the internet, showed an apparently intact F-22 within.
What's another $2 billion matter, it's not as if taxpayers can write in on their return that they don't want the irresponsible USAF getting any of their taxes.
em2nought wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:46 amWhat's another $2 billion matter, it's not as if taxpayers can write in on their return that they don't want the irresponsible USAF getting any of their taxes. No worries, no one will be held accountable. Everyone's retirement at current rank is safe in a proverbial Al Gore style "lock box".
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... e-michael/
On the bright side, the base golf course should reopen next week.
If the brass geniuses continues to base $330 million dollar a piece aircraft at Tyndall, maybe they could think about building dual purpose hurricane shelter/aircraft hangars this time?