Joint Strike Fighter

Discussion in 'The Fleet Air Arm' started by Exprop, Jul 15, 2014.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I came across this while reading about something else entirely (advertising and creativity).

    Aviation is something the writer and I know nothing about so the content may be absolute rubbish but I thought this piece might be of interest to some of you and stimulate some interesting debate.

    <<Last week, Vik Kanyo sent me an interesting documentary.

    The US Navy, the US Air Force, and the US Marines each needed a new fighter/bomber.
    But instead of making a different one for each, the government decided to save money.
    By making one plane they could use for everyone.
    The F35 Joint-Strike Fighter.
    These will cost $200 million for each plane.
    That’s a lot of money.
    But at least for that money you get the best plane in the world.
    Er, no actually, you don’t.
    In fact, it’s so bad the US military has already begun cancelling their orders, and they were the ones that briefed it.
    So what went wrong?
    The flaw was the initial concept.
    To save money, they combined different requirements and came up with a single answer to work for everyone.
    The illusion is that you get an all round state-of-the-art solution.
    The reality is you get a lowest-common-denominator fix.
    Something that does lots of jobs badly.
    The Air Force wanted a plane that would fly at supersonic speeds, with stealth technology, and be able to dogfight.
    The Navy wanted a plane that could land on aircraft carriers in all weather.
    The Marines wanted a plane for ground-strikes, that had could take off and land vertically, without runways.
    The F35 had to do all these things.
    The trouble is, many of them are mutually exclusive.
    For vertical take off, it would need a massive lift-fan.
    This would make it fatter and heavier.
    So it would use more fuel and be slower.
    To go supersonic it would need shorter wings, so it wouldn’t be manoeuvrable enough to dogfight.
    To land on a carrier it would need a much tougher undercarriage.
    This would also make it heavier and slower.
    To make it stealthy it couldn’t carry weapons under the wings.
    They would need to be stored inside, to give it a smoother silhouette.
    This meant it couldn’t carry many bombs.
    So, far from a plane that can do everything, they’ve got a plane that can’t do much at all.
    It’s so heavy it can’t go supersonic without burning up all its fuel.
    That’s no use to the Air Force.
    Its wings are so short it can’t carry many bombs or rockets, or fly slowly, or dogfight.
    That’s no use to the Marines.
    The huge lift-fan makes it so heavy it slams down hard on landing.
    That’s no use to the Navy.
    It’s so fat, it can’t be made stealthy.
    That’s no use to anyone.
    So they’ve got the world’s most expensive aeroplane and it can’t do anything well.
    But that’s pretty much what happens when you try to make one thing that satisfies everyone.
    You don’t satisfy anyone, and you end up doing lots of things badly.>>
  2. This article pops up occasionally. It's all hoop. Hope that helps.
  3. I usually come across porn mags, not aviation literature...:munky2:
    • Like Like x 2
  4. If all the above IS true then is a cert that the British government WILL buy it!
  5. Probably by the third upgrade it will do the job it was designed to do. Personally I can't understand they never did a rejig of the Buccaneer. We still fall for the US mission to become world leaders in design and pay through the nose for it. Oh, well, popcorn's ready. :glasses2:
  6. Whoever wrote that article needs a good fu&#in' kick in the slats and clearly has no idea what they're talking about. I'm not defending the F35 but if you're going to slag it off then at least do some basic research and learn the difference between the variants and not assume it is one aircraft doing three jobs.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. It has the whiff of 14 year old Call of Duty / Combat Flight Simulator tosspot 'author' about it. Who was that ex PWO chewer that wrote articles about other things he knew nothing about in low circulation papers and the armchair defence internet? Was it him?
  8. Agreed.

  9. As stated previously the item is written by someone from the advertising not the aviation world. He is simply reporting what he had been told in a documentary. I do not know the source but a quick google search turned up this (5/6 F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER IS A LEMON - YouTube). It is an Australian documentary which makes some of the same points.

    You may well think the documentary is wrong. I am not qualified to venture an opinion. However, the google search suggests that similar documentaries are not uncommon.
  10. XP,

    You'll notice a common trait with any of the many negative accounts of the F-35: they never have quotes from the pilots or engineers involved in the programme.

    • Like Like x 3
  11. And all by unqualified people on the outside looking in through a frosted window.
  12. Lewis Page?

    I'd forgotten he existed until I came across this post in the HMS Queen Elizabeth thread.
  13. Guns

    Guns War Hero Moderator

    Lewi Page was never a PWO.
  14. Its not joint, there's no strike, and its not a fighter......
  15. That's him. I'm glad my description was accurate. What was he? Apart from an underpant?
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Guns

    Guns War Hero Moderator

    Bubblehead who was passed over at Lt for being a cock. Nicer words in his report were used but we know what they ment.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. But.... His original, Naval Review article had merit (and ties in to a lot of what is discussed here and on ARRSE). Where he failed was being unable to develop that argument, or any other new one.....
  18. Was that the one where he said all we needed were a load of stripped back corvettes with minimal sensors combined with a fleet of civvy conversions? Utterly ignoring every painful lesson learned in 1982? I can't remember, everything he writes is ill thought out bottom.

    He should pretend it's all satire, he'd at least be funny then.
  19. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    Dear Lewis got very very angry with me over an article he wrote for the Register (about on par with the Daily Mail and the Portsmouth news for journalism). I made some comments that he went ballistic over, but couldn't actually disprove or build a valid argument against. I wish I'd kept the trail it was classic.

    That said I wonder if I did post it on here, many moons ago in a Lewis Page thread?
  20. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    Back on thread, the issue with the LightningII, as I see it, is that we had a choice - US led or non US led and for political and some future proofing we choose the former, but primarily as I understand it we went for capability.

    The aircraft and the operating concept are fine - as usual it's the delivery mechanism. Our own Tornado was pretty limited in capability when it first flew but both variants developed into more than capable platforms.

    LightningII has succumbed to bleeding edge syndrome, trying too hard from the outset to develop and utilise new technology. So it's gestation is painful and costly, hopefully though it will mean we get something that is far superior to our potential adversaries. Critics will doubtlessly knock it but once it gets past block 2/3 it will develop and we will learn more about how to operate it and develop it further.

    Given that we took a strategic decision to take a maritime fixed wing capability gap and we are still awaiting the carrier to finish build and trials I don't think, apart from cost, the LightningII is particularly unusual for a high technology aerospace acquisition.

    The detractors suggestions to look at F18/Rafaele/Harrier are all moot - we wanted to procure capabilities that they did not offer and there were clearly political considerations too, thats life in the grown up world.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page