F-35 "Will get pilots SHOT DOWN"

[Skybird]

Bilge Rat,

you need to read the report again yourself. Especially the tables and the description of the columns.

Table 3-1 for example does not list limits that have been set up for trianign purposes, as you claim wrongly. It lists techncial deficits or limits established for operation, then lists the effects of these deficits (that'S what it is aboiut: deficits!) for the training effort of the trainee who canot use them, and finally lists the to be expected negative effect in any combat employment. The logic of that table is: this had to be forbidden, that currently is broken -> trainee cannot use it and cannot learn it -> specific handicap in a real combat employment resulting.

The DOT&E does not assess training programs, as far as I can say. It assesses and evaluates hardware and its development state. What the report to Panetta says about training, is describing how the limitations of the hardware are hampering the training quality of the trainees - not, like you claim, a wanted system of gradual difficulty levels in training programs. They do not do certain things because they cannot do them with the hardware, for it is putting them or the plane or both at risk.

Again, that report went to Panetta not even four weeks ago. Want to send that Forbes lobby piece to him to reassure you that the F35 one day will be wonderful, maybe? Forbes is a business magazine. DOT&E is not.

Table 1-1 lists items of the training program as it was designed to be done - and compares that to the deficits and limitations of real training, where tasks could not be accomplished or completed due to technical deficits and regulations that again reflect deficits of the hardware, and are not features of graded difficulty levels. Trainees cannot train certain items of the regular training list.

Table 2-1 lists serious technical risks as identified by the Air Force.

---

I do not know whether these things ever will get resolved or not. I also do not care. The main argument is: the plane adds too little and probably too short-living advantages for too much money.

It simply is hopelessly overpriced and costs too much. Far too much. And this in a time when drones are doing the leap from remote-control to autonomous control and the drones just weeks ago were reported to have entered testing operations not in isolated testing areas, but in public airspace with civilian traffic.

And this in a time where the explicit debt of the state already exceeds the GDP, and where the implicit debts of that nation are 800-1200% of the explicit debt and/or GDP. Somebody weanst new toys but cannord afford them. That simple the truth is. So he buys them on tick, and makes even more debts.

As a - new? - libertarian movement's sticker in the US says: if you think you can spend your way out of debts, you're either the village idiot - or a politician.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Bilge Rat,

you need to read the report again yourself. Especially the tables and the description of the columns.

again, you seem to have limited knowledge of how aircraft development works.

Table 3-1 for example does not list limits that have been set up for trianign purposes, as you claim wrongly. It lists techncial deficits or limits established for operation, then lists the effects of these deficits (that'S what it is aboiut: deficits!) for the training effort of the trainee who canot use them, and finally lists the to be expected negative effect in any combat employment. The logic of that table is: this had to be forbidden, that currently is broken -> trainee cannot use it and cannot learn it -> specific handicap in a real combat employment resulting.

you are again wrong. Do you not understand the term "operating limitations"?

Table 1-1 lists items of the training program as it was designed to be done - and compares that to the deficits and limitations of real training, where tasks could not be accomplished or completed due to technical deficits and regulations that again reflect deficits of the hardware, and are not features of graded difficulty levels. Trainees cannot train certain items of the regular training list.

only because of operating restrictions, again perfectly normal for an aircraft which has not even finished all of its flight tests.

Table 2-1 lists serious technical risks as identified by the Air Force.

Agreed. But this is a very short list of relatively minor issues, again not uncommon for an aircraft at this stage of its development.

[Oberon]

I seem to recall the F4 being referred to as 'the triumph of thrust over aerodynamics' and 'proof that with a big enough engine even a brick could fly." Although truth be told, I have heard good things about her maneuverability.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I seem to recall the F4 being referred to as 'the triumph of thrust over aerodynamics' and 'proof that with a big enough engine even a brick could fly." Although truth be told, I have heard good things about her maneuverability.

The thing with the F-4 is not that it has no agility but that most other foes that it might encounter have better agility.Of course an important element to any combat aircraft is its pilot/crew if the plane is flown where it has advantages and the opposing aircraft is at a disadvantage that aircraft will likely win the engagement.

Therefore an F-4 driver that knows his plane and knows his enemy this pilot will have confidence in his aircraft.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

The thing with the F-4 is not that it has no agility but that most other foes that it might encounter have better agility.Of course an important element to any combat aircraft is its pilot/crew if the plane is flown where it has advantages and the opposing aircraft is at a disadvantage that aircraft will likely win the engagement.

Therefore an F-4 driver that knows his plane and knows his enemy this pilot will have confidence in his aircraft.

I think you could say that about most aircraft, if you know what you can get away with and know the limits of the enemies aircraft then you have an advantage in an engagement. For example a Spitfire pilot who knows his aircraft and the enemy would know to try to lure a 109 pilot into a turning dogfight where he has the advantage rather than a climbing dogfight where the 109 has the advantage.

I think how long the F4 stayed in service and the sheer number of nations it served with is another good indicator of what sort of aircraft it was at the end of the day.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I think how long the F4 stayed in service and the sheer number of nations it served with is another good indicator of what sort of aircraft it was at the end of the day.

True. There are numerous evaluations of the F-4 and its combat capabilities and actual performance to many to list in this thread without going a good way off topic.Though that already seems to have happened some what.

The the F-4 also ended up taking over the F-105's role in the USAF from 1968 onwards and performed very well as a strike aircraft.The F-4G was an excellent SEAD platform.The F-4 also has the honor of being the first aircraft to use laser guided bombs in combat back in 1972.

[MH]

I think how long the F4 stayed in service and the sheer number of nations it served with is another good indicator of what sort of aircraft it was at the end of the day.

Yeah it was a work horse and flexible air plane but not very exceptional at any role.
F35 is possibly going the same route but on different level by today's standards.