Friday, January 18, 2013

Lying to friends

The other day Panetta failed to highlight the significant troubles with the F-35 when meeting with a valued friend, Italy. Instead he just said the U.S. is "committed".

This kind of misleading behaviour to our allies has been going on for years.

In today's industry news, the U.S. Industry is misleading S. Korea. Again:

"Because the very low observable stealth F-35 can penetrate heavily defended airspace, it provides Korea with proactive strategic deterrence - the ability to hold strategic targets of interest at risk 24/7, despite the air defence systems that are in place to protect those assets," the company adds. "From an air-to-air perspective, the F-35 provides Korea with significantly advanced capability over any other fourth-generation fighter, and ensures Korea will be able to deter current and future threat systems."

Doubtful since the the aircraft was never designed to do such a thing. And is of course, in serious program management trouble for non-performance.

The Joint Strike Fighter concept was created in the 1990's. An era where the arrogance of some in the U.S. could see themselves as the only super-power into the future.

Threats would be broken down countries that needed an occasional beat-up by a U.S. lead, joint coalition force.

The Joint Strike Fighter was meant for those needs. It was to be affordable, allies would use the same aircraft and have enough export-stealth quality to survive against legacy air defenses composed mostly of old Soviet gear. Allied Force in 1999 being one example that was a great sales brochure for industry of why the Joint Strike Fighter was needed.

Allegedly anyway, since today's aircraft can take down such a threat with J-series weapons (JDAM, JSOW, JASSM) and have no trouble at all. Back then, only a few aircraft types carried such weapons. Today, just about all aircraft can.

Big threats? That is the job of the F-22, which by the way (with fubars along the way) has met it most of its requirements.

While the F-35 has not, and is unlikely to do so.

More about how things haven't worked out so well: A Pacific Rim arms race with modern gear, a declining management competence across the D.C. civilian and military leadership, industry and greed have produced failed weapons programs that will not be able to fight their way out of a paper bag. The Stryker, Littoral Combat Ship and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to name a few. They can only contribute to losing battles and bankrupting treasuries.

In the good-old-days, the goal was to keep deterrence against the Soviet threat; with some fraud along the way. Today, the game is not valued deterrence. The game is only fraud.

On a large scale.

Now, the U.S. government is dead broke and will say anything to cheat valued allies and the U.S. taxpayer out of their money.

Someday, this military, industrial-congressional-complex will collapse under the weight of all of the dishonesty and ill-will it has generated.

For now, the lie that is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, is the most notorious of these bad trends.


Russell J. Coller, Jr. said...

"misleading behavior to our allies..." Hey, dude--- are you quoting Admiral DeGrasse of His Majesty's [French] Naval Forces (c. 1781) Good one.

NICO said...

Looks like F35B has been grounded. Maybe the beginning of the end for this program?

Doug Allen said...

How can they continue to market the F-35 as a air-superiority fighter and manage to keep a straight face?

It certainly isn't a dogfighter, and if anybody thinks it can control the skies with a measly 4 AMRAAMs and some stealth... Perhaps they would be interested in a bridge I have for sale.

At least they aren't pushing it's close air support abilities. That would be outright lies instead of exaggeration.

Anonymous said...

Dream on is but a mino glitch affecting one variant. The grounding is just a precaution and is the sort of thing that happens all the time with high performance aircraft.

Anonymous said...

The F-22 failed miserably not in performance but in cost which is where its requirements were significantly adjusted. In fact in retrospect, it sure seems like the F-22 failed overall. We will have more LRIP F-35s than we ever will F-22s. And thats before the F-35 even goes into production.

NICO said...

Yeah, the US budget deficit and US debt are in create shape, buddy, you are the one who is dreaming. This program is wounded and more than a few people in Washington are going to take this stinker to back of the wood shed. Tea party aren't as hawkish as neocons and RINOs, they don't consider US DoD a sacred cow and they are going to get their pound of flesh...Washington is starting to realize you can't just cut Medicare or SSN, you have to go after DoD...

Anonymous said... fools seem to constantly think that the F-35 is but a day away from cancellation. It must really bewilder you why it hasn't happened already. Ah well, keep on dreaming...cause it isn't going to happen in reality!

S O said...

The climb rate given i the graphic is a mystery to me.
"fpm" can hardly mean "feet per minute" (F-16 would climb slower than WW2 fighters if it was feet per minute), so what does it mean?

The F-16 specs generally look fishy.

@Doug Allen: Forget the AMRAAM for F-35 and F-22. In a few years they will most likely have addressed the 'small weapons bay' issue with more compact missiles.

Will Leach said...

Anon 9:32

Just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to question your faith in the F-35. There has to be a line somewhere that if crossed means the program should be cancelled, if not then your just not being reasonable. Im seriously just curious, how much can go wrong before youd considered the program a failure. In fact, if you feel like answering me honestly you could even be kind enough to say what cost, performance, and survivability attributes would be acceptable, and which wouldnt. That wouldnt just be for my benefit, it would allow to reexamine your thinking as new information presents yourself, that is if intellectual honesty is your thing. Or you know you could just call people fools or whatever.

NICO said...

I notice that the 12 year that you are is quick to call me a fool but you completely side stepped the issue of how this country is going to move forward on education, infrastructure, Medicare, DoD, etc and pay for 2000 JSFs when we also need to buy new tankers, LCS, V22, CH53K, new SSBNs and new aircraft carriers,etc....? Don't forget we are still in Afghanistan, Somalia,Yemen,etc and sure looks like we are ready to intervene in numerous other parts of Africa....

I guess in your fantasy world the USA never runs out of money....

NICO said...

I forgot to add we have to pay for that other real useless turd called LCS...

Anonymous said...

SO correct SO.And so will China

Horde said...


F-16C Block 50 figures are out of the Dash 1 and Lockmart presentations.

Climb rates are in feet per minute.

Remember, JSF can't out climb, out turn or out run legacy 3 Gen let alone 4 Gen fighters since those specs it is not getting within a bull's roar of were supposed to be comparable with those of the aircraft it is intended to replace, but when they are loaded up to the gunnels with external stores and external fuel tanks.

But since the JSF is not even meeting those specs, the whole 'comparable performance' thingy is, at best, somewhat moot.

S O said...

Horde, 1000 feet per minute is NEVER the rate of climb of a F-16.

For comparison, the Bf 109 1,175 horsepower propeller fighter of 1940 climbed to 9840 feet in 3:06 min.

That's 3174 feet per minute.

1970's and later fighters climb rather at more than 600 feet per SECOND!
Actually, 1,000 feet per second climb would be a little bit too quick for a F-16 (said to climb at about 850 feet per second) while 1,000 feet per minute is a joke and off by more than an order of magnitude.

What does this "fpm" mean?!?

Besides; other data from that .jpg are fishy as well. This includes the assertion of only 30° sustained banking, whereas more than 30° was demonstrated on airshows. The value is -if correct- obviously determined by altitude, temperature and weight.

"F-16 like" sustained G info is fishy as well; again, it depends on the environment and weight.

Eric Palmer said...

Also as an aside

S O said...

This graphic isn't plausible either.
Note how the Mach Barrier has seemingly no effect on the acceleration path.
It's such a simplistic graphic that its utility approaches zero.

Also note the comparison between 1990's F-16 model with a 1970's F-5 model (why not MiG-23, MiG-21Bison, Su-30?).

NICO said...

Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s), found on the internet for F16. So, SO is right, what is that 1000 fpm for an F16?

Peter said...

Hi S O

"What does this "fpm" mean?"

fpm stands for Feet Per Minute.

Anonymous said...

USG is "committed" to the Program's continuation?

Red flags should shoot up and alarm bells go off whenever this comment is made by USG officials vis-a-vis the status of the F-35 Program.

Clarification should be demanded by allies and potential customers as to exactly what in God's truth that actually means in English!

"Committed" to what? USAF Realizing they can only afford 22-25x units per year by FY16-FY17 would still be a "Commitment"!

Ask for a revised budget estimate (behind closed doors with security-cleared allied officials) of USAF's total budget and combat aviation Procurement budgets for years FY14-FY18.

Make a revised strategic assessment longer-term probabilities and contingencies based on already severe delays and complications and further uncertainties/risks.

Anonymous said...

Apparently some of you need a glossary.

Mil power = full sustained power, no afterburner.

30k ft = 30,000 feet above sea level.

The table has nothing to do with max initial rate-of-climb or time-to-altitude. Airplanes don't perform the same at altitude as at sea level. Understand?

Horde said...

S O and NICO:

The 1,000 fpm in the chart is the Threshold (i.e. 'bare, minimum acceptable) requirement in the JORD for the JSF subsonic climb performance at 30kft in the configuration shown at Footnote 1. The important point to note is that this is about half the climb performance that a B737 can achieve in a similarly mid-laden configuration for that passenger jet.

Also, one thousand feet per minute rate of climb is used to define the service ceiling of aircraft.

In relation to the F-16C, I can assure you there is an altitude where the subsonic rate of climb in MIL PWR is 1,000 fpm and this will vary depending on the weight and aircraft configuration.

As for the chart being "fishy", the data in Black is a direct lift from the JSF JORD while that in Red are the results of analyses done by APA back in 2006.

What you should find interesting if not informative would be comparing the data in Red with the figures released in the report from Dr Mike Gilmore and his Team over at the DOT&E.

Doug Allen said...

Looks cool on a model, these things would be a long way from being operational.

There's also talk of installing a Directed Energy Weapon as well, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for "pew pew" lasers.