neofightr

I agree with you about replacing the F15 with F22s if that was economically feasible. I think the bean counters said no back in the day. Not sure about the cold war since the full shutdown happened in the 2009 timeframe. The articles I read, keep pointing the finger at rising costs due to the tech (one article stated that the program still hadn't received the adv helmet upgrades just prior to the shutdown),the economy of the country (2009) and the priorities of the AF that forced the shutdown of the program. I don't think the F35 fiasco is overblown when you compare it to the history of aircraft acquisition for the past 60 years. One can make the argument as already stated earlier by another that this is the true F/A hybrid design therefore this is new territory hence the record setting cost and delays. I feel strongly it was a mistake to have 1 solution for 3 branches.

I came into this thread to defend a publicly known industry professional being attacked by people who had no background whatsoever in the industry he worked in. If you carefully look at the beginning of the thread someone else provided keen insight with industry-related videos as a courtesy to educate you critics and after that he took off because he didn't want to deal with this nonsense. I decided to stick around to provide insight and opinion thinking you critics would finally get it. In the other thread which I started, I provided my insight into the aircraft I flew only to have people like you attack my credibility and give me the impression you were trying to disqualify me at every chance you could. I then begin to show you how you were out of your league criticizing Sprey by highlighting his meaning with the cryptic remarks about the f104 he made after you foolishly tried show he was an idiot for comparing the ancient F104 to the modern F35. And yet you still think you are right in your judgements. Amazing, simply amazing. You are about as hypocritical as they come talking about patronizing and condescending and I will leave it at that. I already received personal feedback from many who understood where I was coming from and took no condescending offense whatsoever by my remarks to include a fellow Navy pilot.

Oh and one more thing, the next time you go talking to the viper pilot, make sure he understands at no time did I ever attack the reputation of a known pilot. I have made general comments on dev test and op test pilots (mostly flattering) but that's it. One of the trolls on this thread tried to get me to attack Berke's rep but I didn't go there. Just making that clear. -fake Hornet pilot

You are very resourceful with your background checks and yes you are very much and very badly trying to dismiss my insight by throwing an unreal amount of slides and numbers at me for a gaming message board and you have been doing this from the very first post. Bottom line it's your opinion and I have mine. To be fair your efforts are impressive and mature compared to others. By the way you are echoing the argument that the Navy (dominate voices) had back in the 90s when they decided to go down the JSF route and avoid specialized aircraft. I have no idea what the aero engineer is getting at with his diatribe. Now the F16 bubba I get. I agree with what the F16 pilot says about where pitch bucking is seen because the last aircraft that I had to deal with the phenomenon was indeed the T45A back in the mid-90s. No need to apologize for the harsh language since it's clear I am being presented to them as a fake entity. So I would expect the assumption to show through. Surprised the F16 bubba didn't comment on why the F35 pilot decided to pull then let up then pull again. To me like I said in my original point tells me something is off, either you have a rookie pilot showcasing the demo (highly doubt it) or something is off with the flight computers or control surfaces and the pilot is allowing things to settle before engaging in a follow-on high g maneuver. And if he is following some kind of parameter entry criteria, then this would be a restriction that shouldn't be there (based on a slick , light fuel load configuration at full burner) and clearly shows an unrefined product. But don't take my word for it, just look at that DOD doc again, I don't think the trusted experts can argue the ready state of the aircraft after looking at that doc. Could I be wrong about the perceived pitch buck, sure, but still there is something off and I doubt it's pilot's experience and rehearsal time. Oh and for the record fly-by-wire can and will fail (or be off), I almost died when my hornet FCS decided to put one of my flaps down and locked at 10k ft, which caused me to depart as I was in a turn with a full bag of gas, I did my recovery procedures and as I was pulling to the horizon it decides to depart again, I finally figured out that I had to deviate from my recovery procedures to keep from departing again and thankfully I leveled off at 5k just barely avoiding ejection criteria for departed flight. Neither Betty nor the FCS page indicated anything wrong during my pre-flight checks with the plane captain on the ground, in fact it wasn't until after I recovered did Betty chime in "Flight controls" and the FCS page indicated a full down flap. All this happened with a tried and true lot 10 F18C that had been working in the fleet for at least 4000hrs and no recent updates to the software to induce a bug etc. My CO had me brief the ready room on how I needed to deviate from NATOPS and why. And let's just say there were a lot of questions and the safety officer was grateful to have me share my experience (and to see me come back in one piece). But here, let me help save you the trouble of trying to continue to prove that I am a fake (and bothering other trusted entities elsewhere) on this message board, I hereby declare that I am a fake F18C pilot with close to 2000 flight hours, with combat missions during operation southern watch and and a fake air war medal. This fake naval officer had the unique experience of two careers in the Navy thanks to a medical condition that took me out of the cockpit and allowed me to learn the other side of the fence in acquisitions and communications technology. I also declare that all my opinions, educated guesses and predictions are 100% fake. There now you don't have to keep trying to get the other real-world experts to go on record declaring that I am fake. :) -fake F18 pilot

More competition for the F35 and F22. Mig-35 :book:

Surely you would agree that both the F16 and F18 (F17) came from designs that were radically different from the multi-role they eventually became, so naturally it took a while to sort it all out. The F35 from it's inception had a clear mandate of what it was suppose to be but mission creep and mandatory changes (caused by branch requirements) threw a huge wrench into the works. In my opinion this should have stopped the program right then and there and forced the designers to go back to the drawing board and come up with specific unique designs for each branch vice trying to save money on a common-frame design that clearly didn't happen in the end anyway. Frankly it would have been better for the industry to have had the big 3(LM,Boeing,Grumman) each have an assigned branch in meeting the needs of a new platform. It would have been efficient to have looked at each company's experience and strengths and assign them to the appropriate branch (Grumman for Navy, Boeing for Marines and LM for air force). If you take into account the sheer amount of resources so far taken by the F35, I am confident that taking a 3 pronged contractor approach for today's needs would have been around the same ballpark in costs. And we would be reaping the benefits of hassle-free cutting edge performance and capability when compared to the F35 fiasco. Why? Competition of course, each company would have had their reputations on the line to come up with the best product for their respective branch. Although I suspect that LM would have learned it's lessons with the F22 when focusing on a product for the Air force only. I agree it's a stretch to call the Rhino an interceptor but *compared to the F35* I stand by my opinion of well rounded (close/medium/long range capabilities plus tanking plus EW plus maritime (mines)).

As I have stated from the start, all programs have issues but not at the sheer scale that both the F22 and F35 programs have. As a result we have the F22 program completely shutdown well short of it's original production numbers and the F35 mired in controversy in DC. We have senators already throwing the "too big to fail" moniker at it and a final price tag that is still in the air decades after design. Already at least one F35 program manager has been fired and all milestones continue to slip to the right. In the history of air acquisitions I know of only one other program that had the potential to be in this much trouble and that was the A12. Thankfully that was responsibly shut-down before it drained too much in resources.

It is obvious you are passionate about your academic experience and I am not disqualifying that, all I am saying is that there is more to it than academic knowledge. I already said I am in a unique position because not only was I a pilot but I served time in acquisitions and in communications for Navy. I have insight into the tactical, administrative and technical worlds of the Navy. As I keep stating, the more complex the project the more prone to setbacks and failure both in development and operation. This is one of Sprey's big sticking points that you choose to gloss over. You try to make the demo videos appear identical but let me show you what I am talking about when having pilot experience watching the videos. Take a real good look at the F35 video, if you look carefully you will see pitch bucking when the pilot attempts hard pulls. This is indicative of an unrefined design and flight computers still in a rough state something you did not see or point out because you didn't recognize it. You don't see that with the Russian jets because their designs are based on refinement and an evolution of a proven platform plus it's no where near as complex of a machine. Just imagine what kind of interceptor we would have based on an established design like the tomcat. Given the same dev time and resources of the F35, we would be at tomcat v4.0, lean, smaller, ultra-modern take of a proven design that would seriously fire up a solid vs. debate on the new russian T50. Now that would have been an awesome comparison. Your knife/gun analogy is off.. We aren't talking knives and guns here we are talking a basic gun vs. a fancy, password encoded computer controlled gun-like weapon device that still needs a lot of work before it can work and once it does, has a good chance on failing you at the worst possible time when that basic gun is pointed at your head and is about to be fired. It is clear you are passionate with your academic prowess of the topic so let's leave it at that.

There is this old saying, "read between the lines" Sprey knows exactly what he is talking about. "The F-104 set numerous world records, including both airspeed and altitude records. Its success was marred by the Lockheed bribery scandals, in which Lockheed had given bribes to a considerable number of political and military figures in various nations in order to influence their judgment and secure several purchase contracts; this caused considerable political controversy in Europe and Japan." -wiki

yup, that qoute just flew right over your head like an SU-57. Go ahead look it up on Google.

The rest of the world? Nah, just the armchair experts with 0 flying experience, 0 training, 0 industry schooling and who are quick to dismiss an industry veteran as an idiot because they don't agree with him and who feel they know just as much as a career military pilot/acquisitions officer. "All I know is that I know nothing."

Troll all you like I ain't biting :megalol:

I missed this last question: It is my educated guess that the designers are counting on the adv. software sensor suite and BVR weapons to ensure the F35 never engages in-close. This is why I strongly believe the internal gun was the lowest priority for development as an AA option, hence the reason why the Navy went with the gun pod (for CAS etc). Frankly, I don't think the internal gun was ever meant for AA just AG. If the designers initial goal is to ensure success in the BVR realm, then the priority for maneuver design is greatly reduced to compensate for stealth (smaller control surfaces etc). As Sprey has stated in the past, the original concept for the F35 was to be the support to the F22. F22 would be air superority and the F35 would fill the strike role. But unlike the F15/F16 relationship the F35 falls behind in maneuverability (due to BVR/stealth design priority) especially in-close. Sure it might match the F16 but let's face it the F16 design is 40+years old. So now the onus is on BVR engagements hence the downplaying of in-close engagements by the pilots that have gone public. For the Air Force they might be able to afford this thanks to the limited inventory of F22s. But for the Navy, we will have a serious problem when the E/Fs finally phase out due to metal fatigue and maintenance costs. Although I don't think the E was ever a true replacement for the Tomcat, my gut feeling is it would fair better overall since it's better rounded as a fighter than the F35. I mean just run a video comparison of the recent air demos of the F35, Su35 and now T50 (look at my earlier post with the link), it doesn't take a genius to see who is winning in maneuverability. I could care less if they are all slick with 5% fuel in the tanks, there is clearly a difference among the planes. This is why Boeing is getting excited because they anticipate Navy knocking on their door to extend or perhaps order a new F18 variant. The wildcard will be Grumman. I find it hard to believe that Grumman is sitting on their hands with their very successful drone prototypes. Let's not forget that Grumman was an original competitor for JSF program back in the 90s. So some forward thinkers at that company decided to think outside the box after they lost the bid and focused on drone development along with General Atomics (predator maker) both interestingly enough are HQd in San Diego. These are interesting times we are in, I feel an unannounced game changer is about to happen in the next 10-15 years.

Meet the F35's competition: The mighty T-50!:pilotfly:

And here it is

Where did I ever say jamming doesn't benefit from low RCS? Show me my words where I said this specifically and I will apologize. Remember how you started that conversation, you were arguing against a guesstimate from a 3rd party video that I said was a reasonable guess. You then proceed to attack that video to try to prove that you know better than me somehow. At no point did I ever say low RCS does not make jamming easier. Everyone has their guesstimates about how low RCS works with regards to jamming. I never said it was wrong to side with Berke, go look at my original post, I said both sides of the debate had good points. What was wrong was attacking Sprey like he was some idiot who didn't know what he was talking about and taking Berke's word as gospel. I know from my own experience as a fighter pilot the intrinsic bias one builds with one's own aircraft this is why I don't take Berke's word as the end all be all. That plus I have been on the other side of the fence as part of the operational test and evaluation force and know full well the bias that lies with groups associated with developmental testing which Berke identified with. You keep spitting out these numbers and references like it's some hidden knowledge that clearly spey would never know about when in fact I am pretty confident he has been privy to all the classified numbers for the F16,A10, F15 and F117 back when he was active in the industry. Sprey's remarks (I can't see the video) about the Marine's obsession with short take off probably takes into account the Osprey which at one point had some serious safety concerns and at least one commandant that didn't want to continue funding the program. Marines had a choice of picking a modern helo or large bladed plane. They picked the plane which is what Sprey is getting at. It had an ugly development history that thankfully sorted itself out. You keep trying to compare the F16 as a bomber when Sprey would be the first to tell you it's a terrible bomber. The team he was a part of originally designed the F16 as a day-only air superiority fighter so of course it's a terrible bomber and to compare it to the F35 just makes the F35 look just as bad. A great bomber is the B52, a great bomber is the B2 and a great in-close ground support aircraft is the A10, and an adequate maritime bomber is the F/A18. The F35 is none of these (still needs development to match the f18 bomber role) nor is the F16 multi-role variant. This is where Sprey is coming from. So basically you are spinning your wheels trying to prove you know better than sprey when in fact you are not even close. Stop fooling yourself with those numbers. And to end this "but Berke and the red flag pilots say the F35 is amaaaazing and Sprey is an idiot...." diatribe: Do yourself a favor and go read the details of the unclassified DOD document that someone else posted on this thread here. " In August, an F-35 OT pilot from Edwards AFB, California, briefed the results of an OT community assessment of F-35 mission capability with Block 3FR5.03, based on observing developmental flight test missions and results to date. This OT assessment rated all IOT&E mission areas as “red,” including CAS, SEAD/DEAD, Offensive Counter Air (OCA) and Defensive Counter Air (DCA), AI, and Surface Warfare (SuW). Several DT Integrated Product Team representatives also briefed the status of different F-35 mission systems capabilities, most of which were rated “red,” and not meeting the entrance criteria to enter the “graduation level” mission effectiveness testing. Trend items from both the OT and IPT briefings were limitations and problems with multiple Block 3F system modes and capabilities, including Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), Distributed Aperture System (DAS), radar, electronic warfare, avionics fusion, identification capabilities, navigation accuracy, GPS, datalinks, weapons integration and mission planning." This is what I mean by the op test guys are the honest brokers that keep the dev test guys honest as well. And you can bet Sprey and his supporters also had access to this info as well. And yes all these shortfalls can and will be fixed in due time and at great cost but this should be a wake-up call for all those swallowing the kool-aid from Lockheed Martin and Co.

Everyone get's it wrong from time to time but I would take his best guess over anyone on this board. Your analogy is off... One day you meet a person who is an expert in designing simple straight forward cars, he states my designed car can go to point A then back home without a problem. Compared to that one that just came out. Do you believe him? He states don't take my word for it just look at the two side by side. The new car has 3 times more "stuff" in it, but half the stuff isn't working. Furthermore, it only has half a speedometer because the other half is on your iphone. The tires don't have rubber just metal rims because it isn't needed anymore since it has rocket assist for braking and turning and the rims will do just fine, but you will need to replace them alot. He goes on to say the steering wheel is a knob because the onboard computer which isn't working is suppose to do the turning. Oh and remember that iphone that is needed? There is no room in the cabin so he will have to store it in the trunk but that doesn't get installed for another year. Now look at my simple straight foward car based on proven old fashion off the shelf tech with modern day refinements. He reiterates his car will go to pt A and back while this new car is still trying to start. Do you believe him?

Remember, the F14's initial mission was to be the Navy's interceptor/air superiority fighter which was a very specific role. The Hornet mission first and foremost was to be the attack aircraft of the Navy to replace the A7. As a bonus it could defend itself and support the tomcat with medium-close AA combat. Some like Spey say the multi-role philosophy is a mistake and I tend to agree with him. The old engineering saying of keeping it simple, really applies here. As time went on the decision was made to make the Tomcat drop bombs as an excuse to keep funding/upgrading the platform. The tomcat basically assisted the hornet much like the hornet did the tomcat. As you noted both these platforms had shortcomings once they went on to full production and were rectified within a few years. Those older planes had no where near the amount of issues that the F35 has (and the F22 for that matter). We are talking orders of magnitude amounts of issues that are causing headaches in congress and the services. Just look at the DOD 2016 assessment doc that is floating around now. After reading it, I couldn't believe how many things it has wrong still and it's been in initial production now for at least 2 years. This is disturbing. Had we stayed with the single role design mindset of the 50-70s I think we would have really good performing and very capable platforms and in large numbers today because 1: we wouldn't have the headaches of a massively complex platform and two: the costs would be exceptionally low compared to today's debacles (see F16). Remember the F16 initially as Spey and his cohorts designed it was an air superiority day fighter, and it evolved into a successful all-weather multirole aircraft. This evolving was an excuse to keep the program funded with a new stream of cash much to Spey's dismay no doubt. I am sure he would have preferred to see the need for an attack aircraft be a new program up for competition vice the modified F16. I know no pilot wants to hear this but the F35 and F22 are making the strongest case for advanced drones that specialize in specific roles. Dont' worry, in the end I still think we will have at least two squadrons per coast of manned a/c for specialized missions (a version of an air seal team if you will). They would use whatever remains of the F35/F22 inventory. I can't tell you how uncomfortable I feel knowing that the F35 is suppose to be it when it comes to air superiority for the Navy. This is very disappointing. I can live with the F35 being the bomber(escort fighter) of the Navy. Hopefully there could be drones we don't know about that will save the day when that day comes :smilewink:

And I am sure there are just as many that would stand up for Spey if you bothered to look but that' s not the focus of this thread now is it? The focus is to pile on an old man who is "out of touch". I guarantee you if you studied the background of all those military individuals they probably all work for the industry now most likely LM or the other big two. No one likes a squeaky wheel shining the spotlight on their baby.

So what you are saying is your 2nd and 3rd hand knowledge qualifies you to dismiss my statements and add the proclamation that my past occupational experience doesn't benefit this thread. I see. IMHO: My occupation does benefit the discussion since I have 1st hand knowledge vs. your 2nd and 3rd hand knowledge. Still it is my professional opinion and just that an opinion. Just like Spey's opinions. I will re-emphasize the operative word here, *guess*, when I cited the article I threw it out there as a reasonable guesstimate nothing more. It is very easy to tear it up with academic theory. But I promise you, neither you nor anyone else on these boards are qualified to talk about real world classified numbers nor will I of course. So you are free to claim your theoretical prowess all you like. And I will be happy to talk about guesses all day long. I will leave you with one real-world example. During my time in the hornet I noticed some odd radar behavior from time to time that no one, no techs, no pilots, no contractors could explain. The assumption was that the radar was down and needed some calibration and diagnostics conducted. But every time afterwards the radar checked out 4.0 after calibration. I felt bad because the plane was unavailable for training for that duration. It wasn't until several years later after studying advanced radar theory in my master's curriculum that I realize what was going on with the radar behavior I witness years before. I told my prof. at the time that it's a real shame that most pilots will never have a radar course like this because it opened my eyes and really gave me the big picture on radar performance. Had I known this back in the day I would have never said anything was wrong with the radar. My point is that sometimes it takes theoretical study combined with the applied experience to see the big picture.

I assumed he had a hand in providing feedback to the early designs but who knows. Just because he was critical of it doesn't mean he didn't contribute.

"There is an on going program for missiles on F-35, F-22 called SACM-T, one of the candidates is CUDA, once it becomes reality F-35 will be able to carry 12 AAM internally. It has similar diameter as AIM-120 but half as long" Cool, so my educated guess on future drone weapons scaling down was on the mark. Didn't know about this slide factoid. Nice find. By the way I know all about power-point warrior tactics employed by contractors so I will take this with a grain of salt. "Sprey didn't help design the F-15, in fact he said that F-15 is too heavy, too expensive and loaded with too much junk.. etc" Looks like he was a proponent of advanced drone design whether he knows it or not. :)

Great video. On point of the dangers of collateral damage. Nailed it when it came to his assessment of the predator. Anyone who read my drone write-ups know I am not talking about predators. I am glad I saw this video because I now have even more respect for the man, clearly he is not shooting from the hip like you guys like to portray him.

Of course he did, anyone with a high-level of integrity and a critical mind will always be ready to criticize one's own work as well as others. This is why I get him. I am always critical of my own work, that's the only way you will get better. His mindset has always been about efficiency judging by all the comments I have seen from him. Even though I don't agree with a single engine design vs. dual-engine (especially for the Navy), I get where he is coming from.

Ok, so you are entitled to your opinion. Just don't attempt to disqualify mine. My thousands of hours of working the Hornet radar and my advanced master's course in radar thoery and operation tell me I know something about what I am talking about. The article is a reasonable guess just as reasonable as your counter-guess.