Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Must Be Spoon Fed

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Must Be Spoon Fed

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A forum which prides itself on quality, you certainly don't uplive to your standards. Not only do you behave as little children, bullying anyone new and creating a lot of "noise", but also you people were caught multiple times not reading what you post. Boagrius for example quoted an article from AirPowerAustralia without reading it and then ignored that accusation altogether. He did the same thing with many of his other sources which did not correlate well to titles and arguments which he was making nor could he recall a case which I had mentioned from his video. Furthermore, you are also to blame for taking things out of context. First quote is about me saying that I will have to do a lot more research. Second quote is about the community being a little bit more productive with their time rather than shitposting most of the time. It was about starting to write defence content of your very own like posting articles to newsites or having your own blog, but I had caught people yet again not reading properly the information with which they operate. Third quote is about me actually doing my research. It is you who put whatever meaning you wish to see. I had asked for sources, not to be told everything thing by thing. A community member did claim that you guys have vast quantities of information shortlisted for reference and that you know infinitely more than I do. However, when I had asked for any of you to come up even with one good book to read, nobody could offer anything. It speaks volumes. Yes, I know that nobody ought to be "nice". However, I still highlight how immature the behavior of a lot of people here are. A grown man should not behave as a small child, but some of you do. I'm questioning how such people could ever take any high ranking position within industry or military with such behavior as a professional environment rarely allows for such narcissism to exist. I'm quite frankly shocked by the behavior here as I do not interact with such impolite people. In the end, I do understand that the cultural differences between me and the others are just too vast. I had decided to leave this forum a month ago. However, it is people here who want me to stay with constant replies and insults. I would say, just ignore me, call me an idiot in order to make yourself feel better and we will be done. Disputing what I had said and then expecting not to get a reply, well...that is how coward would behave. Either lets accept truce to agree to disagree or we might have to continue this futile "discussion" for a lot longer.
  2. That is not a source by itself. You did not state clearly where to find necessary information and you are referring to modification of a few F-35 models and say that it applies to all those planes. That is just some poor citing of the information. Nothing to do with ones reading comprehension and rather everything to do with others ability to properly use available sources. AND AGAIN, you gave me a source which is locked behind either registration or paywall. https://breakingdefense.com/2019/05/lockheed-says-it-can-fit-2-more-missiles-in-f-35-bay/ Here, was it so hard? Regardless, this only proves AirPowerAustralia right. It had argued that it has insufficient payload capacity under VLO. After many years of criticism military officials had agreed with critique and F-35 models were improved based on criticism. It does not make them wrong, it validates them and proves them right. Now everybody pretends as if it wasn't a massive deal within fighter. This is the problem. You argue things you do not know on a blind faith. A lot of things you do not know are speculated like precise radar cross sections of F-22 and F-35. While of course such things are just speculations, they are however backed by science and information of previous generations of airplanes. We can get a good grasp of a plane's capabilities while being off marginally from estimated performance. Now, you yet again cite an extremely broad article. Did you even read it? If so, why are you not citing it again properly? In addition, what do you have in mind specifically? Those two tables? Are you aware that this is an article and most of what you see here is the author's opinion and he makes his own share of mistakes and shares only what he thinks of it himself? I did read this article closely myself, not only your article, but also part of its source, Operational Assessment of F-35A and I had used findings in that document to argue against F-35 maneuverability. Then you also exclude facts within the article which are uncomfortable like that pilots had rated the F-35A to be less maneuverable in a dogfight with turn rates. This is on top of putting the best performing F-35 variant against plane models 20-30 years old... You do not see those little nuances which you are quoting. Not only do you accept false comparisons, but also do not really get the difference why Su series planes are a lot more different than an F-16. This is why you people struggle to grasp what AirPowerAustralia was saying in regards to supermaneuverability and importance of TVC in BFM combat. Article also bashes Joint Strike Fighter program as mismanaged. It also makes some mistakes. Like quoting the intended cost of the F-35 while in truth, it costs a lot more than that which was proven in my previous source and ironically enough, in your source where the United States Navy is purchasing those planes at a lot higher cost. Then for example it makes erroneous comparisons between prices of varying planes, quoting non functional cost of F-35 plane while comparing it to program acquisition cost of other planes. No, it is not a myth. The Pentagon can't even spin its story straight. Officials were talking about how it was to test the maneuverability performance of F-35 against adversary in BFM maneuvers. In order not to lose, F-35 was matched against heavily crippled F-16 and it still managed to lose BFM. Now you attach to me a pilot talking about how it was not supposed to be a dogfight. While it might be technically true, nobody would fly two airplanes into the air to test flight controls of F-35. Flight hours are very expensive and pilots are timed by the minutes in their flights. You should think more critically for yourself. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/04/24/f-35s-japan-still-losing-dogfights-f-15s-sometimes-heres-why.html Here is another damning report of F-35 fighter: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875 With explanations of what happened: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-response-to-a-dismal-f-35-test-reveals-the-programs-1715618793 See how it isn't even denying poor capabilities of a fighter to dogfight? You can't add better BFM performance to a plane with new features. However, I find it funny when there are so many hardcore defenders of a plane out there, adamantly defending F-35 being best at everything, even at that it wasn't designed to do and even attacking program's officials in their statements. I had one fellow who started disputing my quotes of what official stance is on such things. That was hilarious. You also should question why the F-35 does not have an infinite kill/death ratio. When is this plane shot down? For example in Red Flag exercises most if not all losses of F-35 were incurred when they had met with their adversaries in close up engagements meaning that plane would often be destroyed in a simulated dogfight. While 17-20 kills to one loss is an impressive number, it is all done under the assumption that F-35 stealth holds and it flies against adversaries the whole generation behind. They do not face more agile Su fighters. They do not face modern Russian hybrid sensoric missiles. They do not have to avoid radar emissions from a complex environment. In those simulations there are a lot of ifs done and we should all know that such things are here for the show. Those exercises are heavily controlled and they serve only to make good PR. You should already know such a thing. Please watch your own videos closely. At 12:24 the pilot remarks how supermaneuverable its adversary plane is and you can clearly see that Su-30MKM had managed to turn its nose around and score a kill, but it was not counted anymore as both planes were going for a reset. I also doubt "kills" of many of those engagements. 4'th generation planes have to point their nose at the target and actually hitting targets from such high angles of attack are far from guaranteed. Furthermore, those dogfights are more BFM maneuvers against inexperienced pilots. F-18 pilot constantly remarks at how inexperienced his adversary is when he mentions him constantly making basic mistakes. Such casual maneuvering proves only poor combat readiness of Malaysian pilots. Fair enough. You had quoted to me an advertisement article which says nothing specific about VLO nor BFM. This article boasts about thrust vectoring capabilities and how important they are. This goes directly against your argument and proves the position which you were trying to disprove. Furthermore, it is YOU who was speaking about BFM, but in the middle of your argument, you forgot what you were speaking about and started referring to VLO capabilities of a Raptor in an argument about F-35 and you did it by attaching a source which briefly mentions VLO as well as boasting TVC. Your whole post of which you were so proud of are full of such lazy research or incoherent links as your "well documented" articles are merely news tabloids. So, "either agree with me or you are stupid". You will fit right into this community. I'm the only person who thoroughly read (at least from a second part, first part might be a similar mess) what you wrote and I found your post severely lacking. You still did not addressed that you had quoted the AirPowerAustralia article without reading it. Saying that it says something which it doesn't not even talk about. Then you quote various advertisements of one or other airplane, constantly mixing F-22 with F-35. However, the major issue is that you link articles without direct quotes relevant to conversation. You just bring raw information and think it is sufficient to prove someone wrong. You do not provide proper quotes neither of opposition which you are dispelling nor you provide properly cited sources. Most of your sources have nothing to do with the point you are opposing and when they do have something to do with, they are remarkably shaky. You wish to speak with authority on the subject, but you rely on sources not much better than the media tabloid yourself. Even in your latest link, you had linked me to an in depth article about Operational Assessment of F-35. I however read source material and used it to back my claim about poor maneuverability of F-35, giving direct quote, page and source. You do not comprehend that you are dealing not with facts, but with opinions and news articles. Whatever they will be a journalist talking about your favorite plane or a pilot saying that he/she thinks about something. That type of information is not credible as a source by itself. For example, you had given me a pilot talking about how that test was meant to test flight controls, but nobody in their right mind would need another plane for that. Then she contradicts program officials as they give yet another version of those events and provide yet entirely different explanations. You do have potential, but you should drop your arrogance. You were prideful of your comment, but when faced with critique you refused to listen and decided that everybody who disagrees with you is stupid.
  3. No, I want you to have self respect and self esteem not tied to acceptance of some extremely obscure, half dead forum, because it sounds really pathetic when a grown man aspires to one day become accepted into an anonymous online community. By becoming a writer, having your own blog and getting publishing deals with some newspapers you could develop as a person. It is not that hard, I just went and asked a person whom I know and he had agreed to publish me, his news site has connections with other news sites and thus I will have a very wide reach just at my first attempt. I had offered to do something as constructive for yourself, because with time, those blog posts and comments have very little staying power or worth in society as a whole. As for you lashing out at me so violently and without a solid cause. Well, usually people just project their own insecurities at me. A good example is how you went through threads to attack me and now suddenly it is my fault for merging your outbursts from both threads. I'm sorry for trying to help you. As you say, you know what you are doing and I assume those nicknames are your online friends. It is good that you have at least them.
  4. Well, I have whole forum to fight against. So sorry, but it is easy to forget, especially when you see me coming only once in a week or even more rarely. I was just loaded with work last, this and next month. I also was talking about a different thing, that there isn't any educational content available. A lot of it are just news articles, some official talking about something or someone robotically mentioning all the parts of a tank. Alright, I want to know the differences between various 1'st and 2'nd generation thermal optics between Soviets and Western tanks. Show me pictures of generated images of both systems side by side. Or how does radar and stealth interact with each other? Those questions are a lot harder to find and there is a distinct lack of people which could explain those things to others. Asking community for anything here was completely fruitless as they either seem to hoard knowledge or don't have anything of value themselves. I had suggested that since people here want to be seen as extremely knowledgeable, they could start writing and publishing those kinds of articles. As people who are talking about defence and who have huge followings are sometimes are a little bit questionable for example Red Effect. However, community here did not wanted to be relevant and you can see results of that for yourself. It seems that they are just content sitting in their own forum and being horrible rather than trying to do something constructive with their time. I also want to say that I learned a lot about F-35 when discussing it with the other fellow elsewhere. I can see now how AirPowerAustralia was dishonest in its work and where they had made key mistakes. It also helped me to finally understand modern aircraft in their entirely. By that I mean that I know of all major components and systems and what is important in a fighter plane. However, my view remains the same about this aircraft if you can remember what it was. Btw: Even if I did not said it aloud previously, I did read through most of what you had wrote to me (articles). I will eventually finish with the rest. Edit: As I'm reading, there are alarmingly more and more links which lead to nowhere. For example, in 6 vs 4 internal hardpoints argument you had attached me Navy procurement budget...In ZOCTS over presents arbitrary features you had attached me an article which talks that every fighter plane has its problems when you named it: "the F35’s aerodynamic characteristics combine the excellent low speed controllability of the Hornet, with the excellent subsonic acceleration of the F16". Another case was when one guy talks that F-35 is just as maneuverable. However, he does not give any specifics and we all at least should know that F-35 can't maneuver as well due to how it is designed, not to mention various other high profile failures to beat legacy fighters in BFM. That is not rebuttal. That is telling me that you know the guy who knows the guy who works on F-35 program and he knows all the details about it and he said that aircraft is... You quoting of AirPowerAustralia is non existent and when you do quote them, you link whole article which talks about entirely different thing than you had presented me in your argument. Also, reading again what they wrote, it seems that time had validated their arguments and conclusions. Later you are attaching link of simulated exercise which does not talk at all about BFM combat. In fact, those loses in that exercise all came from dogfights which only disproves your argument. I'm also confused by how poorly that Su-30MKM pilot handles his plane. He seems to be quite inexperienced and he did three times the same mistake. However, if you had watched that video yourself, you would see an alarming capabilities of TVC from Su-30MKM when it basically turns around and scores a kill shot during the time it took for Super Hornet to recover from a dive and your other article about F-22 does not say much of anything either which would be relevant when it comes to BFM combat. I had read through all your posts together with articles and I must say that it is a highly questionable post. You lack quotes of your claims and where you do provide me with such, it appears that you did not bothered at all to read source material and had quoted rubbish. What you quote as examples or evidence has no correlation at all with ongoing argument with highly misleading headers. You rely mostly on news and promotional articles which are either very generic or serve just to advertize plane's capabilities. Sometimes however you quote articles completely randomly for your points. This is on top of that I did not payed a lot of attention at the beginning of your post, if I would had been critical, I might had found a lot more errors in it. Though, that was a good post, especially at the end. You should had focused more about mentioning the technological edge of F-35 rather than making dubious efforts in discrediting unspecified (no links attached to claims you are discrediting thus you can make up whatever you wish to discredit) source.
  5. Oh, but I do. My points are awfully specific which indicates that I had read something somewhere before. The problem is that I have to talk about really basic stuff to you people. Like that army had integration with artillery branch since WW2 and could call artillery strike on target within minutes. Some people however were surprised to hear that and thought that tying intel to artillery strikes was revolutionary. And how they are funny? I had shown that those capabilities existed since Cold War and that nowadays we do not have much more capabilities than before. Israel was doing the same stuff in its wars that we are considering cutting edge in Ukraine today. Even then, you miss entirety of my point. In most militaries you are not going to find a lot of advanced drones. At most they are doing recconnance, but even then their role is superficial. Only within this decade more serious projects are going to be completed and with increasing military budget and popularity of drones, these things are becoming commonplace. This is why Rheinmetall only now are marketing new anti air solutions to be effective at taking down drones versus to how previously we used missiles 10 times more expensive than a target we are shooting down. This statement is so generic that it is pointless. Whole military is moving towards greater capabilities and efficiency. My point was that drones are taking quite a niche role and so far they were superfluous to most militaries in a sense that they were an afterthought in military procurement and their capabilities were quite minor outside of few notable exceptions. Only now we are seeing greater procurement budgets and attention paid towards drones and within current decades we are going to see drones with far greater combat capacities than we had seen previously. Again, a technocratic belief that public officials should not be accountable to public. I do not share that believe and consider that by obfuscating information they are hiding internal corruption, biases and incompetence. Furthermore, you had provided no concrete examples so far. I had said that drones excel in a small niche of aerial reconnaissance, you however disagreed with me. So I want concrete examples where they were all of that you claimed to be in other spheres too. That was one niche at which I did not thought about hybrid war. However, that is quite a niche application and your given examples about intelligence gathering is also quite wrong. Drones are shot down from the skies quite easily and they are incapable of gathering intelligent data over adversary which can actually shot back at you. Hence latest downing of a drone in Iran. Aerial reconnaissance is a niche which I said they excel at, so far I do not see any major points to the contrary. I can say the same with you. You constantly insult me, often without bothering to tell me why. Only now you are doing that. Furthermore, you do not know how intelligent I think, I'm. Furthermore, from this reply you make yourself look like everything you blame me to be. Seriously: "You preach to people who have forgotten more than you'll ever know and chide them about their stances on things you're plainly far out of your depth on." and you say that I think that I'm clever than anyone else then you say such things without ever backing anything up? All I hear is boasting from you at how high and mighty you all are, however when I see the most sophisticated threads on this forums, they are just plain ridiculous stuff like designing armored car under 20 tons with main battle tank cannon. Or putting second generation missiles on missile design, while vaguely explaining how you can make something better than designers at that time, or casually throwing 2000 hp engine in a design which supposed to feature low tech design. Again, you boast of how clever you are compared to me while accusing me doing the same thing. However, military application confirms what I had said. The problem is that you get triggered without fully grasping what I had said. I had chosen that already. And from how often I come here you can see that I will not be staying here. I can say a lot more in response, but if you want to get rid of me faster, then I would recommend just ignoring me. Otherwise it would be pretty cowardly of you to expect a free shot at me when you know I won't be able to defend myself. If however you would choose to ignore me, I will not have further reason reply and this will be my last reply to you.
  6. Sadly no, such things are not well documented. I had discussion, at least for a little while about F-35 capabilities and I could not find anything about this aircraft in a nicely summarized fashion. Even some basic things are surprisingly difficult to find about this plane. Which is to be expected as it is still new aircraft with a lot of its information tightly guarded. However, failure for you to provide any such information which you had referred to confirms my initial claims and position. I had asked this forum also the same question, but nobody could give me any solid source, only generic newsites or press conferences. You throw around a lot of statements and insults, but have absolutely nothing to back them up with. I did understood eventually that you guys have religious-like obsession with your favorite military equipment and this is why you can't stand critique towards those pieces of equipment which you love. This is why posting here is solely positive and you somehow manage to avoid entire controversy over most controversial high profile military hardware in 30 long thread which is named as "bash thred". This is impressive to say the least. I also highly doubt about your claim of "quality posting". You had contributed nothing to constructive conversation while pretending to speak from position of superiority. I had seen other people being harrassed here too merely on a basis of them daring to have their own opinion or more precisely - a negative opinion over something. Posts are nothing more than just posting information you found on the internet. Those posts are not high quality posting, but perphaps you do consider that to be high quality posting, throwing a link to information you found somewhere. In my eyes, I had forced users to try harder in trying to disprove me than most of you had tried to in posting high quality material lately. You don't have to lie, I had checked other threads too and the quality of posting present here. While it is perfectly fine not to like me, you should not lie to me. Especially than you yourself had contributed nothing, but a noise to every reply to me ever since I was here. I was not disproven on my claims regarding F-35 despite the massive outrage. Only 1 person here and that was a new guy, previously just reading material here who had brought forth why AirPowerAustralia is not a credible source. However, he did not touched anything in said source or what I had said previously. In fact, when I did my research and had posted high quality post, it was completely ignored despite being the core of initial outrage. That is even sadder is that without me, this forum is pretty much dead. F-35 being the major talking point for any military enthusiast received no replies since me. I would like you to do something constructive and maybe create quotable FAQ on most common contention points. There are many points which you could do research on, some are easy to disprove like low autonomy, high wing load of F-35 while others needs a lot more research like F-35 maneuverability in a dogfight. You certainly claim that you have all the information at the fingertip. However, that is the use of all that high and mighty information if all you do with it is boosting your own ego? You should try and do something constructive with it like I do in my own life. Since I had joined here, I got publishing deal from one online site to post my own articles. Said newspaper has connection to other newspapers and I will pretty much be publishing to half of Lithuanian audience about military technology and explaining how warfare works. My first article will be about AMX-30. You should too try to be more constructive in your life or here.
  7. Hmm, I was not considering hybrid warfare seriously. I was thinking more in terms of an official war with major nations clashing with each other. Modern AA systems are insane and would melt all those drones with ease, however they are too expensive to fire at drones. This is why I think that low caliber SPAAG systems would see a return. However, I do think that you raised a good point which I did not considered before. Drones play a huge role in a hybrid warfare. I appreciate your examples, however some of them only prove my initial point that we need low caliber autocannons to deal with new drone threat. Patriot and other older SAMs are not designed to deal with such threats. Furthermore, I still fail to see how drones were instrumental in your examples. To me it just seem as poor man's improvisation of cruise missiles. How any of those strikes could not be done better with having few cruise missiles in your inventory? In this, drones are just as menacing as cruise missiles from 80's and UAVs of that time. In fact, UAVs existed throughout the cold war, but do we hear about how important they were? They did became the hype in recent years. However, this is due to rise of hybrid warfare where nations do not want to risk lives of their personal.
  8. I find it surprising how oblivious some of a people are here. All you do is insult me and never provide anything of value in critiquing me. My point in this thread was ultimately ignored all together after I went through all the trouble of looking through information recommended to me. Some of people here do nothing else, but insult me merely on a basis that I have different opinion. There are some knowleadgable people here and I did had interesting discussion with them in other threads. Boagrius, thank you for your contribution and help. I appreciate your efforts to help me, however information you had provided do not answer my questions. For example, your latest post. It essentially says: "do my own research". This is what I had decided to do since nobody in this forum knows for any good source on aerial warfare which would cover topics in depth. I also do raise a lot more complex questions than the ones which people would like to ask. For example, why F-35 information centric system could not be used as an upgrade program for F-16 and then we could procure more of F-16 to save the money? We need then to investigate where those parts are located in those planes, their physical dimensions, power and other equipment requirements which those systems might have and only then we could answer if F-16 could have same capacity as F-35. It seems that F-16 uses older ARINC-664 & Avionics Ethernet while F-35 uses Fibre Channel. Both are electrical optic cables. So, how little research would give me an answer of why we do not simply upgrade F-16 with same capabilities as F-35? Both are merely just optic cables, any plane can have same bus rate as F-35 if we would replace old wiring in those planes with newest data transfer cables. It just one example of how trying to do your own research does not answer questions which you have. Now however I often find non descriptive comparisons or talks about one or other system without a proper comparison. It all comes down to "do your own research". This would put me ahead of even most officials in terms of understanding modern military equipment as you can see that their understanding of a topic is very tenuous and generic. They use wide generalisations, they can't give practical examples of how new weapons system is better and why. It also would take a lot of time, you casually offer to do something which is neither easy or fast. Making FOI request or finding relevant cross information takes a lot of free time and unless you are jobless, you can't casually just do that on everything you read or think. Yes, I can see that people here have a different mindset than me. A lot of people seem to absolutely hate any critique and negativity here directed to military equipment. That is fine, it is your forum and your environment. If people would keep themselves from replying to me, I will be on my way quicker. I do however find your design of vehicles to be fascinating. If I will ever have time to design my own vehicle or piece of equipment, I will come here to ask for feedback.
  9. That is basically like...any modern combat since cold war. Replace word: ''drone'' with a recon team with a radio set and you will have a same thing. I would argue that similar capabilities existed since WW2 as artillery barrages and infantry collaboration had achieved quite high standard at the end of WW2. Drones in this case do not provide anything revolutionary in terms of capabilities, if we would use any other system in its place we would receive the same results. It is also completely superfluous as drone in that case did not provided something which more conventional system could not do just as well. It however is an improvement over our existing capabilities. However, outside of few exceptions, most high end drone projects are still being developed and I predict that it is during 20's to 30's when we are going to see a serious rise in drone warfare. A good indication of that are all those high profile drone systems being developed like Poseidon or X45 series developments, Tanaris, ACV-30 Korkut. However, my point was that in modern combat drones do not take a serious role. They are superficial in modern warfare and outside of some niche roles, militaries across the globe either do not have much of a drone inventory and can do perfectly without them or they do have large drone inventory, but most of them are small reconnaissance drones. There are notable exceptions however, but an exception does not make a rule. Examples which were provided was against an adversary without basic capabilities like air monitoring capabilities and defense. I do however did not considered their use in hybrid warfare where their role is a lot greater and they serve as an improvised replacement for more capable platforms. I could offer same advice and to you. You seem to be awfully eager to judge me without even bothering to understand what I'm saying or to fully read all my comments in a same thread. However, his comment did not disproved anything I had said. He had even proven partly of what I was saying. As for whatever a person should have right to express himself. Well, nobody knows everything. Top officials also make a lot of mistakes and poor judgement calls. Sometimes I'm astounded by stupidity of those people due to statements they make on media. Your view is very technocratic however and I find this forum to be very traditionalist in terms of unwavering support of ongoing developmental efforts and people do have a strong tendency to attack or dislike anyone daring to critique the establishment. In our case it would be government, research teams, military, projects. I also believe that a lot of hate coming my way is at least partly unwarranted. I do support same projects like F-35. I do think that drones are the future. Our views are different only on some more complex and niche topics like: Do drones provide significant combat value in conventional war environment? Would a properly set up defense of Mantis system would negate all drone activity all together? However, my highly critical outlook on those subjects do make me a target. I do understand that not all communities enjoy more negative and thought provoking people. However, I do think that this forum needs to change as it will die out as all the other similar hardcore forums had died out. It is happened even now, take a look at how many new threads were created (there are very few new threads popping out). Take a look at how active and serious those people are (most veterans are content with posting low effort content posts, no analysis, no insightful comments, no opinions), forum is already becoming a vegetable if it isn't one yet. I also saw other new guy being viciously attacked and harassed for smallest, unspecified mistakes. Not only you have no new blood coming in, but you also actively attacking anyone new by default who do not fit into your very specific mindset which you had set for this forum. Without new blood you will eventually die out.
  10. This is the issue. I should not do my own research. All research should be already be done, well referenced and presented for ease of reading. I will have to try books on aviation, I was expecting some recommendation from there as I much prefer just to pay an author for their work rather than going through the hassle myself. Books are my prefered form of information and they had worked wonders for me in the past for land vehicles. If I do use other sources, they often are similarly vague about details and sometimes present questionable claims out of nowhere like with F-16. This is why I wondered if there is any website which has those analyses, articles and comparisons, because most of them present vague and general data which does not help me even if it comes from reputable source.
  11. By being realistic and following what is actually deployed in a field. Combat is still completely dominated by conventional armament. Drones there are either experimental and very few in number or completely absent. The only niche where they exist in force is in aerial reconnaissance. I had read again my previous messages and wording there isn't clear or correct. I had in mind that drones are either quite niche and are limited in their use. In addition, most combat roles are still done by more conventional assets. This was a very general comment meant to be taken in most generic terms. First, what you are showcasing here IS cutting edge development of only one nation. Secondly, how much drones are procured and put into service across the globe. Most of what is proccurred are small reconnaissance variants. Outside of notable exception of Predator, most nations procure negligible UAVs if they even include them in their arsenal in more than a token fashion. UAVs like Ravens, Pumas are go to types of UAVs when it comes to drones.That was my bad for using imprecise wording, this is why some folks had jumped on me. When I was talking about them, I primary meant that generally most militaries do no have sufficient air coverage. Cheap, low capabilities stationary guns will see a massive comeback as nowadays they are crucial in protecting all assets from drone reconnaissance via shooting them out of sky. Due to lack of proper AA defenses, we are seeing BUK's missiles being used in taking down 10 times cheaper target or massive Ukraine's ammunition storrages being destroyed due to UAVs simply because there are no effective AA coverage. I had watched videos attached here, they both are the same, just different presentations. It did provided some interesting insight in cutting edge warfare evolution.
  12. Hmmm, that does not help much. I do read individual articles, but they are not what I'm looking for in a sense that they quote a lot of numbers which I can't take into context properly. Is it good or bad? How it compares to competition? What are key aspects of this piece of technology? How useful it is or how useful it is considered. It is like calling stealth plane as stealthy. Alright, what are differences when engaging enemy SAM sites? How stealthy it is by comparison to older aircraft? It does not give necessary context to properly understand how stealthy is. It does not compare stealth cross section nor directional stealth cross section. It is like they would give you bunch of numbers of how stealthy it is at best and say it is stealthy. For example, you said to read what you gave me for starters. Multi-spectrum link shows exactly why such information is quite useless. It talks about F-35 having much broader spectrum. Literally in that video speaker constantly uses such words like "much wider" and how I'm supposed to understand differences between F-35 and F-22. How much wider it is? Is it a big deal? Or officials tend to parrot about how F-35 have information centric warfare suit and how good it is supposedly. Alright, but F-16 models also have that. So wouldn't it be better just procure more of F-16 if that is such a big deal? A lot of sources do not go into proper detail and showcase why one system is better than another. Most articles are just an alphabetical list of features and capabilities of an aircraft with little actual hard analysis of why it is precisely better than its competition. Articles do tend to give similar kind of information, they will talk about capabilities without putting things into context nor highlighting what is important. For them everything is important and thus it is impossible to understand what to look for specifically. What I'm looking for most likely would either be a book or I will have to write an investigative analysis myself. I tend to learn best by doing it myself. You have to read into what they are saying as they are governmental watchdog which means that they will attack anyone and anything for their failures and as we had established, nearly no large scale project goes without multiple parties screwing up. They will critique every project and it is important to read into why they are critiquing it, because there is always room for improvement. They do not seriously propose to cancel project nor they push for some other competing projects. Every large project will have countless flaws. F-22 IS very expensive which they had pointed out. Same critique was used and in F-117 scandal, but aircraft had proved to be cost efficient with time. I went through entire prototype testing report as suggested by another fellow forum reader. Even with F/A-18 there were dozens of major issues which anyone could had picked on. Govermental watchdog should b e considered as a dog, constantly barking at everything they see no matter of context.
  13. You are right, I did not read it correctly, mostly because it was a lot of information and without linking a specific page, I would have to go through hundreds of pages myself. Thank you for your reply, I will make sure to read it and investigate it myself at a later date. I also believe it to be ridiculous that they had proposed to go for F-22. Now it is clear to me why these people in your video were commenting about procuring F-22 which to me appeared quite silly. It was because Air Power Australia had raised this question. I had watched video fully before and to me it appeared that they dismissed them out of hand without properly addressing issues which they had raised. However, after reading document which you had attached, they do address it in 42 page and beyond. Now when I have context for that video and that proposal, I do agree with you. I want to ask you if you can recommend me a source to learn about modern jet fighters. I do understand basics, but more advanced, technical details are beyond me and I would enjoy website or a book who explains in details concept behind air warfare. My focus were always more on ground vehicles as to me they were a lot more intuitive to understand. I even got a partnership deal with a local website to publish articles about warfare, because I was so outraged by nonsense being printed for public. Hopefully, I will be able to write in the future about development and procurement decisions of most modern jet fighters as I'm comfortable speaking about tanks.
  14. I had read report on F/A-18 development. I can state with certainty that F/A-18 did not experienced nearly as many problems. There were only several important areas where F/A-18 had struggled during its prototyping stage and during review process and still when aircraft was undergoing development, most of those issues were fixed according to contractors. Cost overruns also were 10 times lower than of F-35. Report was more concenred about long term prospects like cost growth due to struggling contractors to deliver more complex equipment than actually presenting issues with an aircraft. Here is conclusion of all problems presented within F/A-18 prototype. As you see, majority of them are either potentially fixed during release of report or are unrelated to development of aircraft itself, like lack of AMRAM missile to increase aircraft‘s deadliness. Acceleration threshold not reached – fixed with minor modifications during prototyping. Range is short of Navy expectations – Fixed through lowering weight down by 341 pounds back to approved specifications. Changes were made by 123‘th produced aircraft. Higher than anticipated drag – Changes were made during prototyping stage to address problem and solve underwhelming performance of aircraft, results are not stated in the document. Lower engine thrust – It is unknown if problem exists, more testing required. Sparrow missiles reduces F/A-18 survivability – Irrelevant critique. All aircrafts need to light up target with radar to use said missile. Sidewinder missile capabilities – Irrelevant critique. Enemy‘s ability to evade new missile is a separate issue from plane‘s design. Harm deficient – Irrelevant critique. Aircraft‘s armament is a separate concern from the design of aircraft itself. Advanced systems planned for F/A-18 slow in development - Noncooperative target recognition capability which would enable the pilot to identify all known aircraft are to be developed sometime later in 1980. Critique can‘t be compared to systems late on F-35 who are not ready even after 5 years being late. Late aircraft deliveries slowed flight testing – Deliveries of aircraft were late by 2 months, setting entire program back up to 3 months. Problem was that Northrop‘s plant had underestimated production challenges of F/A-18. They had estimated 67,500 production hours per developmental aircraft, but it actually took 93,000 and 147,000 per aircraft. Contributing problems were poor plant layout, required major redesign of the F/A-18 and recurring problems with fit, access and leakage of plane‘s fuel cells. Critique is legitimate, but largely irrelevant. 2 months delays are acceptable and can‘t be compared to delays experienced by F-35. F-35 experiences over a month of production delays which proves that scale of problems with F-35 is in a different league all together. https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/article/22028435/lockheedmartin-f35s-full-rate-production-to-be-delayed-up-to-13-months-longer Starter deficiency – Engine starter had failed during test flight. Analysis had indicated complex problem leading to starterts being unable to reach specified 7,800 hours lifespan. 500 to 1000 hours were more realistic for existing starters. New contractor were given a job of designing new starter, expected delay 1-2 years. Finally, a fair critique of an aircraft, but fairly minor one. The only impact it has on development of aircraft is more expensive maintenance. Oil temperature exceeds allowable limits – Oil temperature exceeds allowed limits and puts operating limits of aircraft. Redesign of oil cooling system is being considered. A fair issue with the aircraft. Air-condition system does not provide adequate cooling – Installation and operation difficulties had led to redesign of a system. This redesign is done and manufacturer claims that new system exceeds design requirements. F/A-18 Cost growth – There are many reasons behind cost growth, but in short aircraft price had changed from predicted 15.9 million per aircraft to 17.4 million per aircraft. It is around 9% growth, acceptable margin of error, by comparison price of F-35 had almost doubled. https://nation.time.com/2012/07/09/f-35-nearly-doubles-in-cost-but-you-dont-know-thanks-to-its-rubber-baseline/ Radar production problems could have long-term cost impact – Hughes was losing money on radar production due to underestimating complexity of hybrid radars. Producer was 5 radar units short, but it had no impact in short term with potential cost increase later on. Rest of cost related issues – Article speculates that aircraft might face possible further issues, because contractors are not monitored. It further speculates that being an export success could alleviate those problems which we with hindsight know that it did. Review of F/A-18 concludes by saying that design-production cost analysis has too many unknown variables to be a reliable tool in estimating costs. It predicts further cost growth for aircraft and recommends delaying full scale production until previously analysed issues are fixed. Delay caused by all those issues were of few years. Review of F/A-18 development had proved that this aircraft had faced a lot less problems than F-35 faces. If there any similarities in problems encountered between these two aircrafts, F-35 takes similar problem to entirely new level. 2 months delay in production are stretched to year long delays. Cost growth of 10% is multiplied to 100% cost increase with F-35. After reading literature presented to me by forum members I thereby conclude that my initial opinion on F-35 was correct. F-35 is a lemon, its fifth gen capabilities were so delayed that when it comes out, it is not nearly as potent as it was ought to be. It cost had ballooned out of proportion. Furthermore, it continues to face never ending design problems. Within F/A-18 were potentially none of just few Category A design problems. F-35 has 9 of them half a decade after mass production together with almost a thousand of smaller issues which still are ought to be fixed. F-35 will need at least another 5 years and new serial production batch to mature into worthwhile fighter. This proves that my linked article in Air Power Australia was correct in its analysis, F-35 represents high risk investment which would take a decade after its completion to mature into platform worth investing into. Alternative investment options were proven to be superior. Overall analysis of cost growth. Major source of cost growth seems to be inflation. Lack of consistent cost analysis tools as repot had indicated is a major cause of incorrect cost analysis. It turns out that designing and producing aircraft takes a while and we still did not figured out that during that time inflation will cause significant growth in overall costs. Secondary problem are that key contracts fail to properly make cost-analysis and production analysis and impede progress of entire program. We had seen this happen with Northrop. Third major factor behind the cost is lack of commitment from government. If investment would be set in stone, contractors would not have to account for potential risks and thus could drive costs down. Government needs to commit into procuring certain quantity of aircrafts. Furthermore, changing requirements and unrealistic goals cause massive delays in key areas which are expensive. Requirements should be set in stone. Such programs require director to oversee entire process who would be responsible in keeping design changes to a minimum and would focus on as quick and cheap delivery of a first serial production variant. Further improvements could be delivered with further production models as A,B,C…etc models. In addition, contractors need governmental oversight as often they fail to properly assess cost and time requirements for their own contracts. This causes costly delays for an entire program and inevitable costs revisions for contractors. Supervision should be tighter and allowed estimates more generous in order to control overall time frame of development better.
  15. Here is a problem with logic of your argument. Most of legacy fighters had some problems. Some of them still do. You attribute failure of one sub-system, oxygen supply system failure to properly work on some extreme conditions as a failure of fighter program. You use this as a proof that previous generation aircraft had suffered and suffer same amount of problems as F-35 despite that problem persist through all types of aircraft where this module is present. Then you use this 1 case to argue that 13 or something problems like that on F-35 are not more severe. Do you understand why I disagree with you on this stance? You dismiss my claim of F-35 being a problematic airplane, because other fighter planes had and still have issues. You link just 1 issue and consider it to be equivalent to train wreck of a program which F-35 is. I think that you are not taking into account differences in scale of these two examples.
×
×
  • Create New...