Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Belesarius

Bash the F-35 thred.

Recommended Posts

When is the failing F-35 finally gonna die!? SAD! Just another low energy country buying into crooked Lockheed!?/s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I cant wait for more stupid comments but now in german.

Already read again the MUH Silent Eagle! Muh Super Super Hornet²!
Yeah sure who is going to finance the production run for probably less than 200 and the risk of a never fielded fiction aircraft.
While you can have a Aircraft that is already seeing operations and is being produced in the 1000s. And with over 200 already produced.
But thats the price for not developing a new aircraft in 25 years.
I hope the FCAS will atleast be a step forward for 2030++.

Because otherwise the selection of aircraft would be pretty boring in the west in the next 20 years.

 

Also can anyone explain to me the Partner Level System?
Is this like access to Technology? Or ability to change the design?

Which Level would Germany get

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Arabs are getting turned on by the turkey F-35:

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dubai-air-show/2017/11/12/uae-undertakes-air-force-restructuring-plan/

Quote

The United Arab Emirates Air Force will undergo a restructuring, guided in part by plans to buy two squadrans of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

 

Everyone's favourite country is also interested:

Quote

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is also seeking to procure the F-35 jets, and talks are making an important progress, as stated by officials who refused to be named.

 

Death spirals and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2017 at 3:51 PM, Collimatrix said:

Interesting, especially in light of the news a few months ago that the UAE and Russia were looking at co-producing a new fighter.

 

Quote

What could possibly go go wrong? Ask India.

 

To be fair, that's not really a fair question since you could apply that to literally every "modern" weapons system known to man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Willy Brandt said:

Can someone explain to me who this Sprey guy is? And why people believe him?

 

 

Basically he's a fraud with a loud mouth who unfortunately had some dipshits think he was of some importance back in the 70s-80s before it was revealed he was a know nothing hack like the rest of the fighter mafia.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Willy Brandt said:

Can someone explain to me who this Sprey guy is? And why people believe him?

 

 

To build on what @Khand-e said...

 

There's a recognizable life cycle to all mass movements.  They start with a core of intellectuals who reach out to other intellectuals.  And those people reach out, and so on.
 

Various things, usually social upheaval, but sometimes sudden demographic changes (as in the US in the late 1960s and early 1970s) can cause these movements to become mass movements.  Mass movements attract people mainly because they are trendy and fast ways to get social standing, and sometimes money and power.  This process inevitably waters down the original intellectual core of the movement, and accumulates all sorts of dubious hangers-on.

Pierre Sprey is one of those hangers-on.

 

The original proponents of military reform in the US were upright and respectable men with at least a few good ideas.  The subsequent disaster of the Vietnam War, however, was the upheaval necessary to turn the Military Reform movement into a mass movement.  Soon it wasn't just fighter pilots, engineers and mathematicians (you know, people whose opinions would actually matter) coming up with bright ideas on how to improve the US military machine, there were all sorts of armchair experts and that most objectionable group, journalists.

 

If you know a little about aerospace engineering (and I do... know a little), and you read Pierre Sprey's work it becomes immediately obvious that the man both has no idea what he's talking about, and that he's dishonest.  A good example is his monograph from the 1980s on fighter aircraft design.  He completely ignores the elegant Energy Maneuverability Theory that Boyd came up with, and instead focuses on absurdly simplified metrics for fighter maneuverability like plotting wing loading against thrust to weight ratio.  The entire point of Energy Maneuverability Theory is that it uses the drag polar and acceleration of an aircraft to create a continuous curve that shows all possible specific excess power conditions in the combat maneuvering envelope.  By going to single-point performance criteria Sprey was going backwards, to the very sort of limited performance metrics that Boyd had made obsolete before!

 

He's very good at coming up with fake explanations about weapons systems that resonate with non-experts because he is himself a non-expert.  In his fighter design monograph he decries the new generation of low-bypass turbofan engines then coming into service (GE F404 and P&W F100) as the playthings of "technologists."  He takes particular umbrage at the use of the new mono-crystal nickel alloys used in the high pressure turbine blades themselves, on the grounds that they are expensive and difficult to produce (they are).  But where he goes completely off the deep end is when he claims that the fancy alloys don't do anything, and the old engines were just as good as the new ones.  Seriously, he says that, on page 151.

This is fucking contrary to thermodynamics.  The entire point of the high pressure ratios and turbine inlet temperatures is that they improve the efficiency and power density of the Brayton Cycle.  But Sprey thinks that Pratt and Whitney and GE threw hundreds of millions developing new engines for yucks.  So what evidence does he have to support this idea?

That's where he gets dishonest.  He cites, for instance, DACT exercises between F-15As and F-5Es where the F-15 had notably worse combat endurance, and that the F100 engine doesn't have dramatically better performance than the old J85 in the F-5E.  Only he doesn't mention why.  It turns out that the early F-15As had fidgety engines that weren't totally debugged.  They would stall sometimes, wore out more quickly than anticipated, and the ignition on the afterburners wasn't very reliable.  As a temporary expedient while Pratt and Whitney could work out permanent solutions, the engines were de-rated and lost about 20% of the thrust they were originally speced for, and in air combat exercises the pilots would frequently just leave the afterburners on at the lowest setting all the time to avoid the re-light problems.  I stumbled upon this full explanation in a book by Mike Spick.  How could Sprey have known about these anecdotes but omitted the explanation?  I don't think he could have.  He was clearly omitting facts to deliberately further his own (stupid) ideas.

 

He's a waste of space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSB4N1LS028

And back again! Sorry if it doesnt fit but there isnt really any thread about the Tornado or the Eurofighter.

But yeah it makes sense to buy more Eurofighters. Less training. You dont need to certify it again also the production lines are quite empty and not so packed like the F-35 ones.

I think it would be the more economical choice. And you can probably get more Eurofighters than F-35s.

But lets wait and see we first need a new defence committee.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Willy Brandt said:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSB4N1LS028

And back again! Sorry if it doesnt fit but there isnt really any thread about the Tornado or the Eurofighter.

But yeah it makes sense to buy more Eurofighters. Less training. You dont need to certify it again also the production lines are quite empty and not so packed like the F-35 ones.

I think it would be the more economical choice. And you can probably get more Eurofighters than F-35s.

But lets wait and see we first need a new defence committee.

 

 

Problem is the Eurofighter is a poor bomber (good interceptor though) and they want it to replace the bomb truck the Tornado is?

On the other hand the F-35 would most likely have to ditch stealth anyway to carry as much bombs as the tornado.

 

Hom many change of mind from the German mod does it make now?

 

-At some point it was supposed to be a Franco-German project led by Airbus which would have replaced the Eurofighter, the Rafale, the Tornado and the M2000 (but only by 2025)

-Then the F-35 (possibly the F-18)

-Now the Eurofighter

 

What next?

Edited by Alzoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×