Dude forgot to take off the RBF tags before getting in!!!
1 Like
Heâs an officer. You can only teach emâ so much⊠
1 Like
Fair point.
Thatâs why the Army has Warrants do most of the flying.
3 Likes
That was a pretty underwhelming performance. The very short demo of the F-35 I saw at Duluth was better than that, even.
Personally, Iâm impressed with the F-35 so far. Is it expensive? Does it have some teething problems? Yes, to both.
Of course, we often forget big, expensive platforms with teething issues like the Tomcat and the Vark, some of which actually got a few people killed. Over time, those programs matured into some of the most effective weapons our military has ever known.
On the USMC VTOL requirement. Yes, it is ridiculously expensive and complicated, but it has its use. What Iâm curious to see is if weâre going to proceed with the âbaby carrierâ concept of power projection on the cheap. The idea being to take one of our new LHAs, removing the ground landing component and adding a half-dozen extra F-35Bs to form a small âwingâ that can exert influence without having to spend a ridiculous amount of money for big-deck carriers we simply cannot afford.
P-51 was under-powered and underwhelming until an engine change - became Iconic
F4U could not qualify for carrier landings in initial configuration - landed on carriers, became iconic
B-26 was difficult to fly and dangerous to land - had lowest bomber loss rate in ETO at end
F3H was under-powered - Became the PhantomâŠand the opposite of under-powered
F-18 lost the fighter competition it was designed for - became the backbone of carrier aviation
V-22 crashed and killed - now in use by the Secret Service
All innovative weapon systems have troubled and expensive development cycles. If itâs easy itâs because anyone can do it.
8 Likes
Letâs not forget the Thunderchief.
Letâs not mention the F-111. 
2 Likes
SCREW IT, AV-HISTORY NERD ENGAGED:
The MiG-29âs IP RD-33s were notorious for flaming out. It happened to Kvochur. Twice. At Airshows.
The F-16 earned the nickname âLawn Dart.â
The F-14 had two total hull losses in its testing program resulting in two fatalities.
The F-8 Crusader was a nightmare to land on carrier decks and loved getting slippery at low speed.
The MiG-21 had serious CG issues that persisted with the aircraft until the first examples of its 2nd generation.
1 Like
I think this is a bit unfair though, some of these were born from competitions where the companies themselves developed the product with only limited support from a government entity. With the F-35 this kinda went out of the window somewhere along the line.
I just hope the people in charge learn from the [NAUGHTY WORD] that this procurement process was.
That was the case for the JSF program from day one, however. The changes weâve experienced in this area of design outright demand more government involvement.
At the end of the day, war machines possess some degree of disposability. That margin has decreased steadily over the decades as fighters become more expensive and, most notably, more dependent on their avionics to gain an upper hand in combat.
Still, the JSF program and the F-35 program doesnât buck that trend all that much; they still made prototype X-35s. They still had a fly off. They still had to display to their buyers. In the end, itâs not so much different from a lot of previous programs. Outside of the costs, of course. But, this is really a program for 3 aircraft with extreme part commonality.
The only example I can think of where the government actually said âYou losers, you made an actual Turke-⊠A lemon!â would be with the Brewster Buffalos.
1 Like
All planes mentioned above as initital falures look great at airshows - my only criteria praise in this thread.
1 Like
And yet it performed quite well in Finland. It was a let down at large in most other theatres though.
I would say that thereâs a ton of aircraft from the early jet age that were a lot worse then the Brewster, so thatâs a bit harsh.
On the F-35. I still think the whole procurement process was a dud and should be a lesson learned from. Especially the whole international production program, it looked nice on paper but is a mess in practice.
There were two major fails of the F-35 program really.
One, concurrent production and development. The idea that with the ânew age of computersâ we could design the planes to near production standard and just start building them from day one the way they would go into service was a ridiculous dream that no one shouldâve been sold on. A lot of the cost increases and scheduling delays are due to this.
Two, commonality. Yeah, the original plan was I believe 80%+ commonality, but a recent report I read said that may have dropped to 40% or less now? This destroys the rationale for making 3 variants of one plane in the first place. It was originally to save money in both R&D and then production and then lifecycle costs. But if there is that much difference now, due to the extended R&D revealing changes that were needed for each variant that diverged from the original design, production costs increase for each variant, life cycle costs increase⊠in the end itâs really 3 different planes that look alike.
Actually, you can just say the F-35 had one major failâmanagement. It was mismanaged by both Lockheed and the govât from the get-go. The things Iâve just mentioned are both details of that failure. They had bright ideas that turned out not to be bright.
The tech in the plane has had regular development hurdles to overcome. Nothing unusual there. The reason the 35 development has seemed so much worse than the F-22 that preceded it was due to management trying those two bad ideas.
So why did the F-35 have these problems? Easy. Technology has advanced, but management has not. Perhaps it has even slid backward. Someone invest in advanced management technology, please.
2 Likes
I am afraid you lost any chance of âcheapâ with that last bit 
But actually it sounds like a cool idea.
This article at Vox Why Tesla is Overhyped â and Over-valued is worth a read. It is basically a defense of companies like Ford (and even Kodak!). One could make the argument that management at LM are playing this pretty well. They are making gobs of money while Tesla has so far been burning it. If anyone is feeling the squeeze from a poorly managed program, it is the US taxpayer. DoD paints a big fat target and then pays a mint each time they feel the need to move it.
Regardless of opinions as to the F-35âs value, procurement methodology, or battle space effectiveness, at least in the virtual world, the F-35B is flat coolness. Once you have brought that thing aboard an LHA, the genius of that particular design really hits home. It reminds me a lot of current drone sensor technology in that when you let go of the sticks, it maintains its position in space. Something I bet the Harrier pilot must not do!
PS: And you can hook the TACAN signal so that the aircraft matches the carrierâs velocity.
On the high AoA power out, maybe he was referring to a combat loaded plane. If that F35 at Paris really had a full load out (in?), doing all that is pretty damn impressive.