Pilot says F35 CAN'T dogfight!

All programmes are "just concepts and ideas" until someone starts doing some serious study.

However serious study needs money and resource - so yo have to sell you concept to get a study of it - if the study says "Hey this might e useful" then it goes to further study and development.

It's not anything odd.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

That´s how it´s done in my field of work too (and supposedly everywhere). To be honest I poked him with the stick because everyone can say "hey I worked at LM, they overhyped projects in 2 occasions, things they know that would not work as of yet" (with the slight sidetone of "fraud") and then leave without any further explanation how it´s meant.

Well they can shoot now...
Gatling gun tests

a reply to: Zaphod58

Something you might find of interest if you do a simple yahoo search for "More Bad News for the F-35, the Plane That Ate the Pentagon"

For 10 days in May off the coast of Virginia, a half dozen F-35 fighter jets tested their capabilities under what military officials called real world combat conditions. The Pentagon was trying to see if the Marine Corps’ version of the next-generation fighter plane—its most expensive weapons project ever—was ready for battle. In July, after analyzing the test results, Marine Commandant General Joseph Dunsford triumphantly declared that it was.

That came as a surprise to critics and was seen as a victory for the military brass. For years, the F-35, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, has been much maligned. Industry wags had dubbed it “the plane that ate the Pentagon.” A relentless series of technical glitches had pushed the warplane’s development years behind schedule, and its price tag ballooned to a staggering $400 million—nearly twice its original cost.

Now even Dunsford’s piece of good news is in doubt. A scathing memo written by J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon official who oversees operational testing and evaluations of new weapons systems, dismissed Dunsford’s declaration, saying the conditions of the test hardly simulated real-world combat. The planes, for example, carried no missiles or bombs during the evaluation and landed on a deck that had been cleared of other aircraft. As a result, Gilmore wrote, the test “did not—and could not demonstrate” that the war plane “is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation or that it is ready for real-world operational deployments.”

Critics of the F-35 program say Dunsford—who was recently confirmed as chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff—was simply trying to build public support for the troubled aircraft and maintain the flow of cash from Congress “... [T]he Marine Corps were doggedly determined to reap the public relations benefits of meeting their artificial [initial operational test] deadline—even if in name only —no matter what,” write defense experts Dan Grazier and Mandy Smithberger in a September 14 report on the F-35 by the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, that included Gilmore’s memo.

www.newsweek.com...

a reply to: 727Sky

Already read it. There was no way to meet the conditions they're demanding should have been met.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 727Sky

Already read it. There was no way to meet the conditions they're demanding should have been met.

So the test was just to see if the aircraft could fly ?

I had thought the test were to evaluate the combat readiness of the aircraft.. My Mistake. Carry on I suppose.. and here I thought the whole purpose was to drop bombs and carry missiles since there are reports the thing certainly can't dog fight. No problem except for the guys who will be tasked to use the aircraft as a warplane.. I sincerely hope myself and other voices dealing with the cons of this multi-purpose and configuation aircraft are wrong.

A scathing memo written by J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon official who oversees operational testing and evaluations of new weapons systems, dismissed Dunsford’s declaration, saying the conditions of the test hardly simulated real-world combat. The planes, for example, carried no missiles or bombs during the evaluation and landed on a deck that had been cleared of other aircraft. As a result, Gilmore wrote, the test “did not—and could not demonstrate” that the war plane “is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation or that it is ready for real-world operational deployments.”

a reply to: 727Sky

Did you read the conditions they demanded? They wanted the full complement of aircraft and helicopters on deck, performing active operations, with an unreasonable mission rate for both the aircraft and helicopters. They wanted mission rates they didn't even see in an active war zone off this class of ships.

The aircraft achieved IOC. The haters can deal with it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I believe quite a big part of that exercise was to stretch the logistics scope and see if the aircraft could perform in a high tempo deck operation that the Pentagon might encounter in a conflict. From what I know there is no way (currently) to fulfil the maintenence requirements at sea that our current aircraft enjoy. To me this is a failure. No bolts no bombs. End of story.

a reply to: aholic

What maintenance requirements do you think will be a problem at sea? The only grumbling a I've heard are having a way to transfer new engines while at sea and that's nothing a little ingenuity won't overcome.

Training is essentially problem solving.Once problems are solved its written up and passed on as procedure.Pushing the envelope will put fatigue and mistakes into the limelight.

I wish the UK had gone on to develop the 'Replica' concept, sounds like the F-35 is not living up to the hype. Amazes me that LM still get the majority of the US Government's work when they have a less than stellar record of delivering projects to spec, on time and to budget.

a reply to: JEKS1979

The F-35 is having the same issues just about every major program has had. This is the most advanced aircraft ever built, and there was no way it was going to go perfectly or totally smoothly.

In the last year, the program has made some major reversals and has gained a lot of momentum. It wasn't going to be the greatest aircraft ever built, but it's going to be much better at its mission than people give it credit for.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Very true, however a 100% cost overrun is pretty huge. I work in construction - you give an estimate and you have to stick by it, and if your cost overruns it's your problem to live with, so amazes me a bit that they US government tolerates the slippage without any penalty for LM.

a reply to: JEKS1979

Which is one of the things the acquisition reform that just passed will change. This is one of the projects that convinced them to pass it.