F-35 Lightning II (Lockheed Martin)

[kamm]

És mit kapunk, ha megfelezzük az F-15EX-et?
Lényegében a block 70-es F-16V-t, amit a konkurens Lockheed gyárt. Akinek amúgy volna a tarsolyában még egy ennél is modernebb F-21 (az indiaiaknak szánt extra verzió), de azon se lennék meglepve, ha egy ráncfelvarrás után az LM előállna ismét az F-16XL-el. Ha valamikor, most időszerű lehetne.
Tényleg nem látom, hogy a Boeing-nek hol osztottak ebben a történetben lapot...

Talan ott, hogy egyreszt a LM iszonyatosan ki van tomve penzzel az F-35 es egyebek miatt, ami bizony problema, mert igy meg egy F-16EX sem igazan lenne erdekeben a Pentagonnak - ok utalnak egyetlen gyartotol fuggeni, mert tudjak, hogy meg durvabb a lehuzas.
Az F-21 szerintem kb ennek a rendernek a szintjen letezik, semmi tobb, kulonosebb penzt egyelore nem tettek bele:

Masreszt a Boeing nagyon durvan terdre esett, persze okkal: a civil repules botrany-botrany hatan, folyamatos cirkuszok, minosegi problemak, balesetek, groundings stb. Gyakorlatilag a military resze tartja eletben egy eve a reszvenyt, mikozben a KC-46 egy masik hajmereszto korrupcios botrany es ott is folyamatosak a minosegi problemak.
Egy single-engine F24/25/akarmi, az F-15EX-bol atemelve a modern rendszereket, stabilizalna a Boeing stockot 10-20 evre es kisebb lenne a pressure a civil agazaton, azok rendezhetnek soraikat, kibaszarinthanak az osszes parazitat, akik a McD-D merger kapcsan gyakorlatilag atvettek az iranyitast es a mernoki cegbol egy tozsdei-penzugyi fokuszu ceget csinaltak (ami mostanra dolt ossze.)

 

[Allesmor Obranna]

Az YF-23 tán sose létezett?
Indultak a JSF tenderen, indultak KC-X tenderen (az Airbus-al, de indultak), a T-X tenderen (oda-vissza, mindegy, a lényeg, hogy esélyt láttak), stb.
Adott esetben simán Ők is bevállalnák, hidd el...

Prototípusokat gyártottak, ide-oda betársulva tendereken indultak és rendre vesztettek.
Hosszú évtizedek óta nem gyártottak szériában semmit.
Az egyszem repülőgépgyártó kapacitásuk, amit idáig a B-2-esek karbantartása tartott életben, most az első B-21-es megépítésével van elfoglalva. Ez így nem az igazi.

 

[imike]

utalnak egyetlen gyartotol fuggeni, mert tudjak, hogy meg durvabb a lehuzas.

Itt van egy 2013-as cikk, hogy a Pentagon milyen lehúzásokat és túlárazásokat talált a Boeing részéről:

Pentagon: a Boeing tisztességtelenül járt el az előző CH-47F rendelésnél - HTKA - Haditechnikai Kerekasztal

A vizsgálatok szerint a Boeing nem túl fair módon viselkedett eddig a CH-47F kapcsán.

htka.hu

Pl.:
"Az árazási politikájuk miatt az Army 13,7 millióval többet fizetett tartalék alkatrészekért, olyanok miatt, mint amikor egy amúgy 10 dolláros csapágyperselyt darabonként 2 286 dollárért számítottak meg Boeing-ék. Hasonló eredményre jutott egy 2011 májusi vizsgálat is, mikor egy 23 millió dolláros rendelésen 13 millió dolláros túlárazást találtak abból kifolyólag, hogy a Boeing például 644,75 dollárért adott egy olyan műanyag elemet, amit egy másik ügy kapcsán 12,51 dolláros darabáron szerzett be a Pentagon."

 

[kamm]

Itt van egy 2013-as cikk, hogy a Pentagon milyen lehúzásokat és túlárazásokat talált a Boeing részéről:

Pentagon: a Boeing tisztességtelenül járt el az előző CH-47F rendelésnél - HTKA - Haditechnikai Kerekasztal

A vizsgálatok szerint a Boeing nem túl fair módon viselkedett eddig a CH-47F kapcsán.

htka.hu

Pl.:
"Az árazási politikájuk miatt az Army 13,7 millióval többet fizetett tartalék alkatrészekért, olyanok miatt, mint amikor egy amúgy 10 dolláros csapágyperselyt darabonként 2 286 dollárért számítottak meg Boeing-ék. Hasonló eredményre jutott egy 2011 májusi vizsgálat is, mikor egy 23 millió dolláros rendelésen 13 millió dolláros túlárazást találtak abból kifolyólag, hogy a Boeing például 644,75 dollárért adott egy olyan műanyag elemet, amit egy másik ügy kapcsán 12,51 dolláros darabáron szerzett be a Pentagon."

Oh, persze, dehogy vedem en a Boeinget. Csak arra mutattam ra, hogy a LM annyira ki van tomve, hogy ketlem, hogy annak barmi ujat adnanak a kozeljovoben. A Boeing korrupt es inkompetens, egyertelmu, de ilyenkor szoktak nagytakaritast vegezni egy-egy ilyen cegnel (ha nem lenne strategiai beszallito, akkor reg elengedtek volna mar a kezet)... de lehet, a vegen meg @Cifu lesz igaza es a NG kap valamit (felteve, hogy kepes barmivel palyazni...)

 

[kamm]

Úgy tűnik, más is ötletel.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1364610294270599176

The name is taken

General Dynamics F-16XL - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cifu]

Prototípusokat gyártottak, ide-oda betársulva tendereken indultak és rendre vesztettek.
Hosszú évtizedek óta nem gyártottak szériában semmit.
Az egyszem repülőgépgyártó kapacitásuk, amit idáig a B-2-esek karbantartása tartott életben, most az első B-21-es megépítésével van elfoglalva. Ez így nem az igazi.

Az volt a megfogalmazásod, hogy az YF-17 óta nem fejlesztettek semmit. Ez nem igaz, erre mutattam rá, az ATF tenderen az egyik végső kiválasztott típus az övék volt. Fejlesztéseket csináltak, több tenderen is indultak az elmúlt évtizedekben.

Maga az, hogy a jelenlegi repülőgép-gyártó kapacitásuk nincs meg, nem jelent semmit, ki kell építeni. A Lockheed is megcsinálta az F-22A majd az F-35 kapcsán. Hovatovább az LCS Freedom kapcsán is. Miért ne lenne rá képes a Northrop-Grumman?

 

[Allesmor Obranna]

Az volt a megfogalmazásod, hogy az YF-17 óta nem fejlesztettek semmit. Ez nem igaz, erre mutattam rá, az ATF tenderen az egyik végső kiválasztott típus az övék volt. Fejlesztéseket csináltak, több tenderen is indultak az elmúlt évtizedekben.

Maga az, hogy a jelenlegi repülőgép-gyártó kapacitásuk nincs meg, nem jelent semmit, ki kell építeni. A Lockheed is megcsinálta az F-22A majd az F-35 kapcsán. Hovatovább az LCS Freedom kapcsán is. Miért ne lenne rá képes a Northrop-Grumman?

Mert nem fér bele a jóárasított és főképpen optimalizált koncepcióba sehogy.
A Lockheed gyártókapacitása, szakember állománya mindig is adott volt.
Ne feledd, hogy a YF-23-ast vezetőként valóban a Northrop fejlesztette, de az McDD gyártotta volna.
A gyártókapacitás kiépítése nem a dolog könnyebbik, hanem a nehezebbik része, mert prototípust, NPI-t építeni bárki tud, de gyártósort, beszállítói láncot kiépíteni, minősíteni, munkaerőt felvenni, kiképezni, megtartani már annál kevésbé.
Habár, annyiban igazad van, hogy a Northrop Grumman gyártja az F-35-ösök törzsközéprészét...

 

[Kim Philby]

Talan ott, hogy egyreszt a LM iszonyatosan ki van tomve penzzel az F-35 es egyebek miatt, ami bizony problema, mert igy meg egy F-16EX sem igazan lenne erdekeben a Pentagonnak - ok utalnak egyetlen gyartotol fuggeni, mert tudjak, hogy meg durvabb a lehuzas.
Az F-21 szerintem kb ennek a rendernek a szintjen letezik, semmi tobb, kulonosebb penzt egyelore nem tettek bele:

Masreszt a Boeing nagyon durvan terdre esett, persze okkal: a civil repules botrany-botrany hatan, folyamatos cirkuszok, minosegi problemak, balesetek, groundings stb. Gyakorlatilag a military resze tartja eletben egy eve a reszvenyt, mikozben a KC-46 egy masik hajmereszto korrupcios botrany es ott is folyamatosak a minosegi problemak.
Egy single-engine F24/25/akarmi, az F-15EX-bol atemelve a modern rendszereket, stabilizalna a Boeing stockot 10-20 evre es kisebb lenne a pressure a civil agazaton, azok rendezhetnek soraikat, kibaszarinthanak az osszes parazitat, akik a McD-D merger kapcsan gyakorlatilag atvettek az iranyitast es a mernoki cegbol egy tozsdei-penzugyi fokuszu ceget csinaltak (ami mostanra dolt ossze.)

Majd jön Elon Musk és felvásárolja/megmenti.

 

[Nemerson]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1364309072665837569

Az amerikai légierő elismerte, hogy megbukott az F-35-ös lopakodó vadászgép

The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed

The U.S. Air Force’s chief of staff wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of aging F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated F-35 stealth fighters. But an affordable, lightweight fighter is exactly what the F-35 was first conceived to be.

www.forbes.com

 

[molnibalage]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1364309072665837569

Az amerikai légierő elismerte, hogy megbukott az F-35-ös lopakodó vadászgép

The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed

The U.S. Air Force’s chief of staff wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of aging F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated F-35 stealth fighters. But an affordable, lightweight fighter is exactly what the F-35 was first conceived to be.

www.forbes.com

1. Tóvmá, vótmá.
2. Baromság.
3. Clickbait fos

 

[Cifu]

Mert nem fér bele a jóárasított és főképpen optimalizált koncepcióba sehogy.

Mert az USAF a jóárasított és optimalizált megoldásokat keresi?

Én csak arra utaltam, hogy a Northrop is játékos ebben a témában.

 

[Allesmor Obranna]

Mert az USAF a jóárasított és optimalizált megoldásokat keresi?

Nana. Amikor a csapból is az folyik, hogy nem győzik kihangsúlyozni, hogy az USAF-nak készülő F-15EX minden egyes részletében a lehető legnagyobb költséghatékonyság volt a cél, akkor is, ha ezzel már a józansággal is szembe mentek, akkor ne csodálkozzunk az ilyesmin.
Én egy szóval nem mondtam, hogy olcsó lesz.
Csak azt, hogy jóárasítottnak van hírdetve.
Ma már a kommunikáció a lényeg.
Az F-15EX-nek új, nagyobb teljesítményű hajtóműve van. Igaz?
Hát az F-15C-hez, meg az USAF F-15-ös flottájához képest ez valóban újabb és erősebb. Sőt láss csodát, az új gyártású gépbe valószínűleg új gyártású hajtóművet raktak.
Igen, egy több, mint harminc éves típust!

 

[kamm]

Ohohohohh boooooy.... erre mondjuk, hogy "her teared a new one for him"...

Even by Pentagon terms, this was a dud: The disastrous saga of the F-35
The military-industrial complex spent $2 trillion building a "flying Swiss Army knife." Now it's been shelved.

"Somehow the United States has managed to develop a fighter jet for all three services — the Air Force, Navy and Marines — that goes for $100 million apiece, ran up almost a half-trillion dollars in total development costs, will cost almost $2 trillion over the life of the plane, and yet it can't be flown safely."
How did this happen, you ask? Well, it's a long, complicated story, but basically it involves taking something that's supposed to do one thing and do it well, like take off from the ground and fly really fast, and adding stuff like being able to take off and land on an aircraft carrier or hover like a hummingbird.

That's why they call it the "flying Swiss Army knife." Have you ever tried to use one of the things? First of all, you can't find the knife blade, hidden as it is among scissors and screwdrivers and can openers and nose hair tweezers and nail files and pliers. The geniuses at the Pentagon decided they needed to replace the aging F-16 fighter, and everybody wanted in on it.

The F-16 is what you would call the M1A1 airplane of U.S. forces. The Air Force currently has about 1,450 of the planes, with 700 of those in the active duty Air Force, about 700 in the Air National Guard, and 50 in the Reserves. General Dynamics has built about 4,600 of them since the plane became operational in the mid-1970s, and they are used by allied air forces all over the world. You fill them up with jet fuel, push the starter button and take off. It will fly at twice the speed of sound, it will carry 15 different bombs, including two nuclear weapons, it can shoot down enemy aircraft with five different varieties of air-to-air missiles, it can knock out ground targets with four different air-to-ground missiles, and it can carry two kinds of anti-ship missiles. The thing is an all-around killing machine.

The F-35, on the other hand, can't fly at twice the speed of sound. In fact, it comes with what amounts to a warning label on its control panel marking supersonic flight as "for emergency use only." So it's OK to fly the thing like a 737, but if you want to go really fast, you have to ask permission, which promises to work really, really well in a dogfight. What are pilots going to do if they're being pursued by a supersonic enemy jet?

The F-35 will carry four different air-to-air missiles, six air-to-ground missiles and one anti-ship missile, but the problem is, all of them have to be fired from the air, and right now, the F-35 isn't yet "operational," which means, essentially, that it's so unsafe to fly the damn things, they spend most of their time parked.

Take the problem they have with switches. The developers of the F-35 decided to go with touchscreen switches rather than the physical ones used in other fighters, like toggles or rocker switches. That would be nice if they worked, but pilots report that the touchscreen switches don't function 20 percent of the time. So you're flying along, and you want to drop your landing gear to land, but your touchscreen decides "not this time, pal" and refuses to work. How would you like to be driving your car and have your brakes decide not to work 20 percent of the time, like, say, when you're approaching a red light at a major intersection?

But it gets worse. The heat coating on the engine's rotor blades is failing at a rate that leaves 5 to 6 percent of the F-35 fleet parked on the tarmac at any given time, awaiting not just engine repairs, but total replacement. Then there's the canopy. You know what a canopy is, don't you? It's the clear bubble pilots look through so they can see to take off and land, not to mention see other aircraft, such as enemy aircraft. Well, it seems F-35 canopies have decided to "delaminate" at inappropriate times, making flying the things dangerous if not impossible. So many of them have failed that the Pentagon has had to fund an entirely new canopy manufacturer to make replacements.

There's also the problem with the plane's "stealth" capability, which is compromised if you fly the thing too fast, because the coating that makes the plane invisible to radar has a bad habit of peeling off, making the planes completely visible to enemy radar.

But fear not, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. has come up with a solution. He announced last week that henceforth, the Pentagon is going to treat the F-35 as the "Ferrari" of the U.S. combat air fleet. "You don't drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our 'high end' fighter, we want to make sure we don't use it all for the low-end fight," he said in a press conference on Feb. 17.

Got it. If an enemy decides to start a war on a Tuesday or Wednesday, we'll just "drive" our aging F-16's, so our precious F-35s can be left in the garage waiting for good weather on Sunday. I'm sure we can get everyone to sign up for the "we'll only go to war on Sunday" treaty.

The F-35 can be understood best as a na-na-na-na-na problem. Originally developed for the Air Force, the minute the thing was on the drafting table, the Navy and Marines started crying, "Hey, what about us?" To quiet the jealous fit being thrown by the other services, the Pentagon agreed to turn the thing into the "Swiss Army knife" it has become.

A variant capable of taking off from and landing on carriers was promised to the Navy, with bigger wings and a tail hook. Except the tail hook refused to work for the first two years it was tested, meaning that every carrier landing had to take place in sight of land so the Navy F-35 could fly over to the coast and land safely on a runway.

The Marine variety had to be capable of vertical takeoff and landing, because the Navy was jealous of its carriers and would only agree to allow the Marines to have mini-carriers with landing surfaces big enough for vertical use. That meant the Marine version had to be redesigned so it had a big flap under the engine to divert thrust so the thing could land on Marine ships. This meant the Marine version had added weight and space that would otherwise be used to carry weapons.

So you're a Marine, and you're flying along in your F-35 and an enemy comes along and starts shooting at you, and you shoot back and miss, but you don't have another missile, because where that missile should be is where your damn vertical landing flap is.

Maybe they should just issue F-35 pilots a bunch of flags to use when they take to the air, and then they'd be ready for anything. Tail starts coming off because you went supersonic for too long? Fly your NO FAIR flag. Cockpit delaminating? Grab your JUST A MINUTE I can't see you flag. Engine rotor blades burning up? That would be the OOOPS can't dogfight right now, I'm waiting on a replacement engine flag.

Not to worry, pilots, the Pentagon is on the problem and they have a solution. Brown says they're going back to the drawing board for a "fifth generation-minus" fighter jet, meaning they want to come up with something that looks like and flies like and has the combat capabilities of the good old F-16. Only problem is, if you use the F-35 project as a benchmark, it will be two decades before the "minus" jet is operational. Until then, guys, have fun watching your F-35's gather dust on the tarmac while you continue to fly your F-16's, which will be older than the average pilot's grandfather by the time the new plane is ready."

LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV​

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist and screenwriter. He has covered stories such as Watergate, the Stonewall riots and wars in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels and several unsuccessful motion pictures. He has three children, lives on the East End of Long Island and spends his time Worrying About the State of Our Nation and madly scribbling in a so-far fruitless attempt to Make Things Better. He can be followed on Facebook at The Rabbit Hole and on Twitter @LucianKTruscott.



A sztori szinten topic volt a penteki Bill Maherben is, gyakorlatilag mainstream story.
Lockheed must be shitting their pants - szerintem egesz hetvegen izzottak a Zoom meetingek, hogy hetfon mar kesz ellenkampanyt tudjanak javasolni... PASS THE POPCORN!

 

[molnibalage]

Ohohohohh boooooy.... erre mondjuk, hogy "her teared a new one for him"...

Even by Pentagon terms, this was a dud: The disastrous saga of the F-35
The military-industrial complex spent $2 trillion building a "flying Swiss Army knife." Now it's been shelved.

"Somehow the United States has managed to develop a fighter jet for all three services — the Air Force, Navy and Marines — that goes for $100 million apiece, ran up almost a half-trillion dollars in total development costs, will cost almost $2 trillion over the life of the plane, and yet it can't be flown safely."
How did this happen, you ask? Well, it's a long, complicated story, but basically it involves taking something that's supposed to do one thing and do it well, like take off from the ground and fly really fast, and adding stuff like being able to take off and land on an aircraft carrier or hover like a hummingbird.

That's why they call it the "flying Swiss Army knife." Have you ever tried to use one of the things? First of all, you can't find the knife blade, hidden as it is among scissors and screwdrivers and can openers and nose hair tweezers and nail files and pliers. The geniuses at the Pentagon decided they needed to replace the aging F-16 fighter, and everybody wanted in on it.

The F-16 is what you would call the M1A1 airplane of U.S. forces. The Air Force currently has about 1,450 of the planes, with 700 of those in the active duty Air Force, about 700 in the Air National Guard, and 50 in the Reserves. General Dynamics has built about 4,600 of them since the plane became operational in the mid-1970s, and they are used by allied air forces all over the world. You fill them up with jet fuel, push the starter button and take off. It will fly at twice the speed of sound, it will carry 15 different bombs, including two nuclear weapons, it can shoot down enemy aircraft with five different varieties of air-to-air missiles, it can knock out ground targets with four different air-to-ground missiles, and it can carry two kinds of anti-ship missiles. The thing is an all-around killing machine.

The F-35, on the other hand, can't fly at twice the speed of sound. In fact, it comes with what amounts to a warning label on its control panel marking supersonic flight as "for emergency use only." So it's OK to fly the thing like a 737, but if you want to go really fast, you have to ask permission, which promises to work really, really well in a dogfight. What are pilots going to do if they're being pursued by a supersonic enemy jet?

The F-35 will carry four different air-to-air missiles, six air-to-ground missiles and one anti-ship missile, but the problem is, all of them have to be fired from the air, and right now, the F-35 isn't yet "operational," which means, essentially, that it's so unsafe to fly the damn things, they spend most of their time parked.

Take the problem they have with switches. The developers of the F-35 decided to go with touchscreen switches rather than the physical ones used in other fighters, like toggles or rocker switches. That would be nice if they worked, but pilots report that the touchscreen switches don't function 20 percent of the time. So you're flying along, and you want to drop your landing gear to land, but your touchscreen decides "not this time, pal" and refuses to work. How would you like to be driving your car and have your brakes decide not to work 20 percent of the time, like, say, when you're approaching a red light at a major intersection?

But it gets worse. The heat coating on the engine's rotor blades is failing at a rate that leaves 5 to 6 percent of the F-35 fleet parked on the tarmac at any given time, awaiting not just engine repairs, but total replacement. Then there's the canopy. You know what a canopy is, don't you? It's the clear bubble pilots look through so they can see to take off and land, not to mention see other aircraft, such as enemy aircraft. Well, it seems F-35 canopies have decided to "delaminate" at inappropriate times, making flying the things dangerous if not impossible. So many of them have failed that the Pentagon has had to fund an entirely new canopy manufacturer to make replacements.

There's also the problem with the plane's "stealth" capability, which is compromised if you fly the thing too fast, because the coating that makes the plane invisible to radar has a bad habit of peeling off, making the planes completely visible to enemy radar.

But fear not, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. has come up with a solution. He announced last week that henceforth, the Pentagon is going to treat the F-35 as the "Ferrari" of the U.S. combat air fleet. "You don't drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our 'high end' fighter, we want to make sure we don't use it all for the low-end fight," he said in a press conference on Feb. 17.

Got it. If an enemy decides to start a war on a Tuesday or Wednesday, we'll just "drive" our aging F-16's, so our precious F-35s can be left in the garage waiting for good weather on Sunday. I'm sure we can get everyone to sign up for the "we'll only go to war on Sunday" treaty.

The F-35 can be understood best as a na-na-na-na-na problem. Originally developed for the Air Force, the minute the thing was on the drafting table, the Navy and Marines started crying, "Hey, what about us?" To quiet the jealous fit being thrown by the other services, the Pentagon agreed to turn the thing into the "Swiss Army knife" it has become.

A variant capable of taking off from and landing on carriers was promised to the Navy, with bigger wings and a tail hook. Except the tail hook refused to work for the first two years it was tested, meaning that every carrier landing had to take place in sight of land so the Navy F-35 could fly over to the coast and land safely on a runway.

The Marine variety had to be capable of vertical takeoff and landing, because the Navy was jealous of its carriers and would only agree to allow the Marines to have mini-carriers with landing surfaces big enough for vertical use. That meant the Marine version had to be redesigned so it had a big flap under the engine to divert thrust so the thing could land on Marine ships. This meant the Marine version had added weight and space that would otherwise be used to carry weapons.

So you're a Marine, and you're flying along in your F-35 and an enemy comes along and starts shooting at you, and you shoot back and miss, but you don't have another missile, because where that missile should be is where your damn vertical landing flap is.

Maybe they should just issue F-35 pilots a bunch of flags to use when they take to the air, and then they'd be ready for anything. Tail starts coming off because you went supersonic for too long? Fly your NO FAIR flag. Cockpit delaminating? Grab your JUST A MINUTE I can't see you flag. Engine rotor blades burning up? That would be the OOOPS can't dogfight right now, I'm waiting on a replacement engine flag.

Not to worry, pilots, the Pentagon is on the problem and they have a solution. Brown says they're going back to the drawing board for a "fifth generation-minus" fighter jet, meaning they want to come up with something that looks like and flies like and has the combat capabilities of the good old F-16. Only problem is, if you use the F-35 project as a benchmark, it will be two decades before the "minus" jet is operational. Until then, guys, have fun watching your F-35's gather dust on the tarmac while you continue to fly your F-16's, which will be older than the average pilot's grandfather by the time the new plane is ready."

LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV​

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist and screenwriter. He has covered stories such as Watergate, the Stonewall riots and wars in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels and several unsuccessful motion pictures. He has three children, lives on the East End of Long Island and spends his time Worrying About the State of Our Nation and madly scribbling in a so-far fruitless attempt to Make Things Better. He can be followed on Facebook at The Rabbit Hole and on Twitter @LucianKTruscott.



A sztori szinten topic volt a penteki Bill Maherben is, gyakorlatilag mainstream story.
Lockheed must be shitting their pants - szerintem egesz hetvegen izzottak a Zoom meetingek, hogy hetfon mar kesz ellenkampanyt tudjanak javasolni... PASS THE POPCORN!

Ennyi baromságot egy kommentben.
Ott hagytam abba az olvasást, hogy a fejlesztés 500 milliárdba került.

 

[comandante]

Basszus mitörtént!

 

[comandante]

Azért azt nem lehet mondani hogy minden hazugság benne. Ök az üzemeltetők, vannak tapasztalataik, felsorolt pár dolgot, ki tudja mi az igazság. Lehetséges hogy ez a cikket egy másik gyártó fizette.

 

[LMzek 2.0]

Azért azt nem lehet mondani hogy minden hazugság benne. Ök az üzemeltetők, vannak tapasztalataik, felsorolt pár dolgot, ki tudja mi az igazság. Lehetséges hogy ez a cikket egy másik gyártó fizette.

Mert?


Van náluk)USA) más jelentős gyártó? Emlékeim szerint mindenki(jelentős) már a Boeing tulajdona.

 

[comandante]

Itt a válasz a türelem elfogására:

Kelly Worries F-35 Flying Costs Won’t Hit Target, and That China May Get NGAD First - Air Force Magazine

ACC boss Gen. Mark D. Kelly isn’t confident that F-35 operating costs will be tamed to $25,000 per hour by 2025, which is the service’s goal.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[comandante]

Az hogy nem elégedettek az csak egy dolog. Úgy tünik míg ők az F35 - tél molyolnak addig Kínában lassan előbbre tartanak.

 

[molnibalage]

Azért azt nem lehet mondani hogy minden hazugság benne. Ök az üzemeltetők, vannak tapasztalataik, felsorolt pár dolgot, ki tudja mi az igazság. Lehetséges hogy ez a cikket egy másik gyártó fizette.

A többi felsorolt dolog is akkora faszság, hogy szavak nincsenek rá.

The military-industrial complex spent $2 trillion building a "flying Swiss Army knife." Now it's been shelved.

"Somehow the United States has managed to develop a fighter jet for all three services — the Air Force, Navy and Marines — that goes for $100 million apiece, ran up almost a half-trillion dollars in total development costs, will cost almost $2 trillion over the life of the plane, and yet it can't be flown safely."

Nem lehet biztonságosan repülni? Az F-35A a valaha szolgálatba állítlott legbiztonságosabb vadászép. Össze lehet venni azzal, hogya 30-40 éves F-16/F-16 mutatió miko voltak kezdetben és mik az F-35A-nál.

Air Force Safety Center > Divisions > Aviation Safety Division > Aviation Statistics

That's why they call it the "flying Swiss Army knife." Have you ever tried to use one of the things? First of all, you can't find the knife blade, hidden as it is among scissors and screwdrivers and can openers and nose hair tweezers and nail files and pliers. The geniuses at the Pentagon decided they needed to replace the aging F-16 fighter, and everybody wanted in on it.

Tököm teli van az ilyen balfasz idézetekkel. Érdekes módon csak az F-35-nél jön elő ez a svájci bicskás balfasz hasnolat. Érdekes módon, ami 4. gen és multirole, ott ezzel nincs semmi baj...

The F-16 is what you would call the M1A1 airplane of U.S. forces. The Air Force currently has about 1,450 of the planes, with 700 of those in the active duty Air Force, about 700 in the Air National Guard, and 50 in the Reserves. General Dynamics has built about 4,600 of them since the plane became operational in the mid-1970s, and they are used by allied air forces all over the world. You fill them up with jet fuel, push the starter button and take off. It will fly at twice the speed of sound, it will carry 15 different bombs, including two nuclear weapons, it can shoot down enemy aircraft with five different varieties of air-to-air missiles, it can knock out ground targets with four different air-to-ground missiles, and it can carry two kinds of anti-ship missiles. The thing is an all-around killing machine.

Ez a rész is akkora faszság, hogy szavak nincsenek rá. Jó, hogy nem számolja bele a vietnámi rakéta változatokat. Az F-16 fegyverzete nem 5 féle légiharc-rakéta az USAF-on belül, hanem lényegében kettő, esetleg három. AIM-120C változatok, AIM-9X. És, ha az SMS -t nem upgradelték, akkor adott PGM mennyiség felett akkor AIM-9M kell AIM-9X helyett. De kétlem, hogy ez gát lennem, amikor megcsinálták a 2x4 SDB hordozását is...

Szóval miféle 5? És kit érdekel, hogy egy rakás elavult bombát tud cipelni meg AGM-65-öt? Ezt is viccesen számolta, mert 15 sehogy nem jön ki, semmilyen módszertannal. Vagy több lesz ennél vagy kevesebb.

The F-35, on the other hand, can't fly at twice the speed of sound. In fact, it comes with what amounts to a warning label on its control panel marking supersonic flight as "for emergency use only." So it's OK to fly the thing like a 737, but if you want to go really fast, you have to ask permission, which promises to work really, really well in a dogfight. What are pilots going to do if they're being pursued by a supersonic enemy jet?

A fent említett másik hazugság. Mert az F-16 sem repült M2.0-val. Csak fegyvertelenül. Az meg senkit nem érdekel. Ellenben az AG konfigos F-16C szubszonikus gép a 1-2 db pod + 2x drop tankl és a bombák miatt. Elég cska az F-16CJ supplementet kinyitni. Elleben az F-35A AG konfigban szupercirkál 30 ezer lábon M1.2-vel. Ej...

The F-35 will carry four different air-to-air missiles, six air-to-ground missiles and one anti-ship missile, but the problem is, all of them have to be fired from the air, and right now, the F-35 isn't yet "operational," which means, essentially, that it's so unsafe to fly the damn things, they spend most of their time parked.

Mi van...? All of them fired from the air? Itt mi a faszt akart írni? A repülőgépről naná, hogy onnan indul a fegyver.

Take the problem they have with switches. The developers of the F-35 decided to go with touchscreen switches rather than the physical ones used in other fighters, like toggles or rocker switches. That would be nice if they worked, but pilots report that the touchscreen switches don't function 20 percent of the time. So you're flying along, and you want to drop your landing gear to land, but your touchscreen decides "not this time, pal" and refuses to work. How would you like to be driving your car and have your brakes decide not to work 20 percent of the time, like, say, when you're approaching a red light at a major intersection?

Ez mekkora fasz. Az ilyen dolgokat nem érintőképőernyőről működtetik. Soha. Minden gépen erre mechanikus kar van. Még videó is van róla bassza meg, de csak egy kibaszott képet elég lett volna megnézni.

Ezek után magyarázzam még, hogy mekkora ordas hazugság az egész írás?

There's also the problem with the plane's "stealth" capability, which is compromised if you fly the thing too fast, because the coating that makes the plane invisible to radar has a bad habit of peeling off, making the planes completely visible to enemy radar.

Igen, ha túl alacsonyan csináljmák, akkor leég a festék. Ezért van sebesség limit minden gépen Vietnámban is repült olyan gyorsan kismagasságon pilóta, hogy a belépőélről leégett a festék. Csak akkor erre nem kellett figyelni. Ennyi.

But fear not, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. has come up with a solution. He announced last week that henceforth, the Pentagon is going to treat the F-35 as the "Ferrari" of the U.S. combat air fleet. "You don't drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our 'high end' fighter, we want to make sure we don't use it all for the low-end fight," he said in a press conference on Feb. 17.

LOL, az F-22 alacsonyabb hadrafoghatóságú, mégsem abba rúg bele.
Az F-35A és F-15/F-16 gépek között 10% eltérés van csak. Igen, lehetne jobb is.

Breaking Down USAF's 70-Percent Overall Mission Capable Rate - Air Force Magazine

The Air Force’s fleet in fiscal 2019 maintained an overall mission capable rate of 70.27 percent, a slight increase from the previous year.

www.airforcemag.com

A többi hülyeségre nincs erőm. Ez is a tartalomgyártásból vett el súlyos perceket.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist and screenwriter.

Nincs több kérdésem.
Egy fasz írt egy fizetett cikket. Semmi több.

Szóval eltakarodhat az köcsög aki ezt a hazugság förmedvényt összehozta.

Meg kamnm, aki hozta formáját. Linkelt valamit, amit vagy nem olvasott el, vagy nem érti. Vicc az egész.
Az F-35 nem hibátlan, a program se, de ez a valami az igazi bulvárbalfasz hülyeség. Olyan pesti srácos foshalmaz.
Úgy látszik a West Point erkölcsi tartást nem adott ennek a hazudozó gyökérnek. Meg észt sem.