F35 Crew Chief busting some myths

Aug 10, 2018 4:29 AM

I recently saw this posted while flipping through my feed or whatever the fuck it is, and just had to read this fantastical shit show. About half way through, I started responding to each and every point presented by Mr. BAD EGG, whom, it would appear, is the foremost expert in the F35 JSF. So, ladies and gentlemen, if you would be so kind as to lend me some of your time, I would like to welcome you to the Shit Show!

So here Mr. BAD EGG starts out with some fact legitimate facts, Skydive, Powerglide, and Starscream are, in fact, transformers that turn into the F16, A10, and the F22 respectively. But he fucks up calling the A10 a fighter, which I’ll chalk up to him being over zealous in shitting on my beautiful princess (see Princess Esmat od-Dowleh of Iran)

He continually uses “supposed” like there aren’t 3 production models, one for each branch mentioned, and multiple F35A squadrons that have already replaced their F16Cs with F35As. Calling the F35B VTOL is like calling the B52 a fighter jet, it’s not even close and it was never meant to be; The B model is STOVL (short take off, vertical landing) and has always meant to be STOVL. Apparently, in the age of touchscreens, putting one on a plane is just too much for Mr. BAD EGG.

It would seem he also has an issue with the stealth coating (or low observable as it’s officially called, and from here on will be referred to as LO), making the outrageous claims that not only does it peel right off at >0% humidity, but also must be climate controlled at all times and repainted after every flight, which, on all accounts, is completely false. The LO coating on the F35 is incredible resilient, and very rarely has be to repaired. The claim of climate controlled hangers is, while a really nice sounding fantasy for other Crew Chiefs and myself, just that, a fantasy. Our hangers are far from climate controlled, and on all bases that I’ve been to, from swampy Eglin to the deserts at Luke, sit under open air, cloth over hangs.

The claim of heat sensitive fuel is utter shit, as the F35 uses standard NATO jet fuels, like JP8. So there is no need for crazy special pain on the fuel trucks, they use the same trucks they used on the F16s and probably even F4s that came before.

The STOVL engine in the F35 uses absolutely 0 fuel, and does not need air refueling after a short take off. Instead, the Rolls Royce LiftSystem creates 20,000 lbs of thrust using a simple crank shaft attached the Pratt and Whitney F135 engine that puts out an additional 43,000 lbs of thrust. This output makes the F135 the most powerful fighter jet engine in the world.

There is fuel tanks behind the seat of the pilot, and the only “tank” of oxygen on the F35 is a small Backup Oxygen Supply bottle (BOS bottle for short) next to the seat. The reason is the F35 uses a onboard oxygen generation system, removing the need for oxygen tanks entirely. In the rare occasion that the pilot need to use the BOS bottle (I’ve never seen it happen), he will immediately turn around and land at the nearest friendly runway.

Honestly, that first paragraph doesn’t need correcting, it makes it sound bad ass, and it is! 360° view through your aircraft due to a suite of cameras located around the aircraft. These cameras, along with a imperial fuck ton (imperial because this is an ‘Merican aircraft) of sensors feed the pilot and the plane a constant stream of information.

The software and touchscreen don’t crash. Not even a debate, that shit just doesn’t happen anymore. I’ll admit that it probably did in the early testing stages, like in 200fucking6, but was fixed almost immediately because that would be life threatening to the pilot. Let me reiterate a point from the previous picture, the oxygen generation system doesn’t just “stop working”. The targeting software isn’t really my job, but if that shit bugs or if they Head Mounted Display gets fucked up specs would have a lot more work than they do, because that shit would be disastrous in a real life scenario, which is what we all train for.

Honestly, if that LO melting thing happened, it was way before me, but that shit doesn’t happen now, and there’s rubberized LO on the turkey feathers of the augmenter. Again weather is Mr. BAD EGGs concern, but rest assured, the cameras on the F35 don’t fog up, because they can get hot as fuck when the engine is on.

I have no idea what happened with the whole dogfight situation, but I’m assuming they still had the radar emitters on that the FAA requires us to have in the US. As for the maneuverability issues, fuck, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, maybe it’s just a shit pilot, maybe it’s the G limits that were a lot tighter back then, fuck if I know, man.
Now, this trillion dollar cost thing I do know something about! This trillion dollars is the estimated cost of development and procurement from the mid 1990s all the way to the early 2070s. That’s almost 80+ years, which makes a trillion seem a little more tame, right?

Again, the dogfight is something to ask a pilot, but the mobility is entirely wrong, he has more than enough room to look around and move his head. That may be due to us being on the 3rd generation of helmet for this aircraft and it is considerably smaller and lighter than previous generations.

So wing drop, that was a problem for a time, but never bad enough to cause a crash. Additionally, the wing drop problem was fixed back in 2013 and is no longer an issue. That’s the thing about development, if shit doesn’t work, they fix it, all the problems this dudes bringing up are developmental shit, and they’re worked out.

I can’t speak for generals, but the F35 isn’t a “top gun [fantasy]” aircraft, if it was they’d be pushing for F22s which is the dedicated air superiority fighter. Additionally, he defeats his own argument by saying that dogfights aren’t going to happen anymore, yet calls the F35 for a single poor performance against an F16.

Now, chopping up A10s is a serious accusation which I have never heard anything of, and can’t find anything about in any legitimate news organization, and as a result, I am labeling unfounded.

I woke up in BEAST MODE! Beast mode is a real thing, the F35 has 11 hard points for mounting up to 18,000 lbs of ordinance, 2,000 more than the A10 and 1,000 more than the F16. 3 of those hard points can be configured to mount external fuel tanks, but is generally deemed unnecessary. So his claim of beast mode being straight up lying are, again, completely unfounded.

Ejection seats are going to cause injuries to everyone, supposedly you actually lose like half an inch each time you eject and they will permanently ground you after 3 ejections. With the new 3rd generation of helmets the 23% chance of death has lowered down to 0% due to its lighter weight.

That brings us to an end, ladies and gentlemen, I hope you’ve enjoyed my Shit Show, good night!

Cat tax, her name is Trixie.

Edit: added credentials https://imgur.com/a/3jTVxzc

Wasn't the maneuverability problems due to limitations put on the fly by wire system by the engineers? And fixed after feedback from pilots?

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

his response to this post, probably.

8 years ago | Likes 153 Dislikes 6

Need to rewatch this abridged series, way better than the anime

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Isn't that right, Jesus?

8 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 1

It’s actually (Hazues) and I don’t know you

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It's pronounced "hay-sus" and I don't know you

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Here's a pic of me refueling the F-35. Definitely didn't need any special paint on my tanker for its fuel.

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

Your gas is cool but a truck on the ground gets hot. Since the F35 uses its fuel as a heat sink, hot fuel means it can’t cool its systems.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Most recent red flag appearance the F35 had a 20:1 kill ratio. That is impressive.

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

Holy shit is there truth to that "losing half an inch on ejection" thing? That's insane

8 years ago | Likes 89 Dislikes 4

That's why pilots get 2 ejections and then loose their wings. 3rd ejection could cause a severed spinal cord due to compression.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Also if you eject at the speed of sound it's 99% chance of death.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Let it be known, that is all ejection seats and not just the F-35.

8 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 0

Not necessarily because of the mass of the helmet specific to F35. (he said fixed in gen 2 though)

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

In the case of an ejection the top priority is to "Get the hell away from this pile of fire, fuel, metal, and ordinance ASAP!"

8 years ago | Likes 43 Dislikes 0

Yeah, it’s like 16-25 Gs straight down on your spine.

8 years ago | Likes 108 Dislikes 2

Ok the explosion-powered pipe you are flying in is exploding. So we are shooting you out with a large explosion. Happy not exploding. Cheers

8 years ago | Likes 56 Dislikes 1

Well, they didn’t install that rocket chair for nothing.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Yes, you are he ejected at like 5,500 psi a sec. this info is unclassified

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

AFAIK this comes from back in the day where ejector seats were just a pile of explosives going off under your arse, today ->

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

they are rocket powered, so the instantaneous force is a lot less but the force is sustained for longer. 0-0 seats changed a lot.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

My dad is an inch shorter and has arthritis in his back 20 years after his ejection.

8 years ago | Likes 66 Dislikes 1

Did he get the watch?

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I ejected from a fighter aircraft...no adverse effects whatsoever as long as your butt and back are in correct posture.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

But he’s alive. I think I’d gladly take those to still be alive.

8 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 0

Absolutely, he still complains that Martin Baker robbed him of a good deal of peace and quiet.

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

Well that landing might have been a little loud...

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 2

Maaan just you wait. The airfield is FULL of acronyms.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I tried my best to keep it non flightline personnel friendly

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

You did a great job sir.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Former airforce fuel cell mech. Here. I like what you're doing, I had a similar argument with someone who had no knowledge about a/c. 1/3

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

And I told them that each MDS have specific roles they play and are defined by the letter and numbers of the A/C. he or she then sent 2/3

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

A gif saying "my lack of knowledge is disturbing". Anyway you're doing a great job. CC are the unsung heroes of the flight line.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Was he saying HIS knowledge or YOUR knowledge though?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Sorry, it was, "I find your lack of knowledge disturbing".

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You got so amped up by a Twitter fight that you had to come recap it on a whole other site?

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 4

The ironic thing is that, if this guy were to look at the development (and ONLY the early development) of the F-16, he would hate IT too.

8 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 1

Not true. The F35 is a boondoggle that made a lot of people billionaires. That was true purpose

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 8

The problem is, unlike the normal method, F-35 went into production in the middle of development. 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

So all those 'finished' units had to go back and be fixed up. Repeatedly. 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album03/a">/album72">http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album03/album72 http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=23 Dad in both F-15 & F-16 program

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This guy doesnt really know what hes talking about. Jets are developmental arcs, early phantoms were equally disliked

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

I like the part where he tries to name drop trump like he came up with the project...

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I've seen these monsters do things in the sky that seemingly defy physics. Every aircraft is initially a headache and jets are WORK.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Isn’t Bono the biggest number two

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

He used sputnik, a russian government propaganda news site for source(s)? Thats probably his issue.

8 years ago | Likes 460 Dislikes 9

What about Fox news? The lies and propaganda they weave makes Sputnik and RT look like angels. Not a fan boy of any of them btw.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

Id consider sputnik and rt worse, but yeah they dont try to hide their bias much.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

8 years ago | Likes 105 Dislikes 0

Putin and Donald seem to have more and more in common all the time

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

As op stated, most of what he talked about were old issues already fixed or that never were issues. In 2014 they already had short term fix

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

Still better than the zero sauces OP provided.

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 6

It appears he's a crew chief; his source is time on the airframe. I've spent 12yrs crewing jets, his rebuttals are pretty accurate.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Problem is this is the internet, where no one has accountability, and everyone can tell all the lies they want

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

And rt.com! That's Russia Today, another Russian government controlled news agency. He might be right but he lost all credibility.

8 years ago | Likes 91 Dislikes 7

May be Russian propaganda.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The RT article links directly to the Official Air Force website with a detailed press release that contradicts OP though...

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

OP said that these issues existed previously, during development, but have been resolved now with new iterations of the plane. 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Planes don’t just magically work the first time they put it together, there are probably stories of F-16 failures in development as well 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

That doesn't change anything about the refuel trucks having to be specially repainted to keep the fuel cooler just for this plane though.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Speaking of Russia, I wonder how it'll handle that totally not overhyped su-57! ... I guess we'll never know, because it GOT FUCKING CANNED.

8 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 3

. . . Which is what SHOULD have been done with the F-35. When something becomes too expensive you SHOULD can it!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

What, did it really? Is it because the Indians backed out?

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Officially, the reason is that the 10 they made are so incredibly awesome that they'll never need more. Yeah, they expect people to buy

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 1

that load of shit. It's the MiG 1.44 all over again. People talk shit about the F-35 while Russia keeps making these EPIC failures.

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

They dropped the T-14 Armata project too.

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

Mass production plans were cancelled, PAK FA project hasnt been cancelled as of yet as far as I can see.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They might as well be. They're basically saying "yeah, we'll use the 10 we made, but we're not going to make the other 490." They spent 10

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

billion dollars to make 10 fucking planes. For comparison, we have 200 F-22 Raptors and 300 F-35 Lightning IIs.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

According to? All info I can find is info that its still ongoing.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

"Man, these things are getting expensive. Wish we had an actual economy to fund all this shit..."

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

And then CNN, as well as a clearly biased random website. The guy is just a tool.

8 years ago | Likes 51 Dislikes 27

I get that we hate CNN but to put it on the level of rt is just insulting to journalism. It's like calling wrestlers "real fighters". No.

8 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 3

Also the "clearly biased" Medium article (which by the way is not a random site) was a copy of a publication released by POGO, an award- 1)

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

winning non-profit, non-partisan investigative journalism watchdog organisation. It's easy to discredit information you don't like. 2)

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

Putting CNN on the level of russian propaganda outlets is beyond laughable.

8 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 7

Where did I "put it on the same level"?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Right.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 22

One is an free press news outlet with it's own opinions another is literally a Russian sponsored propaganda outlet. How shallow are you?

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

No they're both propaganda machines of a couple of world superpowers. Though I understand your warped perception having grown up around one.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

The F35 is one bad ass plane that in many was is better than the F22. It's cost loads and took ages but it's bad ass 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

People also don't understand that stealth jets don't fly the same way in combat, max rate turns screw your stealth profile. 2/3

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Pilots are trained to fly flat and not bank sharply. F35 will fire air to air while flying away from you so has no need to turn or bank! 3/3

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Also, I think the a 1/4 chance of having your necked snapped and a 100% chance of being injured is better than a 100% chance of being pate.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I wont lie, I quit reading half way through, but as a very experienced f-22 maintainer, I enjoyed your commentary on this.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The planes are really good, they scored crazy high at combat tests last year.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Yo shit is shit compared to mine shitbag! - F15 Crew Cheif

8 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 2

You aren’t wrong haha. What a wonderful airframe.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nephew drives the 15-E at SJ

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That’s where I work, small world.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

/a/SfGUAgu You may recognize someone here. They get treated very well.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Even after almost 45 years, she's still one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wouldn't stealth coating that peeled off with even a stiff breeze that needed to be repainted after every flight be fucking useless? It >

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

Early LO planes (F-117) had goo that filled gaps in access doors that needed to be opened every flight. Very labor intensive.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

would peel off before it even reached its target, so whilst you can claim some incompetence (factual or otherwise), that's just too absurd.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

That sound you hear is someone grinding an ax

8 years ago | Likes 278 Dislikes 3

OP - “That’s a nice rant you got there. It’s be a shame if someone.... *BRRRRRRRTTT!*”

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

I see two people grinding an axe. One provided multiple sources, and the other said “nuh uh.”

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

I remember looking inside the new F-16 cockpit. My Dad would point to a “box” and say $32K this one $64K. Planes are like cars, preference.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Pictures of pretty planes are what we get instead of health care.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 4

Nothing is free. Quit holding your hand out or move to Venezuela.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

The development of the f22 10yrs earlier cost about 38 billion. 1/25th of the cost of the f35. Justify that. Defense cos are raping us.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Defending you

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

Pft. You're a special kind of stupid.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

He’s wrong on a lot but the fuel trucks on the ground were a legitimate problem(haven’t heard that it’s been fixed) and the aircraft 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Are you sure? Med group told me it was tinnitus

8 years ago | Likes 108 Dislikes 2

WHAT

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I CANT HEAR YOU! Mawp! Okay, say again?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If you work around jets..... your fortunate friend

8 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 0

That’s badass that you worked on such a piece of machinery. Do you go to college and if so what major? CS, CE, or EE?

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Crew chiefs are enlisted, extremely unlikely he even has an associates degree (CCAF) unless he's E-6 or above.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

To say that a crew chief "works" on an aircraft is such an overstatement.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 6

You mean understatement? I just got off an 11 hour shift fixing shit asshole.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Get real. I've seen you guys "work." Call me when you can't figure it out and I'll come help ya =D

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

You must be from some shitty heavy base lol

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Studying to clep through that CCAF right now, lol

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Good luck and don't stop there! Backup plans are always a good idea. After 10 years I couldn't deal with the bullshit any more. That was 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

with 2 years left on the contract. Been out 3 years and have an undergrad and almost a Masters in comp sci. Wayyyy happier.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Civilian life and military life both definitely have their pros and cons, but right now I think I’ll take military over civilian for 7 more

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

While it is nice, I have a bais to the a10 has it has saved many a buddies life including mine

8 years ago | Likes 107 Dislikes 7

This is what I'm curious, it seems given our current needs an updated A-10 is a better investment, a backup plan is never bad either. 1/

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

but when it's a 1 trillion over 80 years program, trying to be a "one fits all" solution, that will be outdated in 10 or so - is this smart?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Everyone does but it's two different aircraft produced for two different purposes. The A10 is worthless without air superiority and we

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Aren't guaranteed that in the future so we need to prepare something that can operate in that environment.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The A10 is like the AK47 of fighter jets. It can take a beating and is still relevant after all these years.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I have a bias towards the A10 because it's fucking badass

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

BRRRT

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

One of the lucky ones, since that piece of shit is the king of friendly fire.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

The 10 is nice but it's been about 3 decades past due(and as such running out of parts) It's greatest asset was loiter and hopefully that

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

can carry into the 35. The benefit would be a quicker ToT while other hardware maintains longer loiter times like pred drones.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I love the A10, absolutely fantastic aircraft, purpose built and rugged as fuck, the F35 can’t replace it truly.

8 years ago | Likes 73 Dislikes 3

No current aircraft can and it was laughable when they tried to retire it, only to back pedal like ya we still need this old yet badass mofo

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The A10 isn't an aircraft, it's a cannon they mounted wings on. I love it!

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

I know Congress wants a jack-of-all-trades, but I like purpose-built planes. They're just so imaginative and can be devastatingly effective.

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

Specialist planes are definitely superior if you already have the upper hand or the initiative. I like flying tanks.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Not to mention, distinct aircraft can gain a sort of notoriety. Willing to bet that the sound of an A-10 alone can send the enemy running.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

other problem is logistics. imagine if you have 3 cars that can share 90% of their parts. It would make life very easy for inventory.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

The a10 is a guncraft though, the f35 isn't. So it's not really a replacement as an...alternative.

8 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 0

In large scale war with a major power, the A-10 would be using mostly stand off ordnance like Mavericks. It would also be very limited 2/

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

...in what it lets the pilot do or know about compared to the F-35. As far as performance is concerned, it’s objectively worse than the 3/

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

...JSF if you want to do stuff like go to war with China or Russia. It may cost less, but so do prop planes with HVAR slapped on. 4/4

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

the fuck doez that mean? If it targets enemy, it does its job

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

The a10 is a dedicated ground attack plane, the f35 is a multirole strike fighter.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I was saying that calling it a direct replacement isn't 100% right, since the a10 is built around its cannon, while the f35 isn't.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

The A-10’s gun is fairly useless in modern symmetrical warfare. Mostly something to shoot people that can’t shoot back. 1/

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

The intended way to play it is 35s, 22s, and B2s go in first and clear any AA fire in the area, leaving other planes free to do their thing.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That’s really not how SEAD works. Sure, we can wreck the ADN of a 3rd world country, but not of a fellow major nation. 1/

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The entire A-10 fleet had an expected life span of 2 weeks against the Soviets decades ago. 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The A-10 is such a specialized machine and they're running out of parts. Plus, its cannon was designed for armor, not close air support.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

An F-35 can arrive on-site much faster than an A-10. Though for the same reason it presumably can't loiter as long.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

...T-62. It’s cool and all, but it’s much more useful for CAS than dedicates AT. You’ve got AGM-65s for tank busting. 3/3

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

...for killing tanks. There’s a great AF issue coloring book that shows how the gun just wasn’t that useful on stuff as old as the... 2/

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

The cannon was never really much of an anti-tank tool. Cold War era tank armor was already enough to make the cannon kind of useless... 1/

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

It also can't take punishment like the A10 can.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Does an aircraft need to be able to survive a missile strike if the SAMs can't even target it?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Which the A-10 is definitely pretty good for, but then again, so is the F-15. We’ve all heard the one wing story. 3/3

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

As far as missile protection goes, that comes down to plane design like, “how much of the plane can be missing for it to still function?” 2/

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

The A-10’s armor is mostly only good for very light cannon fire and people pointing HMGs at the sky and crossing their fingers. 1/

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

My biggest problem with F-35 is the unit cost, Finland is replacing its F-18s in coming years and F-35 is one possibility and I'm 1/

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

F35A costs (right now) about 20% more than an F18 Super Hornet. F35s have decimated such aircraft on exercise. It's worth the cash.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 3

Super Hornet is actually one of the planets that is considered as a replacement. And I don't doubt that is worth the money, it's just 1/

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

That if we can buy only 20 of them or so is it really useful? 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Lololol it has cool capabilities but can’t kill the hoards with 4 missiles

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

If I understood correctly the operating costs of F35 are way more than any other plane that is considered here in Finland.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

So it is not just the initial cost of the plane itself that has to be taken into account.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

F35 ~ $32k / flight hour. A10 ~ $11.5k / flight hour. Predator Drone ~ $1.5k / flight hour.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

How much is a pilot's life worth? F18s are the old generation and won't stand up to Russian new gen either.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

They won’t save lives if you can’t keep them flying in sufficient numbers. Imo other fighters offer better overall capabilities for same €.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

An F-35 A cost $89 million, F-18 super is about $90, Eurofighter is $120, Rafale is $110. Not to mention the F-35 CPFH is around 26k atm.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Wondering how much would it cost to replace them with 35s. Otherwise I guess it's a good plane. 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Raw cost is some 100m per unit but if I recall the tag includes replacement parts for the initial life-cycle.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I think instead of buying 100 F-16s, 20-40 F-35 should do it so in long run its going to be almost equal I guess in long run

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Lockheed Martin has a weird was of doing it, I’m assuming they want the A model, so they’ll be paying like $110mil ea because they’re 1/?

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

5/5 price will decrease because they’ll be at a higher level of production efficiency until they finally reach their full capacity.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Yeah, F-35 isn't the only plane being considered but my fear is that if it is chosen it'll be so expensive that there will be less planes

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

3/? countries got in on it like half way through and have a $100mil price tag, because they put money into dev, but for not as long, like

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

2/? just getting in now, while the US and Australia only have a $90mil price tag because we put money in it from the beginning. The other

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

4/5 the Netherlands, and finally there’s countries like Israel and Finland coming in now with $110mil price tag, but as time increases the

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

The cold war is over, when is the last time an American pilot got into a dog fight with another plane?

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 4

That's the same shit generals were saying before Vietnam. So they took the guns off and relied only on missiles. Didn't go so well.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's not how history went. It's a common misconception. The navy and air force saw atrocious loss rates with the F-4 in the middle of the1

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

War. The USAF decided to put guns on their AC. USN decided that teaching their pilots Missile employment and tactics was best thus TOPGUN.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Lo and behold by the end of the war the USN had a drastically better kill ratio than their gun armed air force counterparts.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You sure it's over?

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

According to Wiki from 91-03 some decent air to air went down. To include the first F16 air to air kill (MiG-25).

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

To be fair how long ago was it that Russian jets were flying "accidentally" too close to our coast to test our response times.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Vietnam War? Also, no dogfights occurred between Soviet and US. It would've went Nuclear pretty fast.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

If you hadn't noticed, the cold war is back again.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Um not even a year ago. An F-18 Super Hornet shot down a fighter bomber with a Aim-120

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

1982 for HM RN in that Argentinian Conflict - and the UK bought the F35 for our shiny new carriers.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Those carriers are fucking beautiful tbh

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Absolutely - should have been Nuc powered but, yes, I’m proud of our carriers. About Time We Had CV Capability Again.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We can build trillion dollar war planes while Flint still doesnt have safe drinking water. LOL

8 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 15

Flint also has local and state officials that created that problem. There is a reason why we have different levels of govt.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

What if I told you, 90% or more of homes in Flint has had safe drinking water for over a year? Google it.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I wasn't aware Flint was having water problems since 1992.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Don’t get me wrong. You have a point, but that is the fault of the state and not the nation.

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

Fault of one guy, right?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Maybe next time the inhabitants of Flint won't vote a city council that cuts corners, drains the treasury, and destroys the city's plumbing.

8 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 3

They can definitely do both, they just don't care about Flint water enough.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

You realize it takes just a tiny bit of time to REPLACE AN ENTIRE CITY PLUMBING SYSTEM? I mean sure it's bad it's taken so long, but..

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

Remember it takes like a year just to widen a city street an extra lane or two, that shit ain't easy yo.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Also the plane money isn't being pissed away, it's giving jobs, advancing tech, and our knowledge of aviation.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I mean... we can do all that focusing on something actually useful like space travel and advancing medical equipment.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Then vote for politicians that fight for healthcare and programs like nasa. Honestly though, we do spent far far to much on military.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

As a person who did in fact work on the HUD system, it was a cluster fuck of a program. I can’t speak on the 2nd gen systems, but the 1st

8 years ago | Likes 773 Dislikes 7

Yo, are you a fellow Rockwell Collins brethren from Portland?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

While I didn’t work for Rockwell, I did work with them on occasion. I was at a company called Maxtek (joint venture between Tektronix and

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Maxim). We were responsible for a large portion of the HUD/HMD electronics. Some design, but mostly the manufacturing and test.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The 3rd Gen HMD is sick af.

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

Also the F35 was grounded for most of its time in Australia... If the fuel in the aircraft gets too hot, aircraft can't fly.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

That sounds like it holds true for all vehicles powered by chemical fuels

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

In the F-35's case, fuel is used as a coolant for a number of systems, which get hotter than in other aircraft, between being designed to (1

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

have as small a heat signature as possible (poor cooling) and have as high a performance as possible (lots of heat generated). If the fuel (

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

is too hot going into the plane, it's an ineffective coolant. Many aircraft use fuel as coolant, but they're less sensitive and generate (3

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

That’s usually how it works with first gen stuff. Hopefully 2nd gen went better.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Though it usually doesn't take a trillion dollars to get to 2nd gen.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Every single aircraft is a hot mess upon certification and introduction to the fleet.

8 years ago | Likes 69 Dislikes 0

Truth. I flew the E170 when it was first introduced. We called it the 180 because of frequent gate returns. Long ago though. Wonderful now.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

F-14s to F-18s. They never fkn shut up about Tomcats. Never. Still wont.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

it is true that if you want economical air-to-air superiority plane for your country´s defensive purposes, f35 is not the optimal choice.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

the new swedish gripen or the new eurofighter typhoon would be better candidates for that, i think.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Or the new Su-35

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Eurofighter maybe but I think gripen is too small for US purposes. Not enough range.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There is no HUD on the F-35, it uses an HMD instead.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

HMD is a kind of HUD, so it's still valid.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Lockheed has never had a knack for nomenclature that didn't sound good and HUD always sounded good. It was likely used despite semantics

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

This is technically true, as it’s all inside the helmet. Early in the program (2003ish) there was a backup HUD incase the helmet had issues.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I don’t know if they kept this feature as I left in 2004. One feature I thought was very cool (at the time) was the live feed from cameras

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

thats would allow the pilot to “see through” the plane. Where he would look, they system would fill in what was there. So if you looked

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

behind you, you didn’t see the seat/cockpit, you saw what was behind the plane. As they were actively cutting down the exterior sensors

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

gen systems were AR, not VR. The targeting, radar, and optical systems integration took a huge engineering effort and corners were cut.

8 years ago | Likes 437 Dislikes 0

Yeah, we don’t really get to mess with the helmets much, but the pilots never complain about these gen 3 ones, so I think they figure it out

8 years ago | Likes 207 Dislikes 3

The guy said the plane has to fly right up next to enemy to hit it .. was reading anything else idiot said necessary? LOL .. it's not WW1...

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

I never got to play with a finished installed system. But the initial development systems we sent to the field for testing always came back

8 years ago | Likes 114 Dislikes 0

Well it's better that they get those worked out in testing than live exercise runs. And you know programing, early builds rarely go clean.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

I will say that nearly all of the civilian projects I worked on went much smoother. But they also weren’t nearly as technically difficult.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

with lots of complaints and suggestions. The Automated Test Systems I got to use were very cool. Tested the targeting and tracking features

8 years ago | Likes 88 Dislikes 0

the AR overlay, and the camera feeds. By far the coolest thing I have ever worked on. Had to go through background checks for security

8 years ago | Likes 69 Dislikes 0

I’m assuming in the newer generations they fixed the issues and “undocumented features” we had early in the program.

8 years ago | Likes 247 Dislikes 0

Any idea what kind of AR? Like projection based or OLED screens?

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Some version had projectors at the top of the inside of the helmet, which projected to the inner visor (outer being sun shades)

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

This is exactly what i worked on. It was a dual projection system onto an inner visor. The outer visor being the sunshade.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Neat

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

So you just gonna talk about classified shit on the open web or what?

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 17

The NDA was only for 10 years after leaving. And I’m not giving technical specs. You can find pretty detailed info online about the system.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I worked on early development systems. They are not what is currently used in any plane. They were proving grounds for features and fit.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I don't think "cluster fuck" is classified.

8 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 0

No, its pretty much standard procedure.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

For something in this program area, you're not really supposed to talk about it at all, or mention you worked on it.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Question. In your opinion, isn't it better to have military hardware that's good at doing what it's supposed to do, with minimal frills...

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 5

The hardware can make some difference while the training will dole out the greatest dividends. The jock mentality hates the support tag.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's a trade off, the old saying is "A jack of all trades is a master of none". 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

A specifically designed piece of kit will ALWAYS beat a multi-role pushed into a job, but again it's not bad. It can still work anyhow. 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

that saying continues with "but oftentimes better than a master of one."

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

the ak47. works like a charm. in all conditions and so easy to use a kid can use it

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Im sure they said the same thing about the bow and arrow.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It also has horrible range. A great rugged gun, but it has its shortcomings too.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

And very high tech compared to a cannon, or bolt rifle

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Than something that tries to do everything with the same piece of hardware?

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 4

If it’s possible to do everything with the same piece of hardware, I’m all for it, as it cuts down on logistics, but it IS difficult to do.

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 2

I think a nice middleground would be a few multi-role machines instead of lots of dedicated machines or one overextended machine.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

The F-35 is the new model F-111. Designed to be everything, tons of issues, will likely end up in one specific role it performs well in.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Yup. And since they want to scrap the A-10s *fast*, they'll have to develop *another* new plane to do that job…

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I'm sure that the F16 is better in a dogfight and the A10 is better at putting a hurting on armour and ground targets...

8 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 4

But neither is capable at the job of the other. That is the point of compromise. A plane that can perform multiple roles has a place.

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 4

So, instead of 2 planes that do their separate jobs well, we'll have 1 plane that sucks at both jobs. Great plan.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No. No. No. It does both jobs well enough. The Warthog and Falcon are two of the best at their jobs.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

You couldn't at least drop me a tldr?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Okay. They did the same thing with the Raptor. Even the Air Force knows that the Eagle can outfly it. IF it can find it.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I don't wanna dig for sources because the debate is a dumpster fire, but I read mention the losing fight had the F-35s short-leashed.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

It also takes time for the pilots to master the new planes. The F-16 pilots already had been practicing with those for years.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not a problem. I don't see it as one. The Falcon does have better thrust to weight and turn rate. But!!! The F35 carries more A-A.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's meant to fight BVR, if I recall that test forced it to 'knife-fight' which is counter intuitive to it's design.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Seems it wasn't even that, just bad habits from different planes and a spot of restrictive control software. Reminds me of Soviets hating-

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

That's why the article was overall inaccurate, the ROE for the test were simply odd and the plane was still coming from 'duckling' stage.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

-Spitfires, of all things (well, hate's a strong word), because they got worn out planes that they didn't know how to use and maintain.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0