and guess what XGDUDE.Sweetman and his merry band of followers have definitely gone too far. No one is yanking him back and this vendetta against the F-35 is becoming twisted.
Congress forced a single program down the throats of the military. there was a competition and Lockheed Martin won. i don't remember nary a complaint about LM when they did. i hear nary a complaint about the F-22 even though its shorter ranged than the F-35, is a maintenance nightmare and its vaunted supercruise has yet to be validated in even a combat exercise.
but as usual this board has been and continues to be overrun with apostles of Bill in their negativity toward a program that is flowing tech advancements back to legacy programs and even the F-22 at a rate that would have had NASA engineers blushing during the heyday of the Apollo space program.
i marvel at the audacity, cringe at the stupidity and wonder at the motives of some of you here.
have fun boys. it ain't worth visiting or reading tripe like this anymore. oh and to the author of this piece. i've read the whole report and the summary.
seems you left out more than a few positives that were contained in it.
was that by accident or on purpose.
fair and balanced?
i don't freaking think so.
A noted journalist spinning facts to fit a narrative?
It ain't suppose to work that way.
But it is and no one is calling him on it.
This is a copy of the actual GAO report so that you can read it for yourself. Suffice it to say that Sweetman left out quite a bit of positive information in his reporting.
I'm to the point where I don't expect anything less.
Thanks for sending this Craig...you're a hero (and forgive my rant)..
d11325
Sweetman is a joke these days. Anymore you'll find him surrounded by various sycophants who (let's be honest) for the most part haven't the slightest f--king clue. They know what Bill tells them and it fits what they want to hear so they're happy. Ares is an echo chamber filled with misfits who are slowly realizing that stealth is the future. You can imagine how that must make them feel to see their favorite EuroCanard, F-teen, Flanker-mod relegated to Betamax status. There's a lot of anger and desperation at work over there. Rationality left a LONG time ago.
ReplyDeleteRe: the F-22 and supercruise. I'm not sure what you mean by it hasn't been "validated". It's pretty much common knowledge that it has no problem whatsoever supercruising at Mach 1.7+
totally agree on ARES and Sweetman and his boys.
ReplyDeleteas far as supercruise is concerned, no one has demonstrated any given advantage of using it in a combat scenario.
everybody and his momma goes up to supersonic to launch missiles so that isn't special as far as supersonic release of anti-air missiles.
would you want to release air to ground missiles supersonic? i don't think so because it isn't done. how about bombs? ditto it isn't done. and all this could have been done years ago if it provided an advantage.
so i really and truly believe supercruise is a joke. a fuel hog. a myth for fans of aviation.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.
ReplyDeletei don't mind being wrong. educate me. what is the application for supercruise in a combat situation. use a pacific scenario and remember...even on dry thrust you're still using more gas flying supersonic than high subsonic.
ReplyDeletelet me add that the ability to have a supersonic bomber is present today.
ReplyDeleteif its of value then why isn't a stealth supersonic cruise bomber on the drawing boards???
Supersonic speed for the bomber isn't on the drawing board because speed adds cost. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Also speed in a bomber is less important than speed is for a fighter. It isn't going to allow you to outrun an S-400 and on intercontinental flights you're still talking about hours to the target area.
ReplyDeleteFor the F-22 that speed enables it to cover larger areas more effectively. In Desert Storm there were many instances of the F-15 being unable to do anything about Iraqi aircraft running to Iran because it couldn't accelerate quick enough or maintain the speed while it was lugging 600 gallon tanks around. Very draggy with all that crap hanging out in the wind, and if it punched off the tanks and went into afterburner well, it would have been looking for a tanker pronto.
AIM-120s and SDBs go a LOT further when launched from Mach 1.5+ and 60,000 feet than subsonic and half the altitude. That alone will make it easier to hit fleeting targets. It will also enable it to stand off further while tossing SDBs or JDAMs at ground targets. It will enable it to choose when and if it fights an adversary. The USAF didn't ask for it just because they thought it would be cool. The Russians aren't desperately trying to get the ability in the T-50 just for bragging rights. If it weren't useful the USAF wouldn't have asked for it. As for "it could have been done years ago if it provided an advantage" that isn't true. Engine technology wasn't there yet. Sure, you had the J-58, J93, and Tumansky R-15s but they were big, heavy, and guzzled fuel like no tomorrow at subsonic speeds, and didn't exactly sip it at Mach 3. Even the F100, F110, and AL-31 aren't suitable because their engine cycle isn't designed for supersonic cruise without afterburner, and don't have sufficient power dry even if they were. Needless to say, the J-79s, J-75s, Atars, etc. of the generation before that didn't have a prayer. Sure, you could get the occasional jet like a clean Lightning, YF-17, and what not to supercruise- barely, but nearly Mach 2? Forget it. As for the value of supercruise just see what pilots (both F-22 pilots and those who have fought it in exercises) have to say about it on F-16.net or other places it's been discussed. They can't all be Lockheed Martin marketers.
I'm analyzing the GAO report now having downloaded it earlier from the GAO website. I'm a little over half way through the main report at the moment, and so far, There's nothing new to see. Usual careful omissions and commissions.
ReplyDelete