Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Yamato

"The F-35 is a Lemon. It's a Turkey"

118 posts in this topic

Pierre Sprey, a US aircraft developer of the A-10 and F-16 makes a lot of good points unfortunately.

For those countries in the world who dumped their dough on this thing, we salute you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

He does make good points. However I do have to remark somewhat tongue-in-cheek: of course he hates it, its replacing planes he made money off of.

Edited by DecoNoir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the Aussies are going to buy a whole bunch of them, maybe in cooperation with Singapore. That would make me wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the Aussies are going to buy a whole bunch of them, maybe in cooperation with Singapore. That would make me wonder.

Yep we've apparently committed to 72 of the suckers. From my very limited research on the F-35, $$ increasing for lackluster performance. It seems to be a flop.

I know very little about the issue but I haven't seen much positive. It could be a could thing that I got rejected at the final stage of the RAAF pilot selection academy :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way things are going in this part of the world we don't mind seeing the Aussies keep their air forces powerful. I do hope they make wise decisions but I'm in no position to say anything about particular systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way things are going in this part of the world we don't mind seeing the Aussies keep their air forces powerful. I do hope they make wise decisions but I'm in no position to say anything about particular systems.

The issue is; with ~23,000,000 population, we are tiny. Indonesia could invade if they wanted. Yes our economy is strong for our population but realistically we are limited.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He does make good points. However I do have to remark somewhat tongue-in-cheek: of course he hates it, its replacing planes he made money off of.

And which, perhaps, are still a whole lot more useful in terms of value for money (and the number that can be bought for a given amount of money) than something as incredibly over-sophisticated as the latest Superjet. Really, in any conceivable military situation, I'd say that a couple of squadrons of F-16s, kept up to the latest standards, and A-10s are far more useful than the latest Superjet could ever be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is; with ~23,000,000 population, we are tiny. Indonesia could invade if they wanted. Yes our economy is strong for our population but realistically we are limited.

Vietnam has a population of almost 100 million and believe me it would be idiotic for it to try to invade Australia. I have bigger than either Vietnam or Indonesia in mind, although I could see where Indonesia might make one nervous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why I'm beating around the bush. China is well governed and prosperous and peaceful, but for its own reasons it still has a huge army and a lot of money being spent on military technology.

One of the reasons is that like all countries there are varying opinions, and some segments of Chinese thinking are unfortunately nationalistic and others expansionist. Hegemony beyond what it already has is something many Chinese think the country, out of history and culture, think the country is entitled to. It is not much different there than Russia and maybe the States and of course many European countries once were.

The extent to which China is surrounded by friendly but strong countries, maybe not able to defend themselves alone but able to make aggression painful and able to pull in help, I think this sort of thinking by elements in China can be kept down.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whyever would China want to take the risk of invading any country with high quality armed forces, when it has the economic clout to exert as much influence as it could possibly want to?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whyever would China want to take the risk of invading any country with high quality armed forces, when it has the economic clout to exert as much influence as it could possibly want to?

Yes of course and in the modern age with the States as it is it is not likely. Think though a few generations out with the US plainly in decline at least politically and becoming isolationist.

Economic clout is also harder to apply than military might. Other economies respond like currents under the water so that using economic clout for political purposes reduces that clout.

There is also the tendency for the Chinese to arbitrarily assert that this or that is Chinese, and then invent flimsy grounds for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the Aussies are going to buy a whole bunch of them, maybe in cooperation with Singapore. That would make me wonder.

Yes, because we're idiots.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes of course and in the modern age with the States as it is it is not likely. Think though a few generations out with the US plainly in decline at least politically and becoming isolationist.

Economic clout is also harder to apply than military might. Other economies respond like currents under the water so that using economic clout for political purposes reduces that clout.

There is also the tendency for the Chinese to arbitrarily assert that this or that is Chinese, and then invent flimsy grounds for it.

Oh, very much agree about the need to think ahead. But if one was thinking along those lines, surely having useful numbers of reasonably affordable equipment would be much more useful than small numbers of astronomically expensive kit that's so expensive that if you lost one, that'd be about an entire year's gross national product down the drain,

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, because we're idiots.

No more so than us here in the UK.

But, realistically, the F-35 was never built to be a step-forward in aerial warfare, it was built to be an economic success - to encourage other nations to invest the money they gouge from the taxpayer into the US via the MIC.

In that regard, it looks like being very much a success. Largely thanks to our governments who are in thrall to the "Western" global economy, and in fear of the rising power of the economies of other nations - mainly China.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumor has it they are going to call it The Edsel. :tu:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And which, perhaps, are still a whole lot more useful in terms of value for money (and the number that can be bought for a given amount of money) than something as incredibly over-sophisticated as the latest Superjet. Really, in any conceivable military situation, I'd say that a couple of squadrons of F-16s, kept up to the latest standards, and A-10s are far more useful than the latest Superjet could ever be.

Oh yes, I most certainly agree. The A-10 is still the finest ground attack aircraft we have (and probably will have for a good long while. I know I'd rather trust the "steel bathtub" over an entirely experimental craft any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumor has it they are going to call it The Edsel. :tu:

Had to look it up, and with that: Good comparison!

Granted, I'm a sucker for all sorts of old autos (anything made with a steel body and not that plastic/carbon fiber crap) so I'd still probably by one :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes of course and in the modern age with the States as it is it is not likely. Think though a few generations out with the US plainly in decline at least politically and becoming isolationist.

Economic clout is also harder to apply than military might. Other economies respond like currents under the water so that using economic clout for political purposes reduces that clout.

There is also the tendency for the Chinese to arbitrarily assert that this or that is Chinese, and then invent flimsy grounds for it.

We are seeing examples of it already aren't we? China beginning to "feel their oats" as we say. They obviously see America on the decline and Europe in trouble. No one spends the $$ on the military that they do without anticipating a return. But I'm sure they only have peaceful intentions toward their neighbors right? :)
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard it's not doing as well as it was touted to be capable of. I'm not a aeronautics fan so I don't follow it much. I had heard that, given the price tag, it's a horrible piece of technology. I guess they have to talk it up and sell some of them so they can recover the R & D costs...then be able to either improve it or make another newer version.

I kinda fig it prob works like this...the USA is NOT going to be selling off the aircraft that they are planning on using for themselves. They will sell off hardware they feel quite sure they can overcome in a battle scenario...just sayin' :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard it's not doing as well as it was touted to be capable of. I'm not a aeronautics fan so I don't follow it much. I had heard that, given the price tag, it's a horrible piece of technology. I guess they have to talk it up and sell some of them so they can recover the R & D costs...then be able to either improve it or make another newer version.

I kinda fig it prob works like this...the USA is NOT going to be selling off the aircraft that they are planning on using for themselves. They will sell off hardware they feel quite sure they can overcome in a battle scenario...just sayin' :P

Oh yes, they usually offer 'cut price' versions of the latest kit for export, which is quite sensible. Only the most favoured countries get equipment on a parity with what US Forces get; like Israel and Saudi Arabia, and, er, Iran up until 1979 .... :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sprey knows how to build a dedicated close support aircraft and a dedicated fighter. The F-22 of the past decade looks analogous to the F-15 of the '70s. The big bells and whistles air superiority fighter, along with the same legendary reputation. Sprey should have played a significant role in doing the same thing again, finding the smaller cheaper alternative that didn't so deeply compromise what a fighter is supposed to be. Then we could have a large adequate number of real fighters we've enjoyed for the past 30 years, a capability our complacent military bureaucrats now seem to be taking for granted.

But despite all the years of testing, we haven't seen the tests that really matter. For instance, how well will the F-22 do in a knife fight against a Flanker? I don't think that the Indian govt. would be too shy to find out. I think the reason these mock battles aren't fought is that the US keeps a safe comfortable distance away from such real results.

The F-35 though? If the royalties Sprey isn't getting for global F-16 usage almost 50 years after its development began matters more than the expertise he does have, then Rand Corporation's "Can't turn, can't climb, can't run." sounds succinct enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes of course and in the modern age with the States as it is it is not likely. Think though a few generations out with the US plainly in decline at least politically and becoming isolationist.

Economic clout is also harder to apply than military might. Other economies respond like currents under the water so that using economic clout for political purposes reduces that clout.

There is also the tendency for the Chinese to arbitrarily assert that this or that is Chinese, and then invent flimsy grounds for it.

My opinion isn't exactly one of expertise in the area, but the way things are going in the U.S. I would guess one in the next 30 years or so we'll either be what Russia is now or an out-of-the-closet empire out to control every country without nukes that has resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be that the American republic will collapse in some manner similar to the collapse of the Roman republic with the coming of Sulla and later Caesar. The situations were similar with constant partisan infighting, but they are different in that politicians are not generally from the military.

Something is going to have to happen, as the US today seems ungovernable. Once the independence of the Fed is gone (the independence of the courts is already mostly partisan with the corruption a decade ago of the confirmation process into something totally political) the country's institutions will be more and more seen to be not working. Now of course no one can see the future and maybe a Lincoln or T. Roosevelt will come along and redirect the course of things. Let's hope that person is a Cicero and not a Caesar.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or not, but the F-35 still sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada was committed to buy but is now looking at other options

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.