| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan | |
| Israel’s F-35 stealth fighters declared operational, a year after their arrival | |
| 2017-12-07 | |
[IsraelTimes] Israeli Air Force chief says state-of-the-art jets give military previously unknown capabilities in a challenging Middle East.
| |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #19 So the single seat F-35 is a stealthy replacement for the 2 seats EA-18G Growler? Except the Growler can still out fly the E-35 "Flying Turkey". Possibly out fight as well. Yes the B1 and B2 can apparently only fly in a straight line, but they're bombers, so it's okay. (maybe) The poor single pilot is going to suffer from information overload. I'm thinking the F-35 should be called the "F-35 Murphy's Laws). |
| Posted by: Seeking cure for ignorance 2017-12-07 22:19 |
| #18 Thank you Snowy. |
| Posted by: Woodrow 2017-12-07 18:23 |
| #17 F-35 potential role in ICBM interception |
| Posted by: Knuckles Slineger2610 2017-12-07 17:03 |
| #16 I have been highly critical of the F-35 and have not been a huge fan until I could see it in action. Now that it actually has gone force on force with other planes from several countries I am happy to start embracing the fighter. Used in conjunction with our F-22, F-15s and 16s it is a lethal beast. Being able to communicate with pretty much anything we have and being able to transmit a "God on High" to all allied forces, while staying hidden and able to pick targets off on its own is a real game changer. While far from a perfect weapons platform, it is an almost perfect information sharing platform for a mobile and chaotic air/ground battle space. A true fighter for the information age. I hope the people that plan and buy equipment learned a lesson in this expensive and painful development and apply it well to the B-21 that is being developed and from the limited info we have heard, they are. Next step is unmanned fighter swarms with manned aircraft, like the F-35 directing the action. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2017-12-07 14:56 |
| #15 And if you've never developed, tested and deployed the kinds of real-time, high performance extensible code that exists in all 3 of those planes, you really, really, really aren't in a position to judge its success. What you are complaining about is the core concept of that plane, not (primarily) its execution to date. And yes, I've been involved in such things. And no, I don't have any work of my own in this one to defend. |
| Posted by: Knuckles Slineger2610 2017-12-07 14:45 |
| #14 Umm ... the B1B has millions of lines of code in it. The B2 has at least 10x that much. Neither was intended to be what the F35 is - a platform rather than a closed-capability plane alone. |
| Posted by: Knuckles Slineger2610 2017-12-07 14:43 |
| #13 I read a while ago that some brass was bragging that there were several million lines of code in some small function on the F-35. Bloated software - not just confined to Microsoft Foundation Classes! |
| Posted by: Raj 2017-12-07 14:23 |
| #12 I suspect part of the problem is that software developers are paid bonuses or even just paid (get to keep their jobs) based on how many lines of code they write in some time frame. I read a while ago that some brass was bragging that there were several million lines of code in some small function on the F-35. I would rather brag about how few lines of code there is, leading to rapid response. Most of the code is likely mostly garbage code, written solely for the purpose of meeting some performance goal and doesn't do anything except slow down the function its supposed to do, it just there to take up space. That may be part of the problem, IMO, the best code is to write as few lines of code as possible to get the job done elegantly. This is what happens when management gets involved in the design and construction of a project. |
| Posted by: Seeking cure for ignorance 2017-12-07 13:20 |
| #11 It is a semi-stealthy F/A fighter bomber design. So saying it is inferior to an F-16 is akin to that story (Saburo Sakai) about how a Chinese biplane drove a group of Japanese pilots flying Claudes nuts with his aerobatics -- they still shot him down. It would be more fruitful to argue whether we need more "pure" fighters. |
| Posted by: magpie 2017-12-07 13:13 |
| #10 I'd include links, but I think I lost them in the past year and a half of broken computers and hospital stays. I'm better now, but y'all still shouldn't be trusting wosshisname over at War Is Boring. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2017-12-07 13:05 |
| #9 Woodrow, the whole "dogfighting" report was due to slanted reporting about some flight tests that weren't supposed to be dogfights in the first place and involved a test airframe where the engine throttle and angle of attack were limited in software. (Facts that were not only left out of the report, but where they tried very hard in the report to imply that this was not the case). Every time I point this out, noone actually replies to me, but they go away and then come back later with the same argument. If they were being honest, they wouldn't have a need for such tactics. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2017-12-07 12:57 |
| #8 They were forced to install ethanol engines as per un edict go green and sea weed after burners! |
| Posted by: Bubba the Great4743 2017-12-07 12:31 |
| #7 The F-35 prototype was an excellent aircraft. The development that was directed by the program office spent billions on the logistics software. I have no doubt that in the right hands, the F-35 can be a fine tactical aircraft. I just don't like how much money was wasted on software when the aircraft was supposed to be where the money was spent. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2017-12-07 12:16 |
| #6 Models A and B are deployed to South Korea. The Marines B model might be very useful in a high intensity, no runways situation. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2017-12-07 11:46 |
| #5 It is a flying iPhone that is basically a platform for a logistics software that became the tail wagging the dog. Instead of perfecting its capabilities as a tactical fighter they spent most of their time working on this vast real time maintenance and repair software. Truth be known, the techies forgot what they were supposed to be doing, i.e., they forgot it was an airplane and not a computer. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2017-12-07 10:48 |
| #4 On the ground they're a strategic deterrent. In the air (if it can fly) it's a long range, small RCS, ordinance platform. It's a fighter/bomber like the F117 was a fighter/bomber. A small signature ordinance platform. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2017-12-07 09:05 |
| #3 The fighter that can't out dogfight an F-16. Even when the later was fixed with wing tanks. |
| Posted by: Woodrow 2017-12-07 08:48 |
| #2 At what cost? if it's not operable by now, the program should end now! |
| Posted by: Seeking cure for ignorance 2017-12-07 03:19 |
| #1 Apparently it can be done. Now to transfer those learnings back to the manufacturer. Wouldn't be the first time. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-12-07 01:59 |