11 ms·

Are we surprised? This project has been a giant boondoggle for over a decade(!)

by a2tech 8y ago

torstenvl 8y ago
At least it's not two decades with fake tests, like the Bradley.
- spyspy 8y ago
  As always, this scene[0] from The Pentagon Wars remains relevant. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
- Someone1234 8y ago
  It lost in an air to air trial to an older aircraft, and they covered it up. Are you sure?
  - greedo 8y ago
    It wasn't a "trial", whatever that means. It was a test flight, with parameters that the critics have no knowledge of.
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      And they tried to cover it up. Plus they could have released anything that helped make the aircraft look less deficient, they didn't. Just tried to hide the test and pretend it didn't occur.
      - greedo 8y ago
        Tried to cover it up? It's an unclassified report from the test pilot. Not really intended for public disclosure, but this isn't the Pentagon Papers. And the author of the article has an axe to grind against almost all of the military. He left out most of the in that mitigated the story he's been pushing for a decade.
  - engi_nerd 8y ago
    That wasn't a trial of air-to-air combat. It was a control law test of the F-35. An F-16 aircraft, which was already being used during the mission as a "chase" aircraft for test execution safety reasons, was also used by the F-35 pilot as a visual reference. There was no coverup. Rather, the reporter who was sent the document and wrote about it simply didn't have the engineering knowledge to understand what he was reading, nor did he ask anyone experienced with flight testing to review what he had been sent and what he had written.
    - Bartweiss 8y ago
      > It was a control law test of the F-35. Could you explain this, or point me to a link? I don't know the term and I'm having trouble searching it since the words are so common, but I'd love to see a proper breakdown of what was being tested.
      - engi_nerd 8y ago
        Sure. The F-35 is a "fly-by-wire" aircraft, which means that computers are required to direct the movements of the control surfaces. The engineering and mathematics here is not my area (my flight test experience lies in data acquisition, instrumentation, and data analysis/reduction) but I do know that the computers run software -- control laws -- that take the pilot's instructions as inputs, observe the dynamics of the airplane, and issue control commands to the surfaces to execute the inputs.
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      The document was the opinion of the F-35 pilot just to be clear. Here's a direct quote from the pilot: > The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft. There are multiple occasions when the bandit would've been visible (not blocked by the seat) but the helmet prevented getting in a position to see him # > The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage in a turning fight and operators would quickly learn that it isn't an ideal regime. The original documents can be read here: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-... Perhaps you're going to claim the pilot themselves aren't qualified to criticize the program either? PS - This resulted in mechanical changes to the aircraft as well as changes to the headset resulting in millions more in expenditure.
- digi_owl 8y ago
  Why fake one vehicle when you can fake a whole exercise? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
  - torstenvl 8y ago
    "Fake a whole exercise"? Where are you getting that idea? Such a conclusion is not supported by any evidence in the linked article.
    - digi_owl 8y ago
      Err, when it didn't get the outcome the brass wanted they reset the whole event and set strict rules on the red side.
      - torstenvl 8y ago
        Yes. That is how these things work. Anything less would be irresponsible. I feel like we're talking past each other. I don't understand your point of view. Let's say I'm doing a platoon-sized exercise over the course of two weeks. I've been training my platoon on some basic maneuvers like fixing and flanking, rushing machine gun nests, some patrolling, etc. The first night, the Red platoon ambushes my Blue platoon while they're on patrol. Red platoon does a great job thinking on their feet, Blue assaulted through the ambush per doctrine and did a good job of it, but Red platoon knew the doctrine too and exploited a weakness. Got it. Red won. However, we still need Blue to get some experience patrolling, and we definitely need them to have experience reacting to a linear ambush like they'll be facing in a couple months when we deploy. The fact that the Red team used a complex ambush with an IED and an extra machine gun oriented down the MSR is irrelevant. We still need to make sure the SOP works and that Blue can execute it. So I order Red team to use some linear ambushes to see how Blue does. Explain to me how this is a fake test. Explain to me how this is somehow a waste of taxpayer money, or training time, or pro-Blue-platoon propaganda. Because to me it sure as heck looks exactly like what you should do in an exercise.
    - lione 8y ago
zipwitch 8y ago
Is it really a boondoggle though? I mean, it keeps the defense industry rolling, gives the military something to fly, politicians and the media something to talk about, and it's more or less capable of bombing third worlders who can't effectively shoot back. Did the people who green lit it, paid for it, and made it honestly expect anything more?
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  It's a boondoggle in the sense that the one point five trillion dollars could've been spent to better use on almost literally anything else.
- quasse 8y ago
  > it keeps the defense industry rolling, gives the military something to fly, politicians and the media something to talk about, and it's more or less capable of bombing third worlders who can't effectively shoot back That sounds like the literal definition of a boondoggle. "work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value."

Are we surprised? This project has been a giant boondoggle for over a decade(!)

by a2tech 8y ago

Are we surprised? This project has been a giant boondoggle for over a decade(!)

torstenvl 8y ago

At least it's not two decades with fake tests, like the Bradley.

spyspy 8y ago
As always, this scene[0] from The Pentagon Wars remains relevant. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
Someone1234 8y ago
It lost in an air to air trial to an older aircraft, and they covered it up. Are you sure?
- greedo 8y ago
  It wasn't a "trial", whatever that means. It was a test flight, with parameters that the critics have no knowledge of.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    And they tried to cover it up. Plus they could have released anything that helped make the aircraft look less deficient, they didn't. Just tried to hide the test and pretend it didn't occur.
    - greedo 8y ago
      Tried to cover it up? It's an unclassified report from the test pilot. Not really intended for public disclosure, but this isn't the Pentagon Papers. And the author of the article has an axe to grind against almost all of the military. He left out most of the in that mitigated the story he's been pushing for a decade.
- engi_nerd 8y ago
  That wasn't a trial of air-to-air combat. It was a control law test of the F-35. An F-16 aircraft, which was already being used during the mission as a "chase" aircraft for test execution safety reasons, was also used by the F-35 pilot as a visual reference. There was no coverup. Rather, the reporter who was sent the document and wrote about it simply didn't have the engineering knowledge to understand what he was reading, nor did he ask anyone experienced with flight testing to review what he had been sent and what he had written.
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    > It was a control law test of the F-35. Could you explain this, or point me to a link? I don't know the term and I'm having trouble searching it since the words are so common, but I'd love to see a proper breakdown of what was being tested.
    - engi_nerd 8y ago
      Sure. The F-35 is a "fly-by-wire" aircraft, which means that computers are required to direct the movements of the control surfaces. The engineering and mathematics here is not my area (my flight test experience lies in data acquisition, instrumentation, and data analysis/reduction) but I do know that the computers run software -- control laws -- that take the pilot's instructions as inputs, observe the dynamics of the airplane, and issue control commands to the surfaces to execute the inputs.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    The document was the opinion of the F-35 pilot just to be clear. Here's a direct quote from the pilot: > The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft. There are multiple occasions when the bandit would've been visible (not blocked by the seat) but the helmet prevented getting in a position to see him # > The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage in a turning fight and operators would quickly learn that it isn't an ideal regime. The original documents can be read here: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-... Perhaps you're going to claim the pilot themselves aren't qualified to criticize the program either? PS - This resulted in mechanical changes to the aircraft as well as changes to the headset resulting in millions more in expenditure.
digi_owl 8y ago
Why fake one vehicle when you can fake a whole exercise? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
- torstenvl 8y ago
  "Fake a whole exercise"? Where are you getting that idea? Such a conclusion is not supported by any evidence in the linked article.
  - digi_owl 8y ago
    Err, when it didn't get the outcome the brass wanted they reset the whole event and set strict rules on the red side.
    - torstenvl 8y ago
      Yes. That is how these things work. Anything less would be irresponsible. I feel like we're talking past each other. I don't understand your point of view. Let's say I'm doing a platoon-sized exercise over the course of two weeks. I've been training my platoon on some basic maneuvers like fixing and flanking, rushing machine gun nests, some patrolling, etc. The first night, the Red platoon ambushes my Blue platoon while they're on patrol. Red platoon does a great job thinking on their feet, Blue assaulted through the ambush per doctrine and did a good job of it, but Red platoon knew the doctrine too and exploited a weakness. Got it. Red won. However, we still need Blue to get some experience patrolling, and we definitely need them to have experience reacting to a linear ambush like they'll be facing in a couple months when we deploy. The fact that the Red team used a complex ambush with an IED and an extra machine gun oriented down the MSR is irrelevant. We still need to make sure the SOP works and that Blue can execute it. So I order Red team to use some linear ambushes to see how Blue does. Explain to me how this is a fake test. Explain to me how this is somehow a waste of taxpayer money, or training time, or pro-Blue-platoon propaganda. Because to me it sure as heck looks exactly like what you should do in an exercise.
  - lione 8y ago

zipwitch 8y ago

Is it really a boondoggle though? I mean, it keeps the defense industry rolling, gives the military something to fly, politicians and the media something to talk about, and it's more or less capable of bombing third worlders who can't effectively shoot back. Did the people who green lit it, paid for it, and made it honestly expect anything more?

Analemma_ 8y ago
It's a boondoggle in the sense that the one point five trillion dollars could've been spent to better use on almost literally anything else.
quasse 8y ago
> it keeps the defense industry rolling, gives the military something to fly, politicians and the media something to talk about, and it's more or less capable of bombing third worlders who can't effectively shoot back That sounds like the literal definition of a boondoggle. "work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value."