6 ms·

While the technology in this helmet may turn out to be pretty great, I still can't view the project as a whole (The F-35) as more than a failure. It's taken the

While the technology in this helmet may turn out to be pretty great, I still can't view the project as a whole (The F-35) as more than a failure. It's taken them a lot of time and money to develop a mediocre aircraft, here's Pierre Sprey's opinion on it (Designer of the F-16) "The F-35 was born of an exceptionally dumb piece of airforce PR spin" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

smackfu 12y ago
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-dia...
- Goronmon 12y ago
  I love one of the comments to that article that basically says that the accuracy of Sprey's statements don't matter as long as he is right about the F-35 not being worth the money and time invested.
JonFish85 12y ago
You mean a project that has to try to be everything to everyone is a failure? Say it ain't so! This isn't a shot at you, by any means; it's more a shot at a government program that was destined to fail long before it started. You can't have a 4-wheeler ATV, a tank, a station wagon and an SUV built in the same frame. There are some overlaps, sure, but trying to satisfy each requirement leads to insane conflicts that really can't be remedied in a good way. Thus you get this cludgy, massively over budget product that satisfies no one. And on top of it all, nobody wants to be the politician that's responsible for losing 10,000 jobs for his district, so it lives on.
josefresco 12y ago
Former pilots, and aircraft engineers are typically very proud of their machines, relish a more simple time when the pilot mattered more, and won't hesitate to bash modern technology.
- engi_nerd 12y ago
  I will bash modern technology that I struggle with in the same way that a programmer might bash a well used but quirky part of their toolchain (much as I was just griping to a coworker about MATLAB...). If something is really screwed up I will have the same sort of gripes about it that anyone has about something that's gone off the rails. If anything I pine for the days when it was much simpler to make a direct and meaningful engineering contribution on a large project.
- ckib16 12y ago
  There's some truth to this. But, after you dig through this "bar talk", most every pilot would take the best technology has to offer when going into a fight. I'll gladly take a JDAM over a Mk-84 (dumb bomb). And I'll take any modern fighter over an F-4, etc. Pilots do complain about technology (which always amuses me), but in the end we want the technology that helps us win.
tsotha 12y ago
This one video always comes up in F-35 discussions. I think you have to take his criticisms with a grain of salt. Of course he thinks the F-16 is better - it would have been better than anything that wasn't just like the F-16 with better performance. Nobody really knows just how much of an advantage stealth technology provides in the real world. It's going to take a few skirmishes with other top-of-the-line aircraft flown by well-trained pilots before anyone can say it's a failure from a performance perspective. The one place you point to any sort of certain failure is cost. The F-22 was supposed to be the high performance, high end, high cost plane and the F-35 was going to be the high volume, low cost plane to fill in the numbers. Just like the F-15/F-16 pair. Clearly the F-35 is too expensive to qualify as low cost anything, and the more expensive it gets the fewer they're going to sell, which sets off a sort of price spiral.

smackfu 12y ago

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-dia...

Goronmon 12y ago
I love one of the comments to that article that basically says that the accuracy of Sprey's statements don't matter as long as he is right about the F-35 not being worth the money and time invested.

JonFish85 12y ago

You mean a project that has to try to be everything to everyone is a failure? Say it ain't so! This isn't a shot at you, by any means; it's more a shot at a government program that was destined to fail long before it started. You can't have a 4-wheeler ATV, a tank, a station wagon and an SUV built in the same frame. There are some overlaps, sure, but trying to satisfy each requirement leads to insane conflicts that really can't be remedied in a good way. Thus you get this cludgy, massively over budget product that satisfies no one. And on top of it all, nobody wants to be the politician that's responsible for losing 10,000 jobs for his district, so it lives on.

josefresco 12y ago

Former pilots, and aircraft engineers are typically very proud of their machines, relish a more simple time when the pilot mattered more, and won't hesitate to bash modern technology.

engi_nerd 12y ago
I will bash modern technology that I struggle with in the same way that a programmer might bash a well used but quirky part of their toolchain (much as I was just griping to a coworker about MATLAB...). If something is really screwed up I will have the same sort of gripes about it that anyone has about something that's gone off the rails. If anything I pine for the days when it was much simpler to make a direct and meaningful engineering contribution on a large project.
ckib16 12y ago
There's some truth to this. But, after you dig through this "bar talk", most every pilot would take the best technology has to offer when going into a fight. I'll gladly take a JDAM over a Mk-84 (dumb bomb). And I'll take any modern fighter over an F-4, etc. Pilots do complain about technology (which always amuses me), but in the end we want the technology that helps us win.

tsotha 12y ago

This one video always comes up in F-35 discussions. I think you have to take his criticisms with a grain of salt. Of course he thinks the F-16 is better - it would have been better than anything that wasn't just like the F-16 with better performance. Nobody really knows just how much of an advantage stealth technology provides in the real world. It's going to take a few skirmishes with other top-of-the-line aircraft flown by well-trained pilots before anyone can say it's a failure from a performance perspective. The one place you point to any sort of certain failure is cost. The F-22 was supposed to be the high performance, high end, high cost plane and the F-35 was going to be the high volume, low cost plane to fill in the numbers. Just like the F-15/F-16 pair. Clearly the F-35 is too expensive to qualify as low cost anything, and the more expensive it gets the fewer they're going to sell, which sets off a sort of price spiral.