LT. GENERAL CHRIS BOGDAN: I tell you, it is a formidable airplane. I have no doubt if you went head to head with this airplane with any other airplane in the world with the capabilities that I know it has, it will do very, very well.
6 comments:
scoot7
said...
You know, my patience is wearing mighty thin hearing what the F-35 "is" and "can do". I have no doubt that 10 years a few billion dollars from now it could be a great F-16 replacement, whatever that's worth then, but cripes fellas-- right "now" the plane is not combat capable whatsoever. Literally could not fire a shot in anger if the Constitution depended on it "now". Eric, please keep up your vigil of tracking this sort of rhetoric. Someday I will expect a letter of apology in my mailbox from all these people.
And to add to what scoot7 said ^^ the USAF needs those F-16 replacements "now", as they were expecting F-35s this year -- at the latest -- achieving IOC, per USAF's original requirements!
Not starting in 6,7,8 yrs from "now"!
The whole premise of discontinuing procurement of new-build F-16 (replacing the older blocks) at the turn of the Century was that there was simply no need... ie, a few years could be skipped while waiting for F-35A IOC in 2012-2013 and while the F-22 would be replacing F-15s in adequate numbers.
Furthermore, by 2020, over 1,300 F-35A were to have been procured by the USAF alone -- so who needs a hundred or two costly new F-16s in the interim! Relax. Where is thy faith!
As far as expecting a letter of 'apology' however?? Don't count on it, hehe. These guys don't operate like that, remember! The blame will simply be put on sequestration, or financially austere budget environments, etc, that nobody would have guessed just 5-6 years ago, right? Cough...
The logic is simple: the F-35, if only just left alone by these dang fools in Congress, and left to track as it was originally destined to track, would flat out be the most dominant and successful fighter and acquisition strategy in history!
Hence, it's not the inherent F-35 Program's fault, our acquisition decision-making, or F-35 design's fault -- it's the politicians messing with production rates and the darn sequestration which nobody could have predicted and nobody can do anything about!
I reckon it's all full of belony by LT. GENERAL CHRIS BOGDAN's faith-based argument, quoted:
"I tell you, it is a formidable airplane. I have no doubt if you went head to head with this airplane with any other airplane in the world with the capabilities that I know it has, it will do very, very well".
" I have no doubt if you went head to head with this airplane with any other airplane in the world..."
Ignoring the fact that a mission ready F-35 isnt close to being completed, much less evaluated, this kind of thinking seems pretty...unimaginative. Questions of one on one matchups of plane x vs plane y are important, tactically. But to ask only that question is dangerous, especially when such questions can only be answered in combat or with loads of assumptions. I think its unwise to take pilots out of the equation. Its equally unwise to ignore tactics, as well as operational considerations like the ability to generate more sorties, the ability to decide when to enter, exit, and deny combat, or the ability to operate in less than ideal conditions.
Airfields and supply lines arent sacred, protected sanctuaries. With that and the above considerations, its also important to ask how many planes we can afford, and how quickly can we procure,'and if need be replace them. Opportunity cost also needs to be considered, not just for air forces but for the cost drag on other branches as well. If we would abandon high cost wishful thinking, we would also have the opportunity cost to train more. We really need more unscripted war gaming, and with various modes and methods to prevent our assumptions from becoming blindsides. Take the results of this and input it into affordable RnD, evolutionary designs and more test squadrons for op eval and more wargaming.
The F-15 and F-16 have great potential, much of which has already been researched. Invest in their common engine. Use that engine and off the shelf parts for new designs, at least as starting points, Im thinking a lifting bodied, fixed winged twin engine plane to give carrier battle groups thier range back, and that would have the range for our friends down under (speaking as a yank).
I know I dont know what Im talking about often (see above), but why are proffessionals like Bogdan looking at things more narrowly than an amatuer like me? Is it because thier sales people, more than generals?
"if you went head to head with this airplane with any other airplane in the world with the capabilities that I know it has"
Did anyone else wonder if there was a comma missing?
A comma inserted into that statement could entirely change the meaning of the comment.
One has to seriously question the context therein of the actual view he intended to make.
That is, was the intended to say: That if he went up with other select aircraft worldwide with the capabilities that he knows about of said other aircraft?
Or was he saying... that he knows the true capabilities of the F-35, as well as the capabilities of the other aircraft worldwide which he is familiar with and that the F-35 would come out on top?
Those are two entirely different interpretations of reality depending on whether or not there is a strategically placed comma omitted or not!
My bet is that there was a comma unintentionally omitted in the original quotation and that he's claiming that he knows the true capabilities of the F-35 in a head to head, 1 on 1, vs any other modern dissimilar opponent.
In that case, the man should honestly wait for the aircraft to complete testing first and complete the SDD phase, as well as successfully complete IOT&E, before making such speculative and boasting comments.
6 comments:
You know, my patience is wearing mighty thin hearing what the F-35 "is" and "can do". I have no doubt that 10 years a few billion dollars from now it could be a great F-16 replacement, whatever that's worth then, but cripes fellas-- right "now" the plane is not combat capable whatsoever. Literally could not fire a shot in anger if the Constitution depended on it "now".
Eric, please keep up your vigil of tracking this sort of rhetoric. Someday I will expect a letter of apology in my mailbox from all these people.
And to add to what scoot7 said ^^ the USAF needs those F-16 replacements "now", as they were expecting F-35s this year -- at the latest -- achieving IOC, per USAF's original requirements!
Not starting in 6,7,8 yrs from "now"!
The whole premise of discontinuing procurement of new-build F-16 (replacing the older blocks) at the turn of the Century was that there was simply no need... ie, a few years could be skipped while waiting for F-35A IOC in 2012-2013 and while the F-22 would be replacing F-15s in adequate numbers.
Furthermore, by 2020, over 1,300 F-35A were to have been procured by the USAF alone -- so who needs a hundred or two costly new F-16s in the interim! Relax. Where is thy faith!
As far as expecting a letter of 'apology' however?? Don't count on it, hehe. These guys don't operate like that, remember! The blame will simply be put on sequestration, or financially austere budget environments, etc, that nobody would have guessed just 5-6 years ago, right? Cough...
The logic is simple: the F-35, if only just left alone by these dang fools in Congress, and left to track as it was originally destined to track, would flat out be the most dominant and successful fighter and acquisition strategy in history!
Hence, it's not the inherent F-35 Program's fault, our acquisition decision-making, or F-35 design's fault -- it's the politicians messing with production rates and the darn sequestration which nobody could have predicted and nobody can do anything about!
"if you went head to head with this airplane with any other airplane in the world with the capabilities that I know it has"
The capabilities he knows it has?
While discussing an airplane that's not yet combat capable. And that won't be for years to come.
Mindboggling.
So much for the thinking that Bogdan was going to restore any degree of sanity or clear thinking to that program.
I reckon it's all full of belony by LT. GENERAL CHRIS BOGDAN's faith-based argument, quoted:
"I tell you, it is a formidable airplane. I have no doubt if you went head to head with this airplane with any other airplane in the world with the capabilities that I know it has, it will do very, very well".
Absolutely laughable, a outlie and misleading.
" I have no doubt if you went head to head with this airplane with any other airplane in the world..."
Ignoring the fact that a mission ready F-35 isnt close to being completed, much less evaluated, this kind of thinking seems pretty...unimaginative. Questions of one on one matchups of plane x vs plane y are important, tactically. But to ask only that question is dangerous, especially when such questions can only be answered in combat or with loads of assumptions. I think its unwise to take pilots out of the equation. Its equally unwise to ignore tactics, as well as operational considerations like the ability to generate more sorties, the ability to decide when to enter, exit, and deny combat, or the ability to operate in less than ideal conditions.
Airfields and supply lines arent sacred, protected sanctuaries. With that and the above considerations, its also important to ask how many planes we can afford, and how quickly can we procure,'and if need be replace them. Opportunity cost also needs to be considered, not just for air forces but for the cost drag on other branches as well. If we would abandon high cost wishful thinking, we would also have the opportunity cost to train more. We really need more unscripted war gaming, and with various modes and methods to prevent our assumptions from becoming blindsides. Take the results of this and input it into affordable RnD, evolutionary designs and more test squadrons for op eval and more wargaming.
The F-15 and F-16 have great potential, much of which has already been researched. Invest in their common engine. Use that engine and off the shelf parts for new designs, at least as starting points, Im thinking a lifting bodied, fixed winged twin engine plane to give carrier battle groups thier range back, and that would have the range for our friends down under (speaking as a yank).
I know I dont know what Im talking about often (see above), but why are proffessionals like Bogdan looking at things more narrowly than an amatuer like me? Is it because thier sales people, more than generals?
Interesting quote indeed:
"if you went head to head with this airplane with any other airplane in the world with the capabilities that I know it has"
Did anyone else wonder if there was a comma missing?
A comma inserted into that statement could entirely change the meaning of the comment.
One has to seriously question the context therein of the actual view he intended to make.
That is, was the intended to say: That if he went up with other select aircraft worldwide with the capabilities that he knows about of said other aircraft?
Or was he saying... that he knows the true capabilities of the F-35, as well as the capabilities of the other aircraft worldwide which he is familiar with and that the F-35 would come out on top?
Those are two entirely different interpretations of reality depending on whether or not there is a strategically placed comma omitted or not!
My bet is that there was a comma unintentionally omitted in the original quotation and that he's claiming that he knows the true capabilities of the F-35 in a head to head, 1 on 1, vs any other modern dissimilar opponent.
In that case, the man should honestly wait for the aircraft to complete testing first and complete the SDD phase, as well as successfully complete IOT&E, before making such speculative and boasting comments.
Post a Comment