Pierre Sprey & Lt. Col David Berke debate

[Hummingbird]

The F-35 will end up working, no doubt, too much money is invested for that not to happen. But I also believe two seperate stealth aircraft tailored to a specific task would've not only resulted in better performance but also done so at a lower price tag to boot.

 

This jack of all trades way thinking is where they got it wrong IMHO, as it results in compromises having to made to the performance each role in order to make sure it will at all function in all of them.

[SkateZilla]

P-80, XB-70, F-14, F-15, F-16 F-22, B-2, Eurofighter, Avro Arrow, and those are just a couple of them.

 

Hold Up, Pause, Rewind,

Are you Saying the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-22A Didnt have such Problems? :lol:

[garrya]

Where did I ever say jamming doesn't benefit from low RCS? Show me my words where I said this specifically and I will apologize. Remember how you started that conversation, you were arguing against a guesstimate from a 3rd party video that I said was a reasonable guess. You then proceed to attack that video to try to prove that you know better than me somehow.

At no point did I ever say low RCS does not make jamming easier.

 

Everyone has their guesstimates about how low RCS works with regards to jamming.

It started with you posted the video #53 saying it gives an idea of a realistic picture. Then i said that i don't think you were serious because the video have too many bias points and i pointed them out in post #57. Then in #60, you said that we don't know the real picture because everything are classified, so my guess is only as good as the video. In post #82 i disagreed with you on the ground that while real performance of the military system are classified, the video did get so many simple facts wrong, and i also listed them.

 

In #92 you separate out a very small part from my earlier comment about jamming and said that iam entitled to my opinion but thousands of hours of working the Hornet radar and your advanced master's course in radar theory and operation tell you that you know what you talking about. The wording and the fact that you mentioned your radar theory course clearly shows that you disagreed with that specific statement. So either your opinion is that lower RCS doesn't affect jamming or that it makes jamming harder. Both option surprise me

 

In #97, i explained that while iam not a naval student, i do read alot of book and studies about radar and also fortunate enough to talk to several F-16 pilots and a SAM operator about jamming and RCS, i even quoted them and state where i got my statement from. I didn't try to attack you or to prove that i know better than you, but rather politely ask you to point out where iam wrong in my statement and educate me on why because iam very surprised when you seem to disagree with that specific comments. Since radar is what im interested in, i quite eager to learn where am wrong.

 

In #100

you said that my 2 and 3 hand knowledge is not enough to disqualify your statement. Thus, in post #102 , i explained that i didn't try to disqualify your statement but rather your statement in #92 go against all theories i ever learned, all equations, as well as statements of various people with first-hand knowledge that i talked to. Thus, i wanted an explanation as to why do you think my statement is wrong. Then i made an analogy explained my point of view and why do i want an explanation rather than just statement.

 

In #104, you said my analogy is off and made an analogy about F-35 development and Sprey, which iam pretty sure not the focus of my posts even since the start. I rarely even mentioned him.

 

And now that you said that you didn't disagree with my statement, make me very confused.

 

P/s: I linked all post to these numbers so you can just click on them to recap it.

 

 

I never said it was wrong to side with Berke, go look at my original post, I said both sides of the debate had good points. What was wrong was attacking Sprey like he was some idiot who didn't know what he was talking about and taking Berke's word as gospel.

May be it is just my feeling but you did seem very aggressive when anyone criticizes Sprey opinion

 

 

You keep spitting out these numbers and references like it's some hidden knowledge that clearly spey would never know about when in fact I am pretty confident he has been privy to all the classified numbers for the F16, A10, F15 and F117 back when he was active in the industry.

Actually, i never implied that aircraft kinematic performance are some hidden knowledge. In fact, flight manual data of Mig-21, Mig-29, Su-27, Mig-23, F-4, Mig-25, Mirage 2000, F-16A/B, F-16C/D, F-15A, F-15C, F-15E, F-14A, F-14D , F-18A/B/C, F-18E/F are all available to download even for an average Joe. So anyone wants to compare the turn rate of these aircraft or to know what are the combat radius in a certain condition, what are the acceleration rate.. etc. He/she can open the manual and check for charts, diagram. Pilot can remember wrong or being bias but test data doesn't lie

Just in case you think iam lying, iam not, it is very easy to have access to supposedly restricted information in this day and age.

 

 

You have to put yourself in the shoe of forum readers. To begin with, we are on the internet, anyone can claim to be anyone, it is very hard to know for certain if a person is who they claimed to be, so people on here will be more likely to challenge your opinions than in real life. You shouldn't feel offended with that. Furthermore, even in real life, let say people know for sure that you are a pilot and what not, the "informed expert opinion" argument will be able to stand for itself only if there isn't any other expert of similar or higher skills and experience oppose your view point. In other words, if all experts agree on one thing then the average Joe will happily accept it, even if he don't understand why. For example: all scientists agree that nothing can go faster than light, an average person will accept it even if he don't understand the physics. Because, in his mind, all these scientists spend billions of dollars studies and researching every year, if they all agree then it couldn't be wrong.

On the other hand, for an issue that has conflicting opinions between experts (such as the one we discussing now), then obviously appeal to authority is simply not enough anymore, you have to actually represent your case, an average person will trust the expert who can present a more reasonable, logical explanation or preferably some number and calculation to prove his point. So now you understand why i want you to explain your case instead of talking about your occupation? It is not to prove that iam better than you, but rather the fact that these are many other experts that have different opinions from you so obviously i would want you to giving some evidence to support your point.

Anyway, iam not spitting these numbers or references as a way to show off. I quoted them as a mean to support my point. I mean how else do i support my point if not through numbers and source?. I already stated at the start that iam not a pilot so i can't just say a statement and leave it there, expect people to take my words

.Basically, Sprey said that F-35 will be defeated by Mig-21 easily in a dogfight while F-35 test pilots said that in a dogfight he can fight F-15 and F-16 on equal footing. Who should i believe ?. On one hand, the F-35 pilots are the one who actually fly and have the experience with the aircraft. On the other hand, they could be biased toward their own aircraft. So what do i do?. i asked 2 different aero engineers to make an analysis based on F-16 flight manual data and F-35 KPP. They both explained their analysis in great detail, step by step. Their results doesn't support Sprey statement. People can be bias but number don't lie.Physics and Maths doesn't change just because you feel like it. So either that Sprey does not know that F-35 kinematics in dogfight is far better than Mig-21(less likely) or he made the statement just because it is catchy and he feel like it. Both options will damage his credibility and make him an unreliable source for me to get information from

You keep trying to compare the F16 as a bomber when Sprey would be the first to tell you it's a terrible bomber. The team he was a part of originally designed the F16 as a day-only air superiority fighter so of course it's a terrible bomber and to compare it to the F35 just makes the F35 look just as bad.

A great bomber is the B52, a great bomber is the B2 and a great in-close ground support aircraft is the A10, and an adequate maritime bomber is the F/A18. The F35 is none of these (still needs development to match the f18 bomber role) nor is the F16 multi-role variant. This is where Sprey is coming from.

Sprey wanted the F-16 to be a day only fighter without radar, but it became something different. Nevertheless, F-16 take on the strike aircraft role in many air forces and it does the job well enough (as in still the most popular multi role aircraft, more popular than Mirage or F-18 or Mig-29). Anyway, F-35 was designed to replace F-16, AV-8B ,A-10 and F-18C so comparing it with B-52 or B-2 in bomber role is TBH rather ridiculous, F-35 is not in the same class and was never ever meant to replace either B-52 or B-2. If you complain that F-35 don't have the range or the bomb load of B-2 , B-52 then you may as well complain that it doesn't shot laser as far as YAL-1, fly as fast as Mig-31 or has radar as big as an E-3.

Furthermore, i don't understand why you would consider F-18 to be an adequate marine bomber while F-35 isn't. If the situation requires stealth, F-35 can carry 8 SDB or 2 JDAM/ JSM internally. If situation requires stealth then F-18A/C cannot even operate. 8 bombs > 0 bombs

 

If stealth isn't needed (their SAM aren't that good, or your support jamming are very good ..etc) then F-35 can carry more bombs than F-18A/C ( more pylons) while having bigger radar and can fly longer distance, so why wouldn't it be adequate?

 

 

Sure it might match the F16 but let's face it the F16 design is 40+years old.

But nothing beat an early block F-16 block 30 sustained turn rate at sea level yet, not even Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen according to their airshow performance. There was also a Eurofighter pilot who said F-16 is very evenly match with Typhoon below 10k feet, so why is it so bad just matching F-16 performance?

 

 

 

I mean just run a video comparison of the recent air demos of the F35, Su35 and now T50 (look at my earlier post with the link), it doesn't take a genius to see who is winning in maneuverability. I could care less if they are all slick with 5% fuel in the tanks, there is clearly a difference among the planes.

I actually just did.

For post stall maneuver, logically aircraft with TVC will be better so i will only compare conventional maneuver.

In video below, PAK-FA started a vertical loop at 8:45 and finished it at 8:52, the loop took 7 seconds to finish

 

In video below, F-35 started a vertical loop at 3:27 and finished it at 3:34, the loop took 7 seconds to finish

 

In the video below, F-35 started a vertical loop at 1:54 and finished at 2, the loop took around 6 second to finish

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S85cyE-BIJQ&feature=youtu.be

 

They are approximately the same, so i don't think F-35 agility is really that terrible.

 

Do yourself a favor and go read the details of the unclassified DOD document that someone else posted on this thread here

I did, F-35 does suffer from delays and bugs, but so does all modern aircraft such as Rafale, Eurofighter, PAK-FA ,hardly a special case. Now, you will say that Sprey is spot on again and we should only have very simple fighters no more of those EW, DAS.. etc, just refined of the basics. So i want to argue that while more modern and complex systems will always take longer to develop, they will provide better capabilities. For example: let consider a knife versus a gun.A gun can attack from distance but it requires much higher technology. A knife is much cheaper, work in all environments, a knife won't overheat , you can run out of bullet but you can't run out of stab, a knife is much more quiet, knife attack are much more unlikely to friendly fire.. etc. Based on all those points it would sound like a knife is a better thing to equip our marine. But we all know it is better to be armed with a gun in the battlefield.

 

The rest of the world? Nah, just the armchair experts with 0 flying experience, 0 training, 0 industry schooling and who are quick to dismiss an industry veteran as an idiot because they don't agree with him and who feel they know just as much as a career military pilot/acquisitions officer."

i don't think this is a reasonable argument. If only people here disagree with you then it is one thing. But there are various informed people who support the F-35 , not just the pilots testing it but many old fighters pilots veterans. It is not just the internet crowd that doesn't like the Sprey

Moreover there are dozens of countries that purchase F-35 instead of Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, F-16, F-18E or F-15. I don't believe that none of those countries have their own consultants, engineers to assess F-35 real capabilities.

And with all due respect if your only argument is that you are a pilot and therefore you know better than us, then there is no need to reply, because there are others pilots, engineer who have opinions literally opposite of you. They also have their own share of education and first hand experience so their opinions worth just as much as your. Why should we trust you more if others experts elaborate their point in details and evidence and you don't?

Edited August 15, 2017 by garrya

[Majinbot]

IMHO the biggest issue of the F-35 is conceptual: thinking of making a single aircraft that was a fighter, a bomber, a Close Air Support aircraft that could land on a aircraft carrier or that could take off vertically. Too many design compromises.

[garrya]

 

 

P-80, XB-70, F-14, F-15, F-16 F-22, B-2, Eurofighter, Avro Arrow, and those are just a couple of them.

AFAIK,

Eurofighter have a massive delay trying to integrate modern equipment such as the AESA and digital receiver as well as some AH weapons promised at the start. It also have a fair share of issues with cost overrun

https://m.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/

F-14 had the same engine fan rubbing problem as F-35

F-16 had problems with its vertical tail and FBW early in the program

B-2 is massively expensive and a hangar queen

https://mobile.nytimes.com/1997/08/23/world/the-2-billion-stealth-bomber-can-t-go-out-in-the-rain.html

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/america-has-20-stealth-bombers-guess-how-many-can-fly-right-now-9f0575cd52ff

F-22 had massive delay, is a hangar queen and very expensive also

The Russian PAK-FA is not immune from delay either, it also recently have the engine fan rubbing problem and results in the burn of one aircraft

Edited August 15, 2017 by garrya

[probad]

which contractor did this guy work for again?

[Exorcet]

P-80, XB-70, F-14, F-15, F-16 F-22, B-2, Eurofighter, Avro Arrow, and those are just a couple of them.

 

I'm pretty sure all the teen series had at least one major issue. I know that the F-18 had vertical stabs failing way earlier than they were supposed to (hence the LERX fence). The F-16 oddly enough had issues with taxiing where it couldn't bring idle thrust low enough to taxi at a safe speed. It sounds like the kind of thing media would love to run about the F-35 nowadays.

 

I don't know how the F-22 gets on your list, it's practically a twin to the F-35 development wise, except so far the order for the F-35 wasn't arbitrarily and shortsightedly cut. The pilot oxygen issue was all over the news too. Did it also have the software crash when crossing the international dateline or was that something else?

 

 

IMHO the biggest issue of the F-35 is conceptual: thinking of making a single aircraft that was a fighter, a bomber, a Close Air Support aircraft that could land on a aircraft carrier or that could take off vertically. Too many design compromises.

The F-16 and F-18 show that it's a least a tractable issue there. The F-35 could potentially do it even better than them given it was designed with all these things in mind from the outset and split into 3 versions.

[Tirak]

The F-16 oddly enough had issues with taxiing where it couldn't bring idle thrust low enough to taxi at a safe speed.

 

Still can't, she rolls and accelerates on idle if you don't have the brakes on. Instructions to the pilot are when the speed reaches a certain point to give hard braking to slow the aircraft down, as opposed to riding the brakes which induces more wear.

 

 

I'm just wondering how he figures the Valkyrie had a clean test record given that the wake vortex was so powerful when the wings were drooped, that on a demonstration flight it sucked in the chase plane and destroyed both aircraft.

 

 

Also:

The XB-70's maiden flight was on 21 September 1964.[81] In the first flight test, between Palmdale and Edwards AFB, one engine had to be shut down shortly after take-off, and an undercarriage malfunction warning meant that the flight was flown with the undercarriage down as a precaution, limiting speed to 390 mph - about half that planned.[82] During landing, the rear wheels of the port side main gear locked, the tires ruptured, and a fire started.

 

The video of this landing is truly spectacular:

 

https://theaviationist.com/2015/12/09/xb-70-rare-emergency-video/

[Vincent90]

Brush up on your reading skills, then try again :)

[aaron886]

Those older planes had no where near the amount of issues that the F35 has (and the F22 for that matter). We are talking orders of magnitude amounts of issues that are causing headaches in congress and the services. Just look at the DOD 2016 assessment doc that is floating around now. After reading it, I couldn't believe how many things it has wrong still and it's been in initial production now for at least 2 years. This is disturbing.

Without a doubt, an inauspicious start. I think the extensive concurrency in the F-35's design tends to magnify the number of problems when combined with the broad requirements. When you look at the capabilities of the originally fielded F-16A compared to the Block 15 delivered 3 years later, the first delivered jets look like prototypes. I think the F-35 is facing the same struggle in some areas, but part of the challenge is that the baseline IOT&E requirement is much broader than last generation's multi-role jets. In short, delivering a true multi-role airplane should be expected to take a while. It took the Hornet and Viper years to get where they are today, and we're asking the F-35 to do that from day 1.

 

The more defendable counter-argument, of course, is that we should not ask the F-35 to do that many missions to begin with. That's why I wonder if it's part of the natural progression of strike aviation toward the "quarterback" role that 5th gen guys are playing with right now.

 

I can't tell you how uncomfortable I feel knowing that the F35 is suppose to be it when it comes to air superiority for the Navy. This is very disappointing. I can live with the F35 being the bomber(escort fighter) of the Navy.

We'll adapt!

 

But for the Navy, we will have a serious problem when the E/Fs finally phase out due to metal fatigue and maintenance costs. Although I don't think the E was ever a true replacement for the Tomcat, my gut feeling is it would fair better overall since it's better rounded as a fighter than the F35.

 

I mean just run a video comparison of the recent air demos of the F35, Su35 and now T50 (look at my earlier post with the link), it doesn't take a genius to see who is winning in maneuverability. I could care less if they are all slick with 5% fuel in the tanks, there is clearly a difference among the planes.

The latter is undeniable! Whether the Rhino is more well-rounded may be tough to say, but it's certainly more mature. Thanks for your replies!

Edited August 15, 2017 by aaron886

[neofightr]

.... And with all due respect if your only argument is that you are a pilot and therefore you know better than us, then there is no need to reply, because there are others pilots, engineer who have opinions literally opposite of you. They also have their own share of education and first hand experience so their opinions worth just as much as your. Why should we trust you more if others experts elaborate their point in details and evidence and you don't?

 

It is obvious you are passionate about your academic experience and I am not disqualifying that, all I am saying is that there is more to it than academic knowledge.

 

I already said I am in a unique position because not only was I a pilot but I served time in acquisitions and in communications for Navy.

 

I have insight into the tactical, administrative and technical worlds of the Navy.

 

As I keep stating, the more complex the project the more prone to setbacks and failure both in development and operation. This is one of Sprey's big sticking points that you choose to gloss over.

 

You try to make the demo videos appear identical but let me show you what I am talking about when having pilot experience watching the videos.

 

Take a real good look at the F35 video, if you look carefully you will see pitch bucking when the pilot attempts hard pulls. This is indicative of an unrefined design and flight computers still in a rough state something you did not see or point out because you didn't recognize it.

 

You don't see that with the Russian jets because their designs are based on refinement and an evolution of a proven platform plus it's no where near as complex of a machine.

 

Just imagine what kind of interceptor we would have based on an established design like the tomcat. Given the same dev time and resources of the F35, we would be at tomcat v4.0, lean, smaller, ultra-modern take of a proven design that would seriously fire up a solid vs. debate on the new russian T50. Now that would have been an awesome comparison.

 

Your knife/gun analogy is off..

We aren't talking knives and guns here we are talking a basic gun vs. a fancy, password encoded computer controlled gun-like weapon device that still needs a lot of work before it can work and once it does, has a good chance on failing you at the worst possible time when that basic gun is pointed at your head and is about to be fired.

 

It is clear you are passionate with your academic prowess of the topic so let's leave it at that.

[neofightr]

I'm pretty sure all the teen series had at least one major issue. I know that the F-18 had vertical stabs failing way earlier than they were supposed to (hence the LERX fence). The F-16 oddly enough had issues with taxiing where it couldn't bring idle thrust low enough to taxi at a safe speed. It sounds like the kind of thing media would love to run about the F-35 nowadays.

 

I don't know how the F-22 gets on your list, it's practically a twin to the F-35 development wise, except so far the order for the F-35 wasn't arbitrarily and shortsightedly cut. The pilot oxygen issue was all over the news too. Did it also have the software crash when crossing the international dateline or was that something else?

 

The F-16 and F-18 show that it's a least a tractable issue there. The F-35 could potentially do it even better than them given it was designed with all these things in mind from the outset and split into 3 versions.

 

As I have stated from the start, all programs have issues but not at the sheer scale that both the F22 and F35 programs have.

 

As a result we have the F22 program completely shutdown well short of it's original production numbers and the F35 mired in controversy in DC. We have senators already throwing the "too big to fail" moniker at it and a final price tag that is still in the air decades after design.

 

Already at least one F35 program manager has been fired and all milestones continue to slip to the right.

 

In the history of air acquisitions I know of only one other program that had the potential to be in this much trouble and that was the A12. Thankfully that was responsibly shut-down before it drained too much in resources.

[neofightr]

...In short, delivering a true multi-role airplane should be expected to take a while. It took the Hornet and Viper years to get where they are today, and we're asking the F-35 to do that from day 1.

 

The more defendable counter-argument, of course, is that we should not ask the F-35 to do that many missions to begin with. That's why I wonder if it's part of the natural progression of strike aviation toward the "quarterback" role that 5th gen guys are playing with right now.

 

The latter is undeniable! Whether the Rhino is more well-rounded may be tough to say, but it's certainly more mature. Thanks for your replies!

 

Surely you would agree that both the F16 and F18 (F17) came from designs that were radically different from the multi-role they eventually became, so naturally it took a while to sort it all out.

 

The F35 from it's inception had a clear mandate of what it was suppose to be but mission creep and mandatory changes (caused by branch requirements) threw a huge wrench into the works.

 

In my opinion this should have stopped the program right then and there and forced the designers to go back to the drawing board and come up with specific unique designs for each branch vice trying to save money on a common-frame design that clearly didn't happen in the end anyway.

 

Frankly it would have been better for the industry to have had the big 3(LM,Boeing,Grumman) each have an assigned branch in meeting the needs of a new platform. It would have been efficient to have looked at each company's experience and strengths and assign them to the appropriate branch (Grumman for Navy, Boeing for Marines and LM for air force).

 

If you take into account the sheer amount of resources so far taken by the F35, I am confident that taking a 3 pronged contractor approach for today's needs would have been around the same ballpark in costs. And we would be reaping the benefits of hassle-free cutting edge performance and capability when compared to the F35 fiasco.

 

Why? Competition of course, each company would have had their reputations on the line to come up with the best product for their respective branch.

 

Although I suspect that LM would have learned it's lessons with the F22 when focusing on a product for the Air force only.

 

I agree it's a stretch to call the Rhino an interceptor but *compared to the F35* I stand by my opinion of well rounded (close/medium/long range capabilities plus tanking plus EW plus maritime (mines)).

[Basher54321]

 

Just imagine what kind of interceptor we would have based on an established design like the tomcat. Given the same dev time and resources of the F35, we would be at tomcat v4.0, lean, smaller, ultra-modern take of a proven design that would seriously fire up a solid vs. debate on the new russian T50. Now that would have been an awesome comparison.

 

 

If LockMart built it then Sprey would still be appearing on the Fifth Estate to declare it a Turkey regardless, and this discussion wouldn't have changed one bit. ;)

 

He would have had a lot of material to use from his attempts to stop the first F-14 in the 70s.!

 

 

Can you specify where you think Berke in the video is misleading the general public audience?

[SkateZilla]

talking about delays..

 

didnt the PAK-FA program get put on hold for a while do to Government Budget?

[Basher54321]

Info on a Russian website I saw suggested the government had announced there would be 12 prototypes in service by 2020 for whatever that's worth - think they still need to get some new engines don't they?

 

Would have thought J-20 & J-31 stealth fighters were bigger threats - considering China's growing financial power!

[SkateZilla]

Info on a Russian website I saw suggested the government had announced there would be 12 prototypes in service by 2020 for whatever that's worth - think they still need to get some new engines don't they?

 

Would have thought J-20 & J-31 stealth fighters were bigger threats - considering China's growing financial power!

 

naw.. we gotta worry about them F-313s.. :megalol:

[RaceFuel85]

talking about delays..

 

didnt the PAK-FA program get put on hold for a while do to Government Budget?

 

It's had an issue or two.

 

But it did recently get it's official designation of Su-57.

 

So there's that.

[neofightr]

More competition for the F35 and F22.

 

 

Mig-35 :book:

[Kev2go]

Thought this would be relevant ( if this hasnt' been shared already at some point in time here in the forums)

 

 

this essay is worth reading. re Evolution of aviation design/philosophy post Vietnam era, based on lessons learned, as well the Influence and Flaws in the thinking of the so called "Reformers", which were really more akin to "Critics" ( notably Pierre SPrey")

 

https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

Edited August 16, 2017 by Kev2go

[garrya]

It is obvious you are passionate about your academic experience and I am not disqualifying that, all I am saying is that there is more to it than academic knowledge.

I already said I am in a unique position because not only was I a pilot but I served time in acquisitions and in communications for Navy.

I have insight into the tactical, administrative and technical worlds of the Navy.

Iam not trying to dismiss your insight, I know there are more to it than academic knowledge But i merely want to argue because it is actually rare for me to have a chance to talk to pilot that have similar opinion with Sprey. Hence, iam interest to know why do you have different view point from others pilots or engineers i have the chance to talk to. It is always good to hear reasoning

 

 

As I keep stating, the more complex the project the more prone to setbacks and failure both in development and operation. This is one of Sprey's big sticking points that you choose to gloss over.

Iam not trying to gloss over the fact that more complex project are more prone to bugs and delays. But i wanted to argue that various problems with F-35 are blown ways out of proportion by Sprey and general media alike. For example, everyone acts like F-35 is a stealth C-130 that as soon as BVR missiles, stealth, HOBS missiles, and DAS stop working, it will be whipped by even Mig-21. But we know from KPP analyze, flight manual, airshows, and pilots testimony that F-35 nearly match F-16 STR, with very good subsonic acceleration (better than Su-35), and better post stall agility than F-18E. Fine, it isn't as agile and fancy as an F-22 but it is not that terrible.

 

I would also want to argue that having separate aircraft for each purpose is not necessarily much cheaper while will cause various problems

For example:

Let say instead of an F-35B, you make a pure fighter, a pure CAS aircraft and a pure STOVL aircraft.

A pure fighter such as original F-15C cost 30 million USD in 1998, adjusted for inflation, it would cost around 45 millions USD today, and as we know, this F-15 doesn't have AESA radar, digital RWR, internal jammer, an IRST or stealth. The cost of these added things could easily be 10-20 millions USD.This is a very conservative estimate because the cost to keep current F-15 fleet fly beyond 2020 could easily be 30-40 millions per aircraft. http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/center-fuselage-rebuild-could-be-f-15cd-achilles-heel

So we ended up with a fighter that cost 55-65 millions USD at the very minimum. Much more likely that it will cost 80-100 millions USD

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=13&year1=199401&year2=201707

 

A pure STOVL aircraft such as AV-8B cost 30 millions in 1996, adjusted for inflation, it would cost around 38-47.5 million USD today.

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=13&year1=199401&year2=201707

 

A pure CAS aircraft such as A-10 cost around 26.6 millions in today dollars

http://controversialtimes.com/politics/brrrrrrt-amazing-facts-about-americas-favorite-plane-the-a-10-warthog-videos/

 

 

Instead of buying an F-35B which cost 122.8 millions USD according to LRIP 10, not full production yet. You have the cost of modern (F-15C + A-10 + AV-8B) combined which is around 121.6 - 174 millions USD. This is still conservative estimate because obviously a modern version of any of these aircraft can easily cost a great deal more if they want to make them very good. For example: F-22, a pure fighter that cost even more than the multi role F-35

Furthermore, 3 separate aircraft instead of one will require 3 different production line/chain. They will need different replaceable parts and pilots for different aircraft will need to be trained differently as well.

 

Then there is the economy of scale, this apply for any business not only in the military field. Higher unit of product will drive the cost down due to the spread of fixed cost. One of the main problem with single role fighter is that it would be very hard to find buyers for them. Not many governments willing to spend loads of money on aircraft that can only do a single role. Even if they do, they won't purchase them in high quantity

For example

Mig-25/Mig-31 are superb interceptors, they are fast, have long range missiles and big radars. How many countries bought them and at what quantity compared to Su-27/30/35 series?

 

F-15C is an awesome fighter agile,big radar, can carry load of missiles , it is also much cheaper than F-15E and its variations. However, F-15C has half the amount of customers that F-15E does.

 

A-10 is a good CAS aircraft, however it is bought exclusively by USA, all others countries are happy with multi-role aircraft doing CAS.

 

 

 

 

 

Moreover, cost problem aside, there are the logistic problem with single role aircraft. For the sake of simplification: let imagine an aircraft carrier that can always carry 90 aircraft irrelevant of their size. If you have 3 different kinds of aircraft such as a dedicated bomber, a dedicated CAS, a dedicated fighter. Then technically, you can have 30 of each kind. On the otherhand, if you have multirole aircraft then you can have 90 fighters/bombers/CAS at the same time. Let say if the mission is to achieve air superiority then the side with multirole fighter can put up many more fighters on the air. If the mission is to attack structures then they can also put up many more bombers on the air ..etc. It is fair to say that a single role aircraft can do that specific job better since it requires less trade off. But 3 times better? I highly doubt that.

 

 

 

 

 

You try to make the demo videos appear identical but let me show you what I am talking about when having pilot experience watching the videos.

 

Take a real good look at the F35 video, if you look carefully you will see pitch bucking when the pilot attempts hard pulls. This is indicative of an unrefined design and flight computers still in a rough state something you did not see or point out because you didn't recognize it.

 

You don't see that with the Russian jets because their designs are based on refinement and an evolution of a proven platform plus it's no where near as complex of a machine.

I tried to find a part where they did similar maneuver for ease of comparison but you are right, i didn't pay much attention to pitch of the F-35 in video, anyway since i only know the theory and manual data, but lack first-hand experience, i took your comment and the video to an aerodynamic engineer, and a F-16 pilot, here are their comments: (On their behalf, i apologize before hand for their harsh language)

From the aero engineer

Oh boy. Okay let's start with understanding what pitch bucking is.

 

"Phenomena in which a canard fore-plane stalls, pushing the nose down. This nose-down movement reduces the angle of attack, resulting in the aircraft recovering from the stall and the nose pitching back. This process is repeated again and again."

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/pitch+bucking

 

So, first of all it is an uncommanded change in pitch. Secondly, it related to something going in and out of stall. I have had this happen in canard designs of mine in X-Plane.

 

Watch the second video as the quality is much higher. You will only see pitching to stall conditions at the top of the square loop and in the power loop. What you see is smooth and rapid increase in pitch. You also see the tails moving all the time. There are several moments in the video where the nose seems to drop slightly but these all occur at low AoA and all have an associated pitch movement of the tail. These look more like the pilot is trying to be precise in his flight path control

 

"oops, I need to be at 10 degrees, I'm at 13, let me back off real quick."

 

In order for this to be bucking we would have to know absolutely that the pilot is holding steady aft stick and the nose oscillates out of his control. We simply don't have this information, and trying to imply this based on unsteady handheld camera footage of a pilot maneuvering in a confined space following an exacting regimen is foolish. Does anyone else remember when the F-22 demo procedure was posted? How each maneuver had specified limits of speed, G, AoA, and altitude that had to be met? If the pilot was on the verge of exceeding any of those values they would have to modify their control inputs to correct themselves.

 

These are not "Pull back on the stick and don't stop until your nose is vertical. Climb for a bit then pull back all the way on the stick and then kick the pedal to begin yaw. Hold until rotation is complete" maneuvers.

 

They are "With an entry altitude of 1,000 AGL and speed between 300 and 325 knots indicated, increase pitch to 25 units unit the flight path is at 90 degrees above the horizon. Continue vertical flight until a minimum altitude of 5,000ft AGL is achieved with airspeed between 160 and 180 knots. Increase pitch to 50 units until nose passes back through the vertical and is 30 degrees below the horizon as indicated by the HUD. At this time Maximum Right Pedal input is to be used to initiate the pedal turn. Yaw command is to be terminated upon completion of 360 heading change or altitude reaches 2,000 AGL, whichever occurs first. Recovery is achieved by neutralizing pedal input and reducing pitch to 8 units. Note: If initial pitch exceeds 30 units, maneuver is to be terminated as airspeed will be below 160 knots by 5,000 AGL and airspeed/altitude will be insufficient to safely complete the pedal turn."

 

Now while I made up the details what I did not make up is the level of detail and number of factors that go into these maneuvers.

 

The only time it looks to "buck" from a more loaded condition is the initiation of the vertical maneuvers, or I should say the culmination of the initiation; when the pilot is commanding zero angle of attack from a more heavily loaded angle of attack and the plane responds rapidly. Remember what Dolby said about the ability of the F-35 to pitch down from high AoA?

 

In short, I see no evidence of bucking, and even if there were you would need confirmation from the pilot that it was not their attempt of precise pitch control.

 

From F-16 pilot

 

 

 

Just imagine what kind of interceptor we would have based on an established design like the tomcat. Given the same dev time and resources of the F35, we would be at tomcat v4.0, lean, smaller, ultra-modern take of a proven design that would seriously fire up a solid vs. debate on the new russian T50. Now that would have been an awesome comparison.

But the question is why? why would we need/want a new interceptor or a modern version of F-14?.

F-14 was designed as a fleet interceptor: has long range missiles, good radar, can fly very fast but it wasn't a good dogfighter as F-16. It is also a very complex, maintenance heavy aircraft with all these electrics and swing wing. In other words, it has the exact same problems as the F-35, that Sprey and you just criticized. Namely, not focused in close combat, heavy maintenance, way too complex and likely to be very expensive

Moreover, as far as i know the need for F-14 style interceptor is no longer there. It was intended to shotdown bombers before they attack the carrier.But nowadays Aegis defense offers much better reaction time.Furthermore modern AsHm out range air to air missiles by a great margin anyway. Kh-22 can fly for 600 km, 3M-54 Klub can fly for 600-1000 km, I mean even the JSM that fit inside F-35 has 550 km range, while missiles like LRASM will have 1000 km range. Bombers and strikers can launch missiles toward aircraft carrier group and fly aways before interceptors can stop them

Edited August 16, 2017 by garrya

[neofightr]

Iam not trying to dismiss your insight, I know there are more to it than academic knowledge But i merely want to argue because it is actually rare for me to have a chance to talk to pilot that have similar opinion with Sprey. Hence, iam interest to know why do you have different view point from others pilots or engineers i have the chance to talk to. It is always good to hear reasoning

 

......

I tried to find a part where they did similar maneuver for ease of comparison but you are right, i didn't pay much attention to pitch of the F-35 in video, anyway since i only know the theory and manual data, but lack first-hand experience, i took your comment and the video to an aerodynamic engineer, and a F-16 pilot, here are their comments: (On their behalf, i apologize before hand for their harsh language)

From the aero engineer

 

 

From F-16 pilot

 

You are very resourceful with your background checks and yes you are very much and very badly trying to dismiss my insight by throwing an unreal amount of slides and numbers at me for a gaming message board and you have been doing this from the very first post. Bottom line it's your opinion and I have mine. To be fair your efforts are impressive and mature compared to others. By the way you are echoing the argument that the Navy (dominate voices) had back in the 90s when they decided to go down the JSF route and avoid specialized aircraft.

 

I have no idea what the aero engineer is getting at with his diatribe.

 

Now the F16 bubba I get. I agree with what the F16 pilot says about where pitch bucking is seen because the last aircraft that I had to deal with the phenomenon was indeed the T45A back in the mid-90s.

 

No need to apologize for the harsh language since it's clear I am being presented to them as a fake entity. So I would expect the assumption to show through.

 

Surprised the F16 bubba didn't comment on why the F35 pilot decided to pull then let up then pull again. To me like I said in my original point tells me something is off, either you have a rookie pilot showcasing the demo (highly doubt it) or something is off with the flight computers or control surfaces and the pilot is allowing things to settle before engaging in a follow-on high g maneuver. And if he is following some kind of parameter entry criteria, then this would be a restriction that shouldn't be there (based on a slick , light fuel load configuration at full burner) and clearly shows an unrefined product. But don't take my word for it, just look at that DOD doc again, I don't think the trusted experts can argue the ready state of the aircraft after looking at that doc.

Could I be wrong about the perceived pitch buck, sure, but still there is something off and I doubt it's pilot's experience and rehearsal time.

 

Oh and for the record fly-by-wire can and will fail (or be off), I almost died when my hornet FCS decided to put one of my flaps down and locked at 10k ft, which caused me to depart as I was in a turn with a full bag of gas, I did my recovery procedures and as I was pulling to the horizon it decides to depart again, I finally figured out that I had to deviate from my recovery procedures to keep from departing again and thankfully I leveled off at 5k just barely avoiding ejection criteria for departed flight.

 

Neither Betty nor the FCS page indicated anything wrong during my pre-flight checks with the plane captain on the ground, in fact it wasn't until after I recovered did Betty chime in "Flight controls" and the FCS page indicated a full down flap.

 

All this happened with a tried and true lot 10 F18C that had been working in the fleet for at least 4000hrs and no recent updates to the software to induce a bug etc. My CO had me brief the ready room on how I needed to deviate from NATOPS and why. And let's just say there were a lot of questions and the safety officer was grateful to have me share my experience (and to see me come back in one piece).

 

But here, let me help save you the trouble of trying to continue to prove that I am a fake (and bothering other trusted entities elsewhere) on this message board,

 

I hereby declare that I am a fake F18C pilot with close to 2000 flight hours, with combat missions during operation southern watch and and a fake air war medal. This fake naval officer had the unique experience of two careers in the Navy thanks to a medical condition that took me out of the cockpit and allowed me to learn the other side of the fence in acquisitions and communications technology.

 

I also declare that all my opinions, educated guesses and predictions are 100% fake.

 

There now you don't have to keep trying to get the other real-world experts to go on record declaring that I am fake. :)

 

-fake F18 pilot

Edited August 16, 2017 by neofightr

[neofightr]

Oh and one more thing, the next time you go talking to the viper pilot, make sure he understands at no time did I ever attack the reputation of a known pilot.

 

I have made general comments on dev test and op test pilots (mostly flattering) but that's it.

 

One of the trolls on this thread tried to get me to attack Berke's rep but I didn't go there.

 

Just making that clear.

 

-fake Hornet pilot

Edited August 16, 2017 by neofightr

[Majinbot]

I do not understand all this hate, just for an airplane. Everyone has their opinions. I understand that many want to defend a military vehicle of their homeland. Attacking a pilot that has already proven to be real, it's all at the expense of the forum. His knowledge is precious.

 

And of course I'm sure that this message will be deleted ...again

[Basher54321]

One of the trolls on this thread tried to get me to attack Berke's rep but I didn't go there.

 

 

It was a genuine question - don't cry about it jeez.

 

Got any more You Tube troll/flame videos to show us? - if I was modding here you would have been gone a long time ago! even if you are genuine.

 

You have totally embarrassed yourself with your arrogant assumptions, non arguments and behavior.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Basher54321