"Opposition defends Joint Strike Fighter over simulated dogfights"

[Groove]

Before this thread turns into a fanboy orgy' date=' did anyone read anything more about this, or is it only in the Australian and Dutch media? All I could find on google was this: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.malaysia/browse_thread/thread/2911e8756d10682e/2bd5b0812651d5e8?lnk=raot&pli=1[/quote']

 

This won't get onto a fanboi war because we won't go OFF-TOPIC.

 

As soon as i have more infos about it i'll post it here.

[Vekkinho]

It was a simulation but we know no parameters, I'm having a hard time believing it was a BVR simulation especially if it was a sales presentation to Aussie chaps!

 

Stealth means nothing if WVR, so having 3 Super Flankers chasing single JFS would produce such outcome!

 

Also there's an assupmtion of Flankers superior radar! Which one is that?!

[nscode]

When you have numbers, BVR will end up WVR anyway

[Case]

Ok, there appears to be a lot of JSF bashing going on at the moment...

 

Australian article about the wargames:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/09/11/1220857689496.html

Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN1928742920080919?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Newspaper from Fort Worth, where the JSF is built:

http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/916882.html

Summary of a report in Janes Defence:

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4370&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm

 

I haven't read all of it, but sofar it looks as if there are more fanboys out there :megalol:

[Groove]

"at the moment" wasn't the right term :)

[GGTharos]

If the name 'Carlo Kopp' appears anywhere near those reports (directly or indirectly) you can feel free to dismiss them as JSF-bashing :D

[A.S]

Apparently the JSF didn't do too well in simulated dogfights against future Sukhoi fighters:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24328813-31477,00.html

 

Sofar I couldn't find any reports this article was referring to... Anyone have some more links?

 

Im not suprised, but you dont have to forget the different roles these Jets are made for. Eeach of them have different qualities if it comes down to performance in different fields ( tactical and operational ).

Where the JSF is a "mix" of Mini awacs, fighter and bomber etc etc....the Sukhoi may have upper hand in pure dogfight.

 

To analyse this objectivly you have to split the pure BFM perfromance abilities for each..... and compare this in that manner.... then still there is room for DACT fights ending up in pilots skills.

[nscode]

Su-27 was a mini awacs of its day, so don't expect Su-35 not to be a mini awacs of today. And if you're going to rely on a plane for defense, what do you have in the fact that it wasn't realy designed to defend you that much.

[tflash]

The problem with JSF is not the media second-guessing or the Carlo-Kopp bashing. It is what we KNOW about the F-35 that is the problem.

 

- its payload;

- its wing area;

- its design, which tries to fit STOVL, CTOL and CV.

 

It is the specs to which it has to be built that yield concern. The Leightweight Fighter competition won by the F-16 was just a sound competition, with a solid understanding of the aircraft needed.

 

The tremendously succesfull F-16 has an excellent fuel fraction, is agile and light, has considerable payload and range and had sufficient growth potential.

 

The F-35 needs a top-notch army of spin doctors and other salespeople just to start explaining that it isn't the Harrier-Hornet Frankenstein its so hard looks like.

[Pilotasso]

But You said Spanish EF2K was beaten by Portugese F-16, so I wouldn't call it being without opposition!

 

true but that was attributed only to piloting ;)

[GGTharos]

The lightweight fighter mafia has bashed everything from the F-15 to the F-22 (on in general, anything that isn't an F-16 or F-5). They've gotten a track record of being wrong. Their INFLUENCE isn't a bad thing, as it causes better design and considerations to happen; their propaganda on the other hand is another thing.

 

The F-35 isn't meant to enter prolonged fights - in fact, no one AFAIK likes drawing fights out unless they MUST. The F-35's sensor and weapon package is adapted for this purpose; full coverage in the IR/Visual spectrum by cameras, JHMCS, AIM-9X - improved off-bore AMRAAM capability.

 

Realize that the F-35 is NOT an F-16 ... it is actually in the same class of weight as an F-15C, and according to the USAF, it exceeds F-16 maneuverability. Further, the F-16 has grown about as much as it can, and its fuel fraction comes from cumbersome CFT's and externals. Don't kid yourself, the F-16 is a thing of the past and not a reasonable comparison against an F-35 in any way shape or form. They aren't even in the same class.

 

The problem with JSF is not the media second-guessing or the Carlo-Kopp bashing. It is what we KNOW about the F-35 that is the problem.

 

- its payload;

- its wing area;

- its design, which tries to fit STOVL, CTOL and CV.

 

It is the specs to which it has to be built that yield concern. The Leightweight Fighter competition won by the F-16 was just a sound competition, with a solid understanding of the aircraft needed.

 

The tremendously succesfull F-16 has an excellent fuel fraction, is agile and light, has considerable payload and range and had sufficient growth potential.

 

The F-35 needs a top-notch army of spin doctors and other salespeople just to start explaining that it isn't the Harrier-Hornet Frankenstein its so hard looks like.

Edited September 21, 2008 by GGTharos

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I have more variety of books than yefins. ;)

Oh yeah? That's very good. What Flanker book do you have then? I collect books about Russian aviation.

[GGTharos]

No it wasn't. It had an FDL which worked for its own flight, at least IIRC - very similar to what F-16's are equipped with. If you want a real mini-awacs, you need to go to the F-22, or possibly the MiG-31.

 

The ability to datalink a few targets to your buds might make you feel like a mini-awacs, but there's a huge difference from there to here and what not ... usually dictated by the class of datalinking terminal. And so far, AFAIK, no fighter other than an F-22 can operate as a full blown JTIDS terminal ... on either side.

 

Su-27 was a mini awacs of its day, so don't expect Su-35 not to be a mini awacs of today. And if you're going to rely on a plane for defense, what do you have in the fact that it wasn't realy designed to defend you that much.

[Vekkinho]

Where the JSF is a "mix" of Mini awacs, fighter and bomber etc etc....the Sukhoi may have upper hand in pure dogfight.

quote]

 

True, but so is the Super Flanker (mini awacs, figher, bomber) with a supercruise capability...at least it' been advertised like that in latest Sukhoi OKB commercial:

http://www.aviapedia.com/video/first-brand-new-su-35-flight-video-from-smotr

 

But let me remind you, there's just one operational Super Flanker airframe ATM used as a testbed/demonstrator!

 

The main reason of bitching about F-35 is it's multirole capability. Well, U have STOL,VTOL and Carrier ops aircraft! Dogfighter, strike and CAS platform in a single plane. So of course it won't perform as good as a dediceted air superiority fighter such as F-22! Perhaps that's what those folks want. F-35 is bad so give us some Raptors!

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

And so far, AFAIK, no fighter other than an F-22 can operate as a full blown JTIDS terminal ... on either side.

This thread is not about F-22. Please, open another thread if you want to talk F-22.

[Pilotasso]

Oh yeah? That's very good. What Flanker book do you have then? I collect books about Russian aviation.

 

 

FYI I have alot on russian fighters as well. For example my aviation bible "GREAT BOOK OF MODERN WARPLANES" is a collection of seperate smaller books that covers all major planes from all 5 continents in detail short of the recent Su-35 and Su-30MKI simply because there was no enough info avaiable on those 2 planes. 2003 edition.

 

I have other plus my bro brings more press form the AF from time to time.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Pilotasso

[GGTharos]

There is nothing wrong with offering comparison of current capabilities. it was relevant, and that's that. Or should I add 'this thread isn't about Su-27, MIG-31, F-16' .... ;)

 

This thread is not about F-22. Please, open another thread if you want to talk F-22.

[GGTharos]

The main reason of bitching about F-35 is it's multirole capability. Well, U have STOL,VTOL and Carrier ops aircraft! Dogfighter, strike and CAS platform in a single plane.

 

Not so. There are 3 distinct airframes based on the same design, but it's not all 'in one plane'.

 

So of course it won't perform as good as a dediceted air superiority fighter such as F-22! Perhaps that's what those folks want. F-35 is bad so give us some Raptors!

 

That's just it - it isn't a dedicated air superiority fighter, wasn't designed as such. The F-22 was designed to fill this role; Australia has no real use for an air superiority aircraft right now, as fighters cannot easily reach australia and the F-35 is more than adequate to dealwith bombers.

[Pilotasso]

The aussies are being very picky with their new plane considering no one would find a reason to attack Australia militarly specialy if that country should have much more of a naval projection force component than land based units.

[GGTharos]

It's good to build up your force of reasonable craft I think - it is a future investment after all.

[nscode]

No it wasn't. It had an FDL which worked for its own flight, at least IIRC - very similar to what F-16's are equipped with. If you want a real mini-awacs, you need to go to the F-22, or possibly the MiG-31.

 

No, those would be the midi-awacs ;)

[GGTharos]

Complete with midichlorians ;)

[nscode]

Not so. There are 3 distinct airframes based on the same design, but it's not all 'in one plane'.

 

And the flight code is auto generated from a single Matlab base model :smartass: Or so the MathWorks ad says. So, kids, if you discover a bug doing your Matlab homework watch out, 'cause an F-35 might crash into your window ;)

[Vekkinho]

Not so. There are 3 distinct airframes based on the same design, but it's not all 'in one plane'.

 

 

Yup I know, but design is what I was talking about here not a specific airframe. But all three types share general design. So if you create a wing capable of hovering during VTOL you can't expect that same or similar wing to produce enough lift in WVR fight!

 

Just take a look at Harrier, never was much of a dogfighter!

Edited September 21, 2008 by Vekkinho

[GGTharos]

... but that has nothing to do with VTOL. VTOL is more or less about raw power, not wing area. The harrier was built as a high-wing loaded aircraft because its purpose was low altitude weapons delivery. IIRC each version has a different wing too - or perhaps just the carrier version, I forget. The compromise here is between lift/range/weight if I am not mistaken ... practically nothing to do with VTOL. STOL, sure, but not VTOL.