The F-35 Thread

[WynnTTr]

Nevermind the politics, the cost blowouts, the delays, all those can be shrugged off in the long run if the aircraft performs.

 

What the real problem is this -

 

The Pentagon is admitting that the aircraft will be delivered “heavier, slower and more sluggish” than it had hoped.

 

If it can't out-turn a gen 4.5 fighter or a missile, or doesn't have enough speed to get anywhere or outrun anything why are we (Australia) buying it? Especially since a Super Hornet is a third of the price.

[Weta43]

Because you're a good ally :)

[swift]

Australian media continues to question the F-35 program

 

http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/australias-jsf-aircraft-cant-fly-in-lightning-storms/story-fn5fsgyc-1226580674219

[GGTharos]

Why does it need to?

 

Can a 4.5 or 5 gen aircraft out-turn a missile? No.

Does the F-35, which is a strike fighter, need huge amount of maneuverability beyond what it has? Not either.

Can a flanker laden with cruise missiles and fuel turn well? Not really.

Can an F-35 escape a bandit by using standard skate tactics? It can.

Will a flanker try to chase it down in a 10nm tail-chase? Maybe, but he won't have enough fuel to go home if he does ... might in fact have a 120 in the face instead.

 

This isn't a 1v1 environment with guns only, it's a team environment with BVR and HOBS missiles. Initial position of advantage and the first shot is more valuable.

 

Can a super-hornet survive a fight as well as an F-35? Not likely.

 

Are you pilots expensive and time consuming to train? You bet.

 

Are your planes easy to replace? No, and it doesn't matter if they're shornets or JSF's.

 

If it can't out-turn a gen 4.5 fighter or a missile, or doesn't have enough speed to get anywhere or outrun anything why are we (Australia) buying it? Especially since a Super Hornet is a third of the price.

[marcos]

Close-up of helmet:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Single Screen Tactical Display

 

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2013 by marcos

[wilky510]

Nevermind the politics, the cost blowouts, the delays, all those can be shrugged off in the long run if the aircraft performs.

 

What the real problem is this -

 

 

 

If it can't out-turn a gen 4.5 fighter or a missile, or doesn't have enough speed to get anywhere or outrun anything why are we (Australia) buying it? Especially since a Super Hornet is a third of the price.

two of those problems can easily be fixed by uprated engines, which will happen in the near future. Work has already begun on getting way more thrust out of the engines.

 

Now, you could argue is "why is the current engines not good enough?" I can tell you right now with all 5th generation aircraft it seems weight has been the biggest problems, the final F-22 came overweight by a big margin and they apparently had to compensate alot in areas to keep the weight down. This is something the Russians haven't really gotten to yet with the PAK-Fa.

 

Just remember, all the sensors, pods, ECM.. etc are built in the aircraft, the added weight from electrical systems like to open the weapons bay adds weight.. you can see how this stuff adds up and makes the aircraft 'heavier'.

 

They can try and cut weight, but it proved hard with the F-22, the best solution at the moment is to go for uprated engines.

 

 

 

 

Edit: Out of curiosity, what aircraft would you like Australia to get?

Edited February 19, 2013 by wilky510

[Exorcet]

two of those problems can easily be fixed by uprated engines, which will happen in the near future. Work has already begun on getting way more thrust out of the engines.

I'm still kind of doubtful that the M 1.6 limit is an aero limit. Either, it's only the required/desired performance and the plane is actually faster, or there is a risk of something breaking if you go faster. If it's the latter, more thrust won't fix it, but you could get there faster.

[marcos]

The intake system probably isn't designed for much more. Mach 1.67 is probably enough anyway really. Not much less than a Hornet.

[GGTharos]

Actually it's more than an armed hornet.

[Eddie]

Actually it's more than an armed hornet.

...going downhill covered in lube with another Hornet pushing it.

[Maior]

Well, for those worried about F-35 performance, it has demonstrated 9.9G instantaneous turns, Mach 1.6 max speed, 70º AoA and mach 1.2 supercruise. If you want to take an issue with it it's cost/efficiency. There's no doubt this will be a potent aircraft. And yes, this is the "tuned down" version of the plane everyone is talking about.

 

1st post here ^^

[GGTharos]

^^^^

... source?

[marcos]

In a few years they'll probably crank the engines back up to 50,000lbf.

[Maior]

^^^^

... source?

 

Sure:

 

Supercruise at Mach 1.2:

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx

 

Mach 1.6 and 9.9G instantaneous turn:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7

 

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1323490277/last-1323683064/F-35+pushes+Mach+1.6+and+does+9.9g

 

70º AoA:

Couldn't find it... read it somewhere... Probably one of those DoD project evaluations.

 

All of the above and many more:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/f-35-multirole-joint-strike-fighter-2013-190/

 

Again, my main gripe against the F-35 has to do that no one has shown what would happen if they fitted an F-16 or a Super-hornet with all the bells and whistles the F-35 has. Would it be more cost efficient? Would it offer similar performance sans stealth?

 

There's no doubt that the F-35 will be a potent aircraft nowadays. A couple of years ago the project did hit some serious bumps. But things are running much smoother now. Of course, if you consider smooth a $160M price tag... With prices further increasing if Canada does drop out of the race...

 

 

Soime eye candy:

[GGTharos]

A 9.9G ITR is not particularly impressive, most combat jets can do that or better. As for M1.6, that's known - on the other hand, forums aren't generally considered to be good sources of information, just FYI :)

[tflash]

Close-up of helmet:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those @"!§ cheats are flying in arcade mode ??? They should be banned from FC3 servers!!!

[Maior]

A 9.9G ITR is not particularly impressive, most combat jets can do that or better. As for M1.6, that's known - on the other hand, forums aren't generally considered to be good sources of information, just FYI :)

 

Just FYI, Defence talk is mostly crewed by Defence specialists who provide sources for their claims. It's not a "general public" kind of forum. I seldom post there since I have troubles keeping up with all the info (some of those guys really have insider access). I have a file somewhere on my computer with a lot of links considering the F-35 gathered from there. Need to see if I find them... Been away from the aviation geek path for a while...

Anyway, the 9.9G is just to point out that it's not a slouch. No plane that can pull this can be called lazy or slow. The top speed is there just as information More important is the Mach 1.2 supercruise over 150 nm stints. That's some very good speed. Sure other planes might have a higher top speed but, they'll end up spending their fuel trying to achieve it. F-35 supercruise is definitely an advantage.

 

the very high AoA is another proof of agility.

The post was a bit of a heads up for F-35 detractors. Performance will not be the issue that'll make or break this aircraft.

[marcos]

Those @"!§ cheats are flying in arcade mode ??? They should be banned from FC3 servers!!!

Have you seen Helmet v1.20?

 

[FanBoy2006.01]

Why does F35 need to be as good in performance, turning ability, etc. as gen 4.5 fighters?

 

It has a much smaller RCS.

 

So look first-shoot-first capability against gen 4.5 fighters.

 

Also higher survivability against IADS.

[Cali]

Why does F35 need to be as good in performance, turning ability, etc. as gen 4.5 fighters?

 

It has a much smaller RCS.

 

So look first-shoot-first capability against gen 4.5 fighters.

 

Also higher survivability against IADS.

 

 

Because some people just like to argue about everything. :thumbup:

[swift]

HD

F-35C test aircraft CF-2 flies over Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., Jan. 28, 2013. The aircraft surpassed 300 flight hours during the mission.

 

HD

[Maior]

Why does F35 need to be as good in performance, turning ability, etc. as gen 4.5 fighters?

 

It has a much smaller RCS.

 

So look first-shoot-first capability against gen 4.5 fighters.

 

Also higher survivability against IADS.

 

 

Well, If they're caught up, they need to defend themselves. Imagine in a conflict where a new kind of sensor is capable of lighting up F-.35s like christmas trees (not very likely I know). The pilots need to be able to engage and pull out. Also, they need to evade Integrated ADS which, if good, will eventually detect LO airframes.

[Rammit]

Why does F35 need to be as good in performance, turning ability, etc. as gen 4.5 fighters?

 

It has a much smaller RCS.

 

So look first-shoot-first capability against gen 4.5 fighters.

 

Also higher survivability against IADS.

 

Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) or dogfighting is very much necessary, meaning the F-35 needs good performance and turning ability, we found this out in Vietnam, the F-4 Phantom II came along and against 4th Gen fighters got a very low (compared to Korea) kill ratio, about 2:1 I think? This was because at that point, the western powers believed that dogfighting was long gone, they were quite wrong, for all of the fancy technology that we have to our disposal, the Mk.1 human eyeball will remain dominant in a dogfight :pilotfly:

[Exorcet]

Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) or dogfighting is very much necessary, meaning the F-35 needs good performance and turning ability, we found this out in Vietnam, the F-4 Phantom II came along and against 4th Gen fighters got a very low (compared to Korea) kill ratio, about 2:1 I think? This was because at that point, the western powers believed that dogfighting was long gone, they were quite wrong, for all of the fancy technology that we have to our disposal, the Mk.1 human eyeball will remain dominant in a dogfight :pilotfly:

The 1970's won't remain relevant forever. The only thing Vietnam told us was that Vietnam era missiles could not replace guns, and Vietnam era missiles are gone.

[GGTharos]

Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) or dogfighting is very much necessary, meaning the F-35 needs good performance and turning ability, we found this out in Vietnam,

 

No, what you found in Vietnam is that ROE's and immature technology caused problems for the F-4's - but training in BFM helped them deal with a bandit that could turn better. Vietnam is largely irrelevant when it comes to modern missiles.

 

they were quite wrong, for all of the fancy technology that we have to our disposal, the Mk.1 human eyeball will remain dominant in a dogfight :pilotfly:

 

And now you are quite wrong, because DASS + HOBS weapons.