The F-35 Thread

[Maior]

i don't understand ..the 2030 limit.. yes, the new Su-35, and Su-30 will of course last till 2030 easily.. that doesn't mean T-50 will come online in 2030..

 

It doesn't, check my note at the end. I also believe the T-50 will come online before 2030 however, the fact that the Russian thinkers are developing plans to field a large enough fighter force without the T-50 till 2030 is some sort of worst case scenario. This is my personal opinion and is merely a way to try and extrapolate the state of the T-50 since, like Invader Zim said, it's very hard to do. The most important bit on my post was the doubling of the Su-35 production. That, I believe, is really a sign that things are not going so smooth for the T-50. Well, the engine and RADAR troubles are public knowledge so my guess is there.

 

the way i see it, Russians understand that 5th gen. planes are very exotic planes, not really to be used all the time, but more of a "tip of a sword" planes ..and not the fleet of planes you need to do most of the job -after the tip of the sword does the job..

 

i think USA thinks the same way.. of course having more money means they can easily print those 2400+ F-35 when they get available to do the lion share of combat in the battlefield.. Russia is moving to a more cheaper version where its seems it will be more like 30-70% ratio of stealth vs. non-stealth planes fleet.. the 30% with the help of 70% non stealth accomplishes the main mission of air-superiority or at least doing the main damage in the first phase, then if successful-and you have to be successful-you continue with cheaper planes since there is no enemy in the air anymore..

 

well, the US is different. They want to replace all major combat assets by the F-22 / F-35 combo. Sure, they'll keep some Eagles and Growlers for duties where stealth is not required like AWAC defence but, the pre-sequester idea, was to have all combat operations conducted by LO platforms. I still think that's the idea though with the economy going south, I don't know how long it'll keep.

 

F-22 are the same thing.. the workload of this planes will be 3-5 days non-stop presence in the enemy airspace.. after that, they can go back to hangar..its over for them.. air dominance achieved...enemy planes destroyed.. after that you can control the airspace with drones and F-16 ..

 

so, thining strategically is it really important to have 100% 5gen. fighter fleet? ..of course not..

 

i think of 5gen. fighter like a scalpel.. you don't need many scalpels to cut, one is usually more then enough for operating on the patient..but you do need lots of blood tranfusion, clamps, stitching etc..

 

Again, the idea was to have fifth gen frames replacing conventional ones. The operating costs of the JSF are still to be verified however, they're supposed to be lower than legacy assets. Then again, the JSF was also supposed to be cheaper so :D

 

now, to go back to when can we speculate T-50 comes online? i think it can come before 2018 easily.. but it will not be 100% complete..meaning some modifications will follow like in many Russian planes in the past.. but one benefit is, the planes accomodate any new modification easily.. Mig-27 saw many modifications, same airframe, and easily to do this.. the way F-35 is made its hard to do those changes that are if the memo leaks are true constructional engineering problems.. something you can't just change like that..

 

Well, the way the F-35 is made, modifications are easy. So far, every evidence points to the contrary. The F-22s on the other hand are tough to upgrade. I don't know enough on the T-50 to comment on these subjects but modularity is probably a major concern in the design.

 

if you get it right from the start with the airframe i think this is the lion's share of work.. of course then the engine is the second most important thing.. right now, as far as i know russians are using the Su-35 engines..tunning them up and making them stronger..but still a new engine they are developing and yes you are right it could be a long time before that comes online-maybe 10 years.. but this one they use know with small modifications can make him supercruise..the question is how much..if its 1.2 its not really that much.. everybody is gunning for the 1.6 which gives the best ratio of speed vs. tear and duress of the airframe.. faster it wears the plane too much, slower and you loose that speed advantage ..

 

Yes, I believe the Operational requirements mention Mach 1.6. The Engines they're using are probably going to be fitted on the first models and being Mach 1.2 able, is not really an improvement over 4.5 gen assets. I hope the new engines and RADARS are up and about faster than that. Hopefully with the new Silicon valley and the higher number of young people, Russian tech might improve steadily.

 

In the end of the day, this planes are build for one thing.. offence or defence.. .. in russia's case defence .. if russia doesn't convince US that it has a plane of value it puts itself in a risky position where some kind of invasion could happen against them-like the one we are seeing in syria today.. this planes are the harbinger of security.. nobody is questioning US supremacy, .. i don't see mexico getting ready to invade US.. but Russia on the other hand much more dangerous situation..

 

...

 

Russia is in peculiar position since they have to make sure US understands that Russian planes are capable.. when one doesn't understand this, it evokes aggression .. this has nothing about US being bad its just natural law.. when the pilgrims came to US they killed the native americans for one simple reason.. pilgrims were armed with guns, the natives with a bow.. it doesn't take a genius to figure out how long before the gun people start using ... well, the guns they own against the inferior race..

 

so, i'm not saying Russian planes offer better this or that.. but are formidable enough to lets all of us hope for the love of life and god to prevent a tragic miscalculation from the superior weapons and nations in the east..

 

Even though I don't think Russia faces any real danger of invasion by the US mid term because well, MAD, I do agree that the T-50 will be an important asset asserting Russia's sphere of influence in the region (half the globe more or less ^^). And it is in the defence of that space that Russian planners are thinking.

 

some historians are saying that bad army state of the USSR before the Hitler invasion was one of the most important aspects of hitler deciding to attack.. weakness attracts agression..its natural.. a lion does not hunt an elephant for a reason-because it can very well die in the process..

 

I left this quote to the end and this time, I'll let it slide ^^ Seriously, don't get me started on WWII or else you risk a two hours read discussing this issue.

 

Let me just say that the Soviet army was "weak" due to incompetent leadership and the way they addressed their problems. In fact Stalin thought hitler was a madman since he had more to win on the Soviet trade agreements than he ever could through war. Also, had the Germans attacked an year early or, an year late, the outcome would be completely different. I'll not say anything else on this subject to prevent severe cases of death through boredom (unless you're cool discussing artillery design in the Soviet Union during the pre-war years).

[Namenlos Ein]

Joint Strike Missile makes F-35 debut.

[HiJack]

Joint Strike Missile makes F-35 debut.

Great! Norwegian quality weapons :D

[Maior]

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/sites/default/files/FvsFiction%20Final%2024Mar1.pdf

 

Interesting article about the F-35. Fact vs fiction. Very nice presentation.

[WynnTTr]

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/sites/default/files/FvsFiction%20Final%2024Mar1.pdf

 

Interesting article about the F-35. Fact vs fiction. Very nice presentation.

Very good read Major. I'm Aussie so this was particularly relevant but even as a read about the F-35 in general it's good and from experts in their field.

 

I'll admit I'm one of those "general population" that holds a skeptical approach (misconception?) but this has opened my eyes.

 

However I still say roll out the real world tests rather than simulations but paint me slightly as a believer in the JSF program.

[karambiatos]

to me that thing just seems as one sided as the f-35 naysayers

[Maior]

to me that thing just seems as one sided as the f-35 naysayers

 

Really? Do tell your expertise on the subject. I'd be delighted to know the years you spent developing aerial platforms and the battery of tests you ran to counter these arguments. Especially, since most of them relate not on a specific platform but on how modern air forces plan their acquisitions and what is important in a modern scenario.

 

It's fun to see people thinking they know more than USAF, RAF, IAF, RAAF, to name a few, boffin. I'm sure they're all wrong and you're right.

 

Again, I say again, don't use performance to attack this particular asset.

[GGTharos]

Unlike other publications, these guys have a disclaimer pointing out that the F-35 isn't a finished product yet and that their predictions may not be entirely correct.

 

to me that thing just seems as one sided as the f-35 naysayers

[karambiatos]

~sinp~

way to take my post so completely out of context, i dont even know if its possible to put it into words.

 

Unlike other publications, these guys have a disclaimer pointing out that the F-35 isn't a finished product yet and that their predictions may not be entirely correct.

 

seems i missed that part, still they should have sourced or provided examples for more of their FACTs, especially for some of them that seem kind of out there.

 

its just my opinion, as an unbiased on looker and thats it, im not trying to say i or them are right or wrong i.e. act smarter then the guys who wrote it, as some people may think.

 

also i find it interesting that we only get Australian publications that are of any worth no other partner is saying anything about the f-35

[GGTharos]

seems i missed that part, still they should have sourced or provided examples for more of their FACTs, especially for some of them that seem kind of out there.

 

Which parts of the historical facts they present are 'kind of out there'? The report written by them is an opinion piece based on their experience of working in an Air Force. I'd say it's fairly authoritative, and it's pretty much the same stuff I usually hear from current pilots.

 

its just my opinion, as an unbiased on looker and thats it, im not trying to say i or them are right or wrong i.e. act smarter then the guys who wrote it, as some people may think.

 

also i find it interesting that we only get Australian publications that are of any worth no other partner is saying anything about the f-35

 

There are political factors attached to this. Israeli's tend to just keep quiet, in the US and Canada there's a lot of bruhaha by people who don't have a sliver of clue, etc.

 

Read the report, and you'll what they're talking about in there is exactly relevant to what's going on in various gov't circles: People throwing around topics like budgetary issues when those aren't easily predictable, basing arguments on maneuverability, or completely failing to understand that 'the older cheaper stuff' isn't as good as the new stuff and will become obsolete earlier.

[Pyroflash]

its just my opinion, as an unbiased on looker and thats it, im not trying to say i or them are right or wrong i.e. act smarter then the guys who wrote it, as some people may think.

 

also i find it interesting that we only get Australian publications that are of any worth no other partner is saying anything about the f-35

 

Even sourced articles can have bias if the writer doesn't use the correct sources, or deviates from the information provided by those sources. This happens frequently, and more often than not by certain "well respected" "defense analysts".

 

Also, the reason that the Australian contract is getting so much flak is because of the disparity between what the government wants and what the citizens think the government needs. I.e. great number of Australian people think that the F-35 is a waste of money, but the government still wants to go ahead with the procurement plan for them.

[Maior]

way to take my post so completely out of context, i dont even know if its possible to put it into words.

 

It appears I jumped the proverbial bullet. My apologuies for that. It's just that this discussion seems to go around in circles every once in a while. Still, really overdid it. Sometimes I'm a bit of a drama queen :D

 

GGTharos said all that is needed to be said.

 

Again, sorry about the burst mate.

[WynnTTr]

to me that thing just seems as one sided as the f-35 naysayers

 

You should look at their main site http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/ and the biographies of the Board. All of the pilots hold high rank. They've operated 4th gen aircraft and know the RAAF.

 

They're 100% independent, have no political or industry ties.

 

I'd trust what they say over any political party or forum poster.

[swift]

[Phantom88]

Interesting upgrades for The Rhino,Doesn't it look familiar?

[VincentLaw]

You know the first thing that fails in my A-10C is always the MFCDs. Those big displays in the new cockpits are a giant single point of failure that can cripple the capability of the pilot if anything goes wrong. What are they going to do in the case of an EMP? What if advanced electronic warfare can compromise the functions of digital equipment like that?

 

Call me old, but I think it is a mistake to completely eliminate analog systems and instruments from the cockpit. Might as well just take out the pilot too while you are at it.

[LtFransky]

 

They're 100% independent, have no political or industry ties.

 

 

Except for the links to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon etc at the bottom of their home page. Those were probably put there by accident.

[GGTharos]

You know the first thing that fails in my A-10C is always the MFCDs.

 

What does that have to do with reality?

 

Those big displays in the new cockpits are a giant single point of failure that can cripple the capability of the pilot if anything goes wrong.

It's terrible that the designers haven't thought of that :)

 

What are they going to do in the case of an EMP?

I don't know. Wrap it in a faraday cage? Sounds like something that would be common for military aircraft, among other things.

 

What if advanced electronic warfare can compromise the functions of digital equipment like that?

Magical ECM?

 

Call me old, but I think it is a mistake to completely eliminate analog systems and instruments from the cockpit. Might as well just take out the pilot too while you are at it.

Does your A-10C fly itself thanks to those MFCDs? :D

[VincentLaw]

No, you are right, and I was exaggerating; it is just me being resistant to change. All of the important information for flying is projected on the HUD, and if the HUD fails, it can probably be replicated on the other screen, so there is some redundancy already. I am just going to miss the good old fashioned analog cockpits, just like people are going to miss the days when airplanes were piloted by humans instead of computers. Unless we have another dark age or major economic crash, we are headed in the direction where everything is going to be more and more tech-integrated and automated. These new cockpit displays like in the F-35 are simply the next logical step in that progression.

[GGTharos]

Yep, you're right about where the future is going. (The HUD is rapidly becoming a thing of the past with the advent of JHMCS I believe).

 

It sort of depends on your budget, too ... drones with weapons are typically operated by richer countries, while countries with less money invest in things like the LAS.

[EtherealN]

I am just going to miss the good old fashioned analog cockpits [...] Unless we have another dark age or major economic crash, we are headed in the direction where everything is going to be more and more tech-integrated and automated.

 

In the subject of nostalgia for the role of the pilot though, it should be noted that the same developments in economy and technology that are allowing these advanced functions in combat aircraft also make it cheaper and cheaper for a "regular" joe to fly aircraft at all - less fun for the professional fighter jock, but a nice turn for the aviation afficionado that didn't end up in a fighter school. :)

 

(At my club we have a motored twinseat with 4-5 hour endurance that only costs ~20€/hour to operate with maintenance included, making it a cheaper travel option per kilometer than an automobile! And if you want your own, a used one is about the price of a couple years old used automobile.)

 

So it's not all doom and gloom. Especially since - you guessed it - there's all-analog pits in those things! :D (Well, except for the satnav kit, but you can turn that off if you want.)

 

No reason to worry about the steam gauges, the private sector will have them for quite some time further even if the militaries are starting to drop them.

[pyromaniac4002]

What are they going to do in the case of an EMP?

 

In the case of an EMP, you might find that reading the MFCDs on our A-10s or F-35s or what have you in a region wouldn't be the foremost of many peoples' concerns because we'd be in a nuclear war. At that point we'd move down the line from JDAMs to the Minutemen and Tridents and B-2s, so the military situation at large doesn't really give a damn whether or not a collection of pilots can see their exact position or use their targeting pods (that is if their aircraft were still functioning enough to fly).

 

Many military aircraft are shielded against EMP, but no one can really tell you for sure how well you could expect something as sophisticated and transistor-reliant as an F-35 to hold up. But the bottom line is if you're in an EMP environment in this day and age, you've got bigger fish to fry.

 

And the fact that your MFCDs are a hot target for failure in DCS: A-10C really doesn't have anything to do with reality. It's a really more of a situation of the game saying "You took damage up towards the front of the aircraft, eh? Hmm... Well the MFCDs are at the front, so we'll say you lost one of them." It would be pretty hilarious if the MFCDs in real-life A-10s were as finicky as ours.

[EtherealN]

Hmm... Well the MFCDs are at the front, so we'll say you lost one of them." It would be pretty hilarious if the MFCDs in real-life A-10s were as finicky as ours.

 

I don't know for sure about the equipment running the MFCD's specifically, but it should be remembered that all that protects the computer bays from ground fire on the A-10 is some thin steel sheets. So they certainly are vulnerable to fire; I'd say the "MFCD loss" can simply be considered a proxy for "you lost some computers".

 

In regards to the whole EMP thing though, I'd suspect that it is easier to protect computer systems from that than to protect them against rifle bullets - at least while keeping weight within specifications. Easier to make a lightweight faraday cage (can even be integrated in the computer module mount itself) than lightweight ballistic armour. Suspect there's a similar situation with the equipment on a 5th gen fighter; armour is probably out-of-spec for these things and to knock them out with bullets and fragmentation might be "easy" (in relative terms*), but EMP protection easy.

 

*Relative in the sense that we assume the bullet or fragment strikes that exact location, which in itself might not have the best odds, which in turn might be why they might not bother wasting weight on that stuff. (Unless they actually did bother, I never looked that closely on F-35 cutouts to see if there's any indications on that.)

Edited April 7, 2013 by EtherealN

[nr1jc]

Just a tought. how long before humans are redundant for the survival of intelligence on earth??

[EtherealN]

lol, that enters a debate in epistemology, metaphysics and probably a dozen other subdisciplines of philosophy before we even start with the technological debate. Thus probably far outside the scope of a thread about the F-35. :P