The F-35 Thread

[Tirak]

Just another whiny post from that guy that adds nothing to the discussion.

 

I know, yet people keep posting Axe's articles :lol:

[StrongHarm]

http://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/

 

Great article Emu. It's a good no-nonsense piece by a credible source: a fighter pilot. He makes valid points:

1. The recent test with the F-16 was taken out of context and was not a 'dogfight'. The report context was tailored to make a political, not technical, statement.

2. Comparing this aircraft to previous generations is ridiculous.

Note: I likened it to comparing a '68 Camaro with a 2016 Camaro... it's invalid because a chip and an engine trumps just an engine. They're almost two different types of land vehicles; the only similarities are that they share the same name and both have wheels.

3. In the same line of discussion as #2; this is such a departure from previous designs and the subsystems are so classified that for anyone to speak to it's lack of WVR or BVR fitness is laughable.

 

See my previous posts in this thread for expanded discussion of the same points in this article:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2428861#post2428861

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2428895#post2428895

[Rangi]

F-35 live gun firing test (on ground).

[Griffon26]

How to replace a Tire from the F35

 

 

Regards

Griffon26

[wilky510]

Just another whiny post from that guy that adds nothing to the discussion.

But somehow the constant bombardment of whiny anti F-35 posts/articles somehow adds to the discussion. What a world we live into today...

[NineLine]

[DUSTY]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/don-t-think-the-f-35-can-fight-it-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4

 

Another quite interesting article discussing the F-35s capabilities from 'War is Boring'. The author plays out scenarios using CMANO discussed in the 'other vechicle sim news' forum.

[StrongHarm]

haha! Agreed. As much as I like CMANO, I question it's use as a reference in any military hardware discussion, much less a classified aircraft like the F-35. That's like using the D&D Dungeon Master's Guide for planning a big game hunt in Africa..

 

I'd trust 'The Onion' for news before 'War is Boring'. It's amazing that an entire site could be dedicated to 'trolling'. Here's another of their headlines ROFL!:

 

How a Malaysian Playboy Controlled the Most Powerful Naval Force on the Planet

Fat Leonard’s hookers and cash seduced the U.S. Seventh Fleet … and soaked taxpayers for millions

 

ROFL!

[wolle]

 

Is that DCSW2/Edge footage?;)

[tflash]

Nice video on UK F-35B : http://forces.tv/32796320

[tflash]

It all becomes very real for the US Marines: http://news.usni.org/2015/07/16/davis-f-35bs-aviation-combat-elements-have-tremendous-capability-for-growth

[DUSTY]

haha! Agreed. As much as I like CMANO, I question it's use as a reference in any military hardware discussion, much less a classified aircraft like the F-35. That's like using the D&D Dungeon Master's Guide for planning a big game hunt in Africa..

 

I'd trust 'The Onion' for news before 'War is Boring'. It's amazing that an entire site could be dedicated to 'trolling'. Here's another of their headlines ROFL!:

 

How a Malaysian Playboy Controlled the Most Powerful Naval Force on the Planet

Fat Leonard’s hookers and cash seduced the U.S. Seventh Fleet … and soaked taxpayers for millions

 

ROFL!

 

Fair call. I don't think WIB is a total write-off though. There seems to be a decent balance throughout their articles as well as an amazing breath of topics and contributors. The article linked in my previous post shows support for the F-35 whereas there are plenty of other contributors at WIB who are quite outspoken in their disapproval of the aircraft.

 

And yes, it's a great headline, but you did actually read the whole article right?

[NineLine]

[tflash]

Why the Vietnam comparison on the gun isn't valid. Interesting read, argument has already been put forward in this thread also: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/does-the-f-35-have-fatal-flaw-13397

[Basher54321]

Why the Vietnam comparison on the gun isn't valid. Interesting read, argument has already been put forward in this thread also:

 

Trying to nail this down - I think the whole point of this argument is related to the technology and the very different environment Vietnam was. This is something that people who make the gun comparison don't seem to understand.

 

As far as I'm concerned the Gun was still at least joint primary A-A weapon in the late 60s. A lot of kills were with missiles sure - however a lot of missiles had to be fired to achieve those kills and more kills would have been achieved if a gun was available. (An F-4 with no missiles but a gun would still be an effective fighter in that era!)

 

The F-8 had mostly AIM-9 Kills as he points out - however the F-105 had 1 AIM-9 kill and ~27 gun kills.

 

The Navy never bothered with guns on their F-4s (apart from a brief trial with the MK4) and seemed to have a better kill ratio than the USAF by 72 (the missiles had improved vastly and better training (Top Gun) had been made available) - but I think having a gun would still have been preferred by pilots as well.

 

Between 1964 and 1972 there was a large improvement in radar and missile tech and by the early 80s the missiles were getting very good (Falklands/Bekaa). 1991 was vastly different to Vietnam - the missile performance wasn't perfect but it was amazing compared to Nam.

 

Because of the massive tech change carrying a gun for A-A today appears to be like a soldier carrying a knife - there are times it can be used but they are far more risky and limited than they were 50 years ago when flying against MiGs only armed with Cannon and AA-1/2.

 

Personally I think it was a good decision to include it on the F-35A if even just for A-G.

[wilky510]

[StrongHarm]

I think the whole gun debate is without basis in the first place. There's nothing wrong with the F-35s capabilities WVR, guns or otherwise. As previously stated:

 

Great article Emu. It's a good no-nonsense piece by a credible source: a fighter pilot. He makes valid points:

1. The recent test with the F-16 was taken out of context and was not a 'dogfight'. The report context was tailored to make a political, not technical, statement.

2. Comparing this aircraft to previous generations is ridiculous.

Note: I likened it to comparing a '68 Camaro with a 2016 Camaro... it's invalid because a chip and an engine trumps just an engine. They're almost two different types of land vehicles; the only similarities are that they share the same name and both have wheels.

3. In the same line of discussion as #2; this is such a departure from previous designs and the subsystems are so classified that for anyone to speak to it's lack of WVR or BVR fitness is laughable.

 

See my previous posts in this thread for expanded discussion of the same points in this article:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2428861#post2428861

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2428895#post2428895

[Bucic]

Great links! Thanks!

 

The geometry of this bird is out of this world! Every week I scratch my head on whether a new variant has been developed because of a new photo taken from a non-standard angle.

 

Speaking of which. I've been diving into my fetish some more (the horizontal empannage joints) and here's the best photo of it I have found so far. I still don't quite get how they manage to retain a gapless surface even at high stabilizer deflections :huh:

[Emu]

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunford-mulls-f-35b-ioc-decision-4-bs-take-out-9-attackers/

 

Dunford Mulls F-35B IOC Decision; 4 Bs Take Out 9 Attackers

By COLIN CLARK

on July 27, 2015 at 6:34 PM

 

 

Marines perform first F-35B vertical take-off, landing at Eglin

 

WASHINGTON: During the Marine’s recent operational readiness test of the F-35B, four of the Marine aircraft went up against nine enemy aircraft.

 

“It went very poorly for the bad guys,” Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, told me this afternoon. Davis provided few details, saying they were classified, He did say that the F-35s faced a threat that “we have never put an F-16 or a Harrier against.” The F-35Bs, he said, did a “great job.”

 

I asked Davis about the recent news that the F-35A did not fare that well in dogfight conditions against an F-16. “I love the F-16. It was a great airplane. Still is pretty good, but i would not want to be in a fight against an F-35.”

 

In a clear message to A-10 advocates, Davis said the F-35B performed extremely well at Close Air Support missions using Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and laster-guided GBU-12s. The aircraft does need a cannon, he conceded, for some missions. The gun is currently undergoing its first tests mounted on an aircraft but it won’t be deployed on the plane until 2017 when the Block 3F software is installed. But Davis was unequivocal in his enthusiasm for the aircraft. “No airplane in the world will be able to touch this jet at Close Air Support,” he told reporters.

 

Davis said he had made his recommendation about the F-35B’s Initial Operating Capabilitity to Marine Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford: “He’s got all the paperwork now and he’s going through it.” Breaking D readers will remember that Dunford has been nominated to become the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and has been a bit busy recently dealing with nomination hearings and such.

 

Davis said early models of the F-35B are currently maintaining a 60 percent to 65 percent mission readiness rate, something he expects to rise substantially as more newer planes come to the line. He noted a training squadron with newer planes was “getting 70 to 75 percent rates the other day.” The overall goal is 80 percent later in the program.

 

The Marines plan to buy 353 F-35Bs and Davis said he has heard absolutely nothing to convince him that number should be cut. It seems pretty certain he has recommended to Dunford that IOC be approved, but, as he put it, that’s the commandant’s decision.

[tflash]

F-35B declared IOC today

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/31/428129352/marine-version-of-f-35-reportedly-deemed-combat-ready

[Tirak]

[aaron886]

Fun fact. 3 years after entering service, in 2001, the Super Hornet's mission readiness rate was 57%. It's now 73. As usual, note how the news media suggestively presents only the facts that paint the F-35 in a negative light, with no reference to the bigger picture.

[Heli]

[Fer_Fer]

Not sure if it was posted here.

but have it anyways.

http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2015-092.pdf

 

For a 1.5 Trillion USD project, they sure don't do a lot of stuff properly, in line with industry standards (88 page report)

[StrongHarm]

Fer Fer, this is a Quality Assurance doc. This is the way the military does things. They set the bar at 150% and expect 100%. High QA and logistics standards is why the US has a superior military force. If you cleaned and serviced your favorite weapon as thoroughly as you could I would find 20 inspection infractions. Do some research and look at the readiness rates of previous aircraft over their service life. You'll find that the phase01 readiness was extremely low but raised steadily over the life of the aircraft. Take a look at the F-35 readiness in relation to other aircraft. It's already at 62% last I heard (USMC). The F-15 in relation was in the 40s when it went operational.

 

Here are some reference averages: