The F-35 Thread

[frantzleb0ucher]

I think the f-35 is more or less a test bed for VTOL stealth aircraft,a bit like the Dassault Neuron

[Fer_Fer]

Has nobody considered that the Dogfighting part is pretty moot. and the Considerably more serious issue is the fact Lockheed apparently can't design a canopy that is roomy enough to move your head in?

Come on people, Engineering 101, and you find this out after 100 models produced?

Well guess we are going to pay another 50Bn USD for fixing this.

 

If anything the Programme is horribly mismanaged to the point that if i were the Pentagon i would sue them over breaching.

any flaws the F-35 has (real or perceived) pales in comparison with the rampant retardation of the guy's managing it. and quite frankly i'm surprised they didn't replace the persons in charge with one that has Common Sense.

[Tirak]

Has nobody considered that the Dogfighting part is pretty moot. and the Considerably more serious issue is the fact Lockheed apparently can't design a canopy that is roomy enough to move your head in?

Come on people, Engineering 101, and you find this out after 100 models produced?

Well guess we are going to pay another 50Bn USD for fixing this.

 

If anything the Programme is horribly mismanaged to the point that if i were the Pentagon i would sue them over breaching.

any flaws the F-35 has (real or perceived) pales in comparison with the rampant retardation of the guy's managing it. and quite frankly i'm surprised they didn't replace the persons in charge with one that has Common Sense.

 

Two things. One, canopy enlargement is actually on the F-35's design plan so cost has already been factored in.

 

2. He doesn't look that cramped to me.

 

 

[Fer_Fer]

Two things. One, canopy enlargement is actually on the F-35's design plan so cost has already been factored in.

 

2. He doesn't look that cramped to me.

 

 

The Report that was recently leaked states that the pilot could not move his head around and that the HMD (specifically mentioned) restriced his view to the sides and rear.

[Tirak]

The Report that was recently leaked states that the pilot could not move his head around and that the HMD (specifically mentioned) restriced his view to the sides and rear.

 

That report is in AF-2, which while many things and a valiant workhorse, is not a production model.

[RoflSeal]

The Report that was recently leaked states that the pilot could not move his head around and that the HMD (specifically mentioned) restriced his view to the sides and rear.

 

We don't know what form factor the helmet was using. Considering it was a test mule and not a production aircraft, it may still have been a Gen 1 helmet with the horns.

[tflash]

Funny. The Viper is a relatively low-powered block 40 decades old, and in the mean time we get a host of explanations why the shining new kit didn't even perform modestly well. It starts to become boring.

 

They should release the next version of the F-35 with the great book of explanations, a hefty PDF if you ask me.

 

I'm happy to hear the Viper is still going strong, it's one of the greatest fighters after all.

[NineLine]

So did an F-5E ever beat another US fighter in dogfight training? If so is the F-5E better than any of those aircraft? So because a pure dogfighter aircraft beats a strike fighter in a dogfight, a strike fighter that's still in development and testing, we should just scrap the entire thing and say it is a failure?

 

Does any aircraft out there have a perfect dogfight record? In history from now to the beginning did a pilot ever beat a newer aircraft with an older one?

 

Sometimes people try to hard to say the F-35 is terrible, I still havent seen anything to show that it is for what it was designed for... even if it got beat by an F-16, sorry, dont get it.

[Exorcet]

Funny. The Viper is a relatively low-powered block 40 decades old, and in the mean time we get a host of explanations why the shining new kit didn't even perform modestly well.

 

Well, what do you expect, there are reasons for things. If you don't agree with the outcome, that doesn't dismiss the facts.

 

40 years old adversary or not, the F-35 was only meant to reach a certain level of performance. I think that should be pretty clear. They could have gone for a mini F-22 with supercruise, but did not. The F-35 is a more survivable F-16. This mock dogfight doesn't put a dent in that argument, though it might reveal some of the F-35 performance limits (although even then, only very vaguely).

[Emu]

 

Edited July 6, 2015 by Emu

[fltsimbuff]

They learned history, they designed an aircraft with a specific purpose. You failed to understand that.

 

[...]

 

The F-35 is replacing the F-16 in the strike role, not in the light weight fighter role. That was obvious from the beginning.

 

So I'd be interested to hear what is replacing the F-16 in the Light Weight Fighter role.

 

I don't doubt the F-35 will be great at replacing the F-16 in the strike role, as like you said, that is what it was designed to do. The problem is that many other programs are being sacrificed with the Air Force saying "The F-35 can do that too!" when it really can't.

 

The F-22's production run was cut short, and the F-35 is obviously not going to be as good in the air superiority role. They are trying to scrap the A-10, though the F-35 wasn't designed for CAS.

 

So it wasn't intended to be an air superiority fighter, lightweight fighter, or CAS plane. Okay... why do they keep saying it is one?

[GGTharos]

The F-35 can do air to air too, yep. Just can't maneuver like a lightweight fighter. Can it do air superiority? Yep. Why would think otherwise? Air superiority is about holding airspace, not about dogfighting. Can it do air sovereignty like an F-15 or F-22? Not really.

 

Nothing is replacing that role (other than F-22s), and maybe it isn't even needed.

 

As for CAS, it can do that like an F-15E, like an F-16, like pretty much anything that does CAS and is not an A-10. There are some things that the A-10 does that nothing else can do, but not CAS as a whole.

Edited July 6, 2015 by GGTharos

[fltsimbuff]

The F-35 can do air to air too, yep. Just can't maneuver like a lightweight fighter. Can it do air superiority? Yep. Why would think otherwise? Air superiority is about holding airspace, not about dogfighting. Can it do air sovereignty like an F-15 or F-22? Not really.

 

Nothing is replacing that role (other than F-22s), and maybe it isn't even needed.

 

As for CAS, it can do that like an F-15E, like an F-16, like pretty much anything that does CAS and is not an A-10. There are some things that the A-10 does that nothing else can do, but not CAS as a whole.

 

I suppose I should have said "Air Supremacy" as that seems to be the new term they coined after superiority. My point still stands... Other programs have been repeatedly sacrificed in order to get this platform. For those sacrificed platforms that either means they have decided we do not need that capability at all, or that the F-35 can take over that capability.

 

Air Supremacy has proven invaluable in every recent conflict, so I am not sure what would make you think it might not be needed. The difference is in recent conflicts we have had it by default, with no real challenge, but a peer-state competitor would be a completely different story.

 

I am not calling the F-35 a bad plane, but just like a Ferarri is a great car, you wouldn't use it to replace the capabilities of a pickup truck and a minivan as well as your track car. You need to be careful what capabilities you are sacrificing to get it.

[GGTharos]

Air Supremacy has proven invaluable in every recent conflict, so I am not sure what would make you think it might not be needed. The difference is in recent conflicts we have had it by default, with no real challenge, but a peer-state competitor would be a completely different story.

 

Who saic it would be bad at air supremacy? Further, where did I say that it can't achieve air supremacy?

 

You need to be careful what capabilities you are sacrificing to get it.

 

You believe that the USAF/USN/USMC aren't being careful?

[McBlemmen]

-

 

I'm not sure what you are saying... the F-35 isnt here to replace every other combat aircraft in a theatre... there will still be aircraft like F-15 and f-22's (i think so anyway , not too familiar with when/how they operate) to do the hard air to air stuff.

 

The F-35 can win in air to air engagements , and if a situation arises where close dogfights are abolutely neccecary (when , i do not know) there will be other aircraft in the arsenal ready to do their job.

[OutOnTheOP]

So I'd be interested to hear what is replacing the F-16 in the Light Weight Fighter role.

 

I don't doubt the F-35 will be great at replacing the F-16 in the strike role, as like you said, that is what it was designed to do. The problem is that many other programs are being sacrificed with the Air Force saying "The F-35 can do that too!" when it really can't.

 

The F-22's production run was cut short, and the F-35 is obviously not going to be as good in the air superiority role. They are trying to scrap the A-10, though the F-35 wasn't designed for CAS.

 

So it wasn't intended to be an air superiority fighter, lightweight fighter, or CAS plane. Okay... why do they keep saying it is one?

 

What replaced the B-52 in the strategic nuclear role? What replaced the F-89 in the night fighter role? What replaced the Waco in the assault glider role? What replaced the OS2U in the observation floatplane role?

 

The answer is, nothing. Or, more accurately, ballistic missiles, all-weather interceptors (which were then superseded by all-weather air superiority), the helicopter, and radar.

 

The point is, you don't always NEED a one-for-one replacement; sometimes sufficiently revolutionary technologies call for a dramatic shift in tactics, and therefore in the design of military equipment to carry out these tactics.

 

We don't have heavily-armored dreadnaught-pattern battleships anymore, because they were rendered obsolete by the aircraft carrier, and then by the guided missile. But there were many of the same arguments made in the 40's and 50s about keeping them, as are now being made about the F-35's suitability in the air superiority role. The traditionalists were wrong, and battleships, while handy for massed shore bombardment, were no longer viable for the vast majority of naval duties. The "maneuver-your-nose-onto-the-other-guys-tail" dogfight is just as obsolete as the naval artillery duel, due to HOBS missiles and increasingly effective BVR missiles. Designing a fighter to fight that fight is a bit silly. (*pre-emptive edit: that's not to say all WVR fighting is done and all kinetic performance is moot, BUT, the traditional dogfight is done. Kinematic performance at cruise is probably more important now; having the energy to defeat pop-up SAM engagements is useful, but the relatively-low-energy style of turnfighting is done; it costs too much energy to bring your nose around like that, and there's no way a pilot can sustain the kind of G that would be required to out-maneuver modern HOBS WVR missiles).

 

...what continues to amuse me, though, is that some people seem to simultaneously argue that surface-to-air missiles are so inescapably lethal that the F-35 will regularly fall prey to them despite LO, while simultaneously claiming that the F-35 will be constantly massacred in guns-only dogfights, because... you know, missiles fired at non-LO aircraft are terribly ineffective and can't be relied upon to actually hit anything, so it'll go to the merge on a daily basis. Apparently missiles only suck if they're launched from an F-35. :megalol:

Edited July 6, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[fltsimbuff]

Who saic it would be bad at air supremacy? Further, where did I say that it can't achieve air supremacy?

 

My comment was directed at yours about "Maybe it isn't even needed" in reference to the Air Supremacy role. The F-22 is better than the F-35 when it comes to Air Supremacy. And it ought to be, as it was purpose-built for that.

 

You believe that the USAF/USN/USMC aren't being careful?

 

I believe that they are sacrificing great programs to save a good program that has overrun on cost, and placing the survival of that program over other things that are also very important. Ask yourself what they would do if they decided they honestly believed the F-35 wasn't worth the cost. Could they afford to cancel it? Would they? It is in their best interest to salvage it at any cost.

 

The DoD and service leaders in Washington do not have a particularly good record where things like this are concerned. Are you playing devil's advocate or do you put full faith in the bureaucrats and politicians making these decisions?

 

The F-35 is a great capability to have, but I still maintain it's not worth giving up masters of various capabilities in favor of a jack-of-all-trades.

[OutOnTheOP]

My comment was directed at yours about "Maybe it isn't even needed" in reference to the Air Supremacy role. The F-22 is better than the F-35 when it comes to Air Supremacy. And it ought to be, as it was purpose-built for that.

 

The lightweight fighter role. Maybe the lightweight fighter role isn't needed.

 

The F-35 is a great capability to have, but I still maintain it's not worth giving up masters of various capabilities in favor of a jack-of-all-trades.

 

Logical fallacy of the false dilemma. Those airframes are going away, F-35 or no F-35. They're at the end of their service lives, and will eventually simply fall apart. It's already happened to a few. The costs of keeping them airborne would actually end up greater than the F-35, because instead of just building a new aircraft once, you have to tear them down, run diagnoses on the problems, *then* essentially build a new aircraft... over several iterations, a bit at a time, with extra effort dismantling it each time a subsequent component gets SLEP'd

Edited July 6, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[fltsimbuff]

What replaced the B-52 in the strategic nuclear role? What replaced the F-89 in the night fighter role? What replaced the Waco in the assault glider role? What replaced the OS2U in the observation floatplane role?

 

The answer is, nothing. Or, more accurately, ballistic missiles, all-weather interceptors (which were then superseded by all-weather air superiority), the helicopter, and radar.

 

The point is, you don't always NEED a one-for-one replacement; sometimes sufficiently revolutionary technologies call for a dramatic shift in tactics, and therefore in the design of military equipment to carry out these tactics.

 

We don't have heavily-armored dreadnaught-pattern battleships anymore, because they were rendered obsolete by the aircraft carrier, and then by the guided missile. But there were many of the same arguments made in the 40's and 50s about keeping them, as are now being made about the F-35's suitability in the air superiority role. The traditionalists were wrong, and battleships, while handy for massed shore bombardment, were no longer viable for the vast majority of naval duties. The "maneuver-your-nose-onto-the-other-guys-tail" dogfight is just as obsolete as the naval artillery duel, due to HOBS missiles and increasingly effective BVR missiles. Designing a fighter to fight that fight is a bit silly. (*pre-emptive edit: that's not to say all WVR fighting is done and all kinetic performance is moot, BUT, the traditional dogfight is done. Kinematic performance at cruise is probably more important now; having the energy to defeat pop-up SAM engagements is useful, but the relatively-low-energy style of turnfighting is done; it costs too much energy to bring your nose around like that, and there's no way a pilot can sustain the kind of G that would be required to out-maneuver modern HOBS WVR missiles).

 

...what continues to amuse me, though, is that some people seem to simultaneously argue that surface-to-air missiles are so inescapably lethal that the F-35 will regularly fall prey to them despite LO, while simultaneously claiming that the F-35 will be constantly massacred in guns-only dogfights, because... you know, missiles fired at non-LO aircraft are terribly ineffective and can't be relied upon to actually hit anything, so it'll go to the merge on a daily basis. Apparently missiles only suck if they're launched from an F-35. :megalol:

 

That's all well and good, but I would much rather see BVR become the order of the day BEFORE we decide to make our aircraft less WVR capable. Many of the engagements as recent as the Gulf war still went into the Merge. So far there has been no indication that future battles will be strictly BVR, other than the same assumptions that have been made since before Vietnam. The fact that we work increasingly in coalitions makes attacking a radar-only contact iffy to this day.

 

Now if the Air Force has no intention of filling the "Light Weight Fighter" role, they should say they are changing the doctrine to exclude that capability rather than saying "the F-35 can do that too".

[GGTharos]

BVR IS the order of the day. Merges were UNcommon, and they happened largely due to problems with IFF equipment. There was only one engagement with MiG-25's that managed to pull a bunch of F-15's into WVR, but on the other hand ... those MiG-25's could see the F-15's, too. And it's not like getting to the merge did anything for them.

 

There's no 'Vietnamesque' assumptions about anything here. Vietnam lessons, more recent combat lessons and future projections are being used.

 

And if all that happens to an F-35, it has the advantage of entering that fight unobserved or at minimum with superior SA.

Edited July 6, 2015 by GGTharos

[fltsimbuff]

The lightweight fighter role. Maybe the lightweight fighter role isn't needed.

 

 

 

Logical fallacy of the false dilemma. Those airframes are going away, F-35 or no F-35. They're at the end of their service lives, and will eventually simply fall apart. It's already happened to a few. The costs of keeping them airborne would actually end up greater than the F-35, because instead of just building a new aircraft once, you have to tear them down, run diagnoses on the problems, *then* essentially build a new aircraft... over several iterations, a bit at a time, with extra effort dismantling it each time a subsequent component gets SLEP'd

 

The F-22's airframes are going away? That's news to me. And yes, when the F-35 was first planned, and with the initial cost estimates it may have been a better deal than keeping F-16s and A-10s in the fight, but no, it would not be cheaper now. We are still rolling F-16s off the assembly line, so it's not like they would need to start from scratch.

 

The role of the F-35 keeps expanding along with its budget. If in 20 years the F-35 lives up to every expectation and saves the world, I'll eat my words, but diminishing capabilities we have used very recently and are still using (WVR combat prowess in Desert Storm and low-and-slow CAS we use today) isn't worth it IMHO.

[fltsimbuff]

BVR IS the order of the day. Marges were UNcommon, and they happened due to problems with IFF equipment.

 

Have they 100% resolved all the IFF equipment issues then? That's a serious question. I know it was an issue in every recent conflict and haven't heard any progress made on that front.

 

And if that happens to an F-35, it has the advantage of entering that fight unobserved.

 

 

In theory... IRST and Mark 1 eyeballs notwithstanding. Remember what happens to plans when the shooting starts? What if we are going up against another Stealth aircraft? (PAK-FA or similar) There is still plenty of opportunity for fighters built for BVR to end up in a WVR fight. As BVR has not been yet combat-tested to show WVR combat obsolete, we should probably not be making that same mistake again.

Edited July 6, 2015 by fltsimbuff
clarification

[StrongHarm]

GGTharos makes some valid points about the direction of military technology. The USAF announced that the F-35 operated in Green Flag this year with several kills, more time on station and targets destroyed than the A-10, and was the only bird that took zero losses. Turn energy becomes irrelevant when the pilot can look down *through* the cockpit floor, immediately lock a bogie, and launch an all aspect missile at it with an OODA loop that takes a fraction of the time of all previous known sensors. This is a bigger technological leap than we saw between the F-4 and the F-15... and that's really saying something. But we have no context in which to judge this bird. With the attacks on this project by the media, an ambiguous mission profile, and the secrecy of the subsystems, that's really no one's fault. But I hope we're all too intelligent in these forums to believe that this bird is *a lemon* as they would have us believe. The F-15 and AH-64 killed a lot of pilots, went through many groundings and modifications, and generated much worse public opinion than the F-35 has.. and look where those birds stand now.. kings of the mountain. Never forget that the company that made the F-35 is the same company that made the P-38, F-104, F-4, F-16, not to mention the SR-71 and U-2.

 

A lot of us here were in the military. Think back to the one thing that shocked you the most when watching the news after becoming a civilian; civilians (especially the media) know nearly nothing about the realities of war, strategic planning, or military logistics... period dot. Of course there are a lot of sound bites out there aimed at swaying our opinions. The F-35 is enemy of the 'media state' second only to oil. They hate it not only because it's related to war (which we all know is an outdated concept now that we have universal harmony) but because it's money that they could put in their own pockets if it wasn't being 'wasted on that evil worthless war machine'. Best we realists look past all that and not let them provide our opinions and talking points to us. This isn't a Hollywood film where Jack Nicholson makes a bet with another general over the 9th hole that he can scam the country into making a plane that doesn't really fly. The U.S. Military is full of fighting men who understand what's at stake... and Lockheed (along with partners like BAE) have the proven ability to make breakthrough aircraft that always get the job done.

 

As to the A-10; I fully anticipate the F-35 can take the job over eventually and do it well.. just not yet. But you can't trust my opinion on that one.. I'm biased as hell because I do love that Hawg.

[outlawal2]

GGTharos makes some valid points about the direction of military technology. The USAF announced that the F-35 operated in Green Flag this year with several kills, more time on station and targets destroyed than the A-10, and was the only bird that took zero losses. Turn energy becomes irrelevant when the pilot can look down *through* the cockpit floor, immediately lock a bogie, and launch an all aspect missile at it with an OODA loop that takes a fraction of the time of all previous known sensors. This is a bigger technological leap than we saw between the F-4 and the F-15... and that's really saying something. But we have no context in which to judge this bird. With the attacks on this project by the media, an ambiguous mission profile, and the secrecy of the subsystems, that's really no one's fault. But I hope we're all too intelligent in these forums to believe that this bird is *a lemon* as they would have us believe. The F-15 and AH-64 killed a lot of pilots, went through many groundings and modifications, and generated much worse public opinion than the F-35 has.. and look where those birds stand now.. kings of the mountain. Never forget that the company that made the F-35 is the same company that made the P-38, F-104, F-4, F-16, not to mention the SR-71 and U-2.

 

A lot of us here were in the military. Think back to the one thing that shocked you the most when watching the news after becoming a civilian; civilians (especially the media) know nearly nothing about the realities of war, strategic planning, or military logistics... period dot. Of course there are a lot of sound bites out there aimed at swaying our opinions. The F-35 is enemy of the 'media state' second only to oil. They hate it not only because it's related to war (which we all know is an outdated concept now that we have universal harmony) but because it's money that they could put in their own pockets if it wasn't being 'wasted on that evil worthless war machine'. Best we realists look past all that and not let them provide our opinions and talking points to us. This isn't a Hollywood film where Jack Nicholson makes a bet with another general over the 9th hole that he can scam the country into making a plane that doesn't really fly. The U.S. Military is full of fighting men who understand what's at stake... and Lockheed (along with partners like BAE) have the proven ability to make breakthrough aircraft that always get the job done.

 

As to the A-10; I fully anticipate the F-35 can take the job over eventually and do it well.. just not yet. But you can't trust my opinion on that one.. I'm biased as hell because I do love that Hawg.

 

Nicely said and I agree 100%...

:thumbup:

[fltsimbuff]

GGTharos makes some valid points about the direction of military technology. The USAF announced that the F-35 operated in Green Flag this year with several kills, more time on station and targets destroyed than the A-10, and was the only bird that took zero losses. Turn energy becomes irrelevant when the pilot can look down *through* the cockpit floor, immediately lock a bogie, and launch an all aspect missile at it with an OODA loop that takes a fraction of the time of all previous known sensors. This is a bigger technological leap than we saw between the F-4 and the F-15... and that's really saying something. But we have no context in which to judge this bird. With the attacks on this project by the media, an ambiguous mission profile, and the secrecy of the subsystems, that's really no one's fault. But I hope we're all too intelligent in these forums to believe that this bird is *a lemon* as they would have us believe. The F-15 and AH-64 killed a lot of pilots, went through many groundings and modifications, and generated much worse public opinion than the F-35 has.. and look where those birds stand now.. kings of the mountain. Never forget that the company that made the F-35 is the same company that made the P-38, F-104, F-4, F-16, not to mention the SR-71 and U-2.

 

A lot of us here were in the military. Think back to the one thing that shocked you the most when watching the news after becoming a civilian; civilians (especially the media) know nearly nothing about the realities of war, strategic planning, or military logistics... period dot. Of course there are a lot of sound bites out there aimed at swaying our opinions. The F-35 is enemy of the 'media state' second only to oil. They hate it not only because it's related to war (which we all know is an outdated concept now that we have universal harmony) but because it's money that they could put in their own pockets if it wasn't being 'wasted on that evil worthless war machine'. Best we realists look past all that and not let them provide our opinions and talking points to us. This isn't a Hollywood film where Jack Nicholson makes a bet with another general over the 9th hole that he can scam the country into making a plane that doesn't really fly. The U.S. Military is full of fighting men who understand what's at stake... and Lockheed (along with partners like BAE) have the proven ability to make breakthrough aircraft that always get the job done.

 

As to the A-10; I fully anticipate the F-35 can take the job over eventually and do it well.. just not yet. But you can't trust my opinion on that one.. I'm biased as hell because I do love that Hawg.

 

I agree that he has some valid points. DAS and the HMD will bring some awesome things to the table as well. And when it is all said and done, maybe the F-35 will gain some additional maneuverability or additional WVR capability. But I don't think anyone can dispute that the F-22 is the more capable air supremacy aircraft, and that force was diminished to the point it is barely combat-capable in any sort of peer-level conflict. This means we will need to rely more heavily on any unstealthy F-15s still in service and the F-35. (In case you haven't noticed, I am much more concerned about the early end of the F-22 production than replacement of USAF F-16s)

 

BVR may seem to be the way forward in all our simulated battles, but that is still simulated. When you get right down to it, the last "major" air battle (Gulf War) still had over 50% of the air-air engagements take place within visual range.

 

Everything I am saying is in support of my opinion, and is not meant to diminish the opinions of anyone else, GGTharos included. It is based on a lot of research into overall air strategy, tactics, and past air engagements in recent history. I am not convinced. The F-35 is going to have to prove itself worthy of all the resources it has stolen from other programs.

 

*One other note to be clear: I absolutely do not believe it to be a lemon. It is shaping up to be very capable, and certainly more capable than anything any potential enemy has. The question is "Is it worth the cost in $$, and the cost to other projects." This is where I am unconvinced, especially as it is continuously increasing.

Edited July 7, 2015 by fltsimbuff
PS