The F-35 Thread

[aaron886]

Well I don't think any attack is going to come with a warning first ;)

 

As Von Clausewitz would say, "The aggressor is always peace-loving; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed."

[mvsgas]

... and its better than the 16.

 

:huh: Them fighting word sir! Catch me outside! Howbow dah? :smartass:

Edited February 9, 2017 by mvsgas

[SkateZilla]

:huh: Them fighting word sir! Catch me outside! Howbow dah? :smartass:

 

its

Cash Me Ousside, How bout dat.

[Sweep]

its

Cash Me Ousside, How bout dat.

 

Cash? Like this?

 

[AMEDooley]

I suspected the reaction would be similar if you were to transition from Viper to Bug, or Viper to Raptor, or anything else for that matter.

 

Growing pains, really.

 

This! So much This!

 

:huh: Them fighting word sir! Catch me outside! Howbow dah? :smartass:

 

I have to admit I like the Jet, but I hated working on it. By far the stupidest plane I worked on. But when you get blasted twice by the EPU you tend to not like the jet lol.

[Hummingbird]

praytell what would be the strategic value of warning nato of an attack by headshotting denmark???

 

Huh??

 

If an attack happens it's probably not going to be limited to just one country... hence all NATO countries need to be prepared.

[Seaeagle]

Well I don't think any attack is going to come with a warning first ;)

 

Our QRA aircraft need to be up to date, like those of our neighbours Germany, Britain, Norway & Sweden.

 

There really is no such thing as "our international fleet" or "our QRA aircraft". The Danish F-16s(some 30 operational) are all stationed at the same airbase(Fighter Wing Skrydstrup) from which practically any part of our airspace can be reached within 10 minutes or so. The QRA("Afvisningsberedskab") consists of two(!) aircraft :D - which F-16 version is used for the purpose could be changed any day of the week. AFAIK the lower spec Block 10 based F-16AMs are used for QRA simply to conserve airframe life of the hard-pressed(from international deployments) Block 15 based ones. But then as long as ROE dictates VID in dealing with possible airspace violations, carrying AMRAAMs doesn't seem all that useful.

 

IMO you are making far too big a deal of this - if you are concerned by readiness, then other things are far more "bonkers".....such as our complete lack of anti-submarine capabilities or that our 3 new frigates were built with state-of-the-art long-range airdefense systems, but have yet to be equipped with the associated missiles(SM-2).

 

Anyway, I think we have derailed this thread far enough as it is, so lets return to the subject of the F-35 :) .

[Hummingbird]

Fair enough, we will leave it at that then, the problem will be solved with the introduction of the F-35 anyway.

[Phantom88]

[Boagrius]

Some rather unequivocal testimony here:

 

 

Bearing in mind that this was achieved with Block 3i software constraining payload to 2 x AMRAAM and 2 x GBU, I'd say this is pretty good news for the F35(!).

Edited February 18, 2017 by Boagrius

[RyboPops]

I would hardly call it unequivocal, more propaganda-like for PR purposes IMO. The kill ratio means nothing out of context. The only number that really means anything are the 7 WVR losses, as it verifies what test pilot reports have been saying for years: The F-35 is a poor fighter. Is it a good striker? Absolutely, stealth ensures that it can get places other jets can't. Is it a good BVR platform? Sure, AESA radar paired with AIM-120Ds is a kick-ass combo. But I'm so sick of all these little videos and news articles trying to sell the F-35 to the public with their "SEEEEE!?!? We told you it would eventually be worth the insane cost overruns and schedule slip" feel good stories with little, if any, contextual background provided.

[probad]

i guess that means since the f-22s gotten killed in exercises it too must be a poor fighter

 

you want to talk about context so how about we talk about the f-35s performance in context to its mission role in rf17-1 then?

[GGTharos]

I would hardly call it unequivocal, more propaganda-like for PR purposes IMO. The kill ratio means nothing out of context.

 

The only number that really means anything are the 7 WVR losses,

I think a little practice what you preach is in order :)

[wilky510]

The only number that really means anything are the 7 WVR losses, as it verifies what test pilot reports have been saying for years

Sounds like to me that the WVR "losses" weren't actual dogfights, from what he said. So i don't see how this relates with maneuverability being a problem as critics have pointed out.

 

What pilots have you heard talking about the aircraft being bad in WVR? the few i've read said it has more nose pointing capability than the F-16, which allows you more options in the WVR regime...

[RyboPops]

First, I'll offer my background. I've been an LM employee since 2013. Do I work on the F-35 program? Nope. Do I have access to lots of LM internal F-35 info? Yep. generally speaking, if it isn't portion marked or NTK, I'm able to read it. That includes many LM test pilot reports since the first flight including the report from which the now infamous quote "aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time" originates.

 

Unless I'm mistaken (I'm not), the cockpit hasn't been redesigned, meaning the LM test pilot report still holds true. Now we have real world evidence that supports that contextual background; The F-35 got into 7 WVR engagements, and it lost all 7. Of course there is still some missing information but we have enough information to make logical and reasonable assessments.

 

What we don't have context for is the nature of the engagements that they won. They were obviously BVR engagements, but what was the setup? What aircraft did the F-35's sort and engage? What were the Blue Air ROE and what were the Red Air ROE? What was the F-35's A-Pole/F-Pole at the time of engagement? What was the anticipated Pk rate and was it achieved?

 

That's the lack of context to which I'm referring. These videos and articles discussing F-35 combat achievements are useless without the necessary background information, and therefore only serve to sway public opinion. I'm not arguing that the F-35 will suck at everything it does. On the contrary, it's going to be a good contested airspace strike platform aside from payload size. Hell, it will probably even take the Wild Weasel role from the Viper and it will likely excel in that role. So if you assumed that I'm simply another F-35 hater you are most certainly incorrect.

Edited February 22, 2017 by RyboPops
grammar fix

[RyboPops]

the few i've read said it has more nose pointing capability than the F-16, which allows you more options in the WVR regime...

 

Nose-on authority doesn't provide more options, it's just a different way of fighting. The F-16 is a rate fighter, the Hornet is a radius fighter, and the F-35, based on limited information, appears to be somewhere in the middle. As I mentioned above, maneuverability isn't the issue, visibility outside the airplane is.

[RyboPops]

I think a little practice what you preach is in order :)

 

You're right, I should have specified what I was referring to. I have included more detailed information in my subsequent posts.

[Wizard_03]

On the contrary, it's going to be a good contested airspace strike platform aside from payload size. Hell, it will probably even take the Wild Weasel role from the Viper and it will likely excel in that role.

 

When you say aside from payload size. What are you comparing it too? It has very comparable payload size to the F-16, 17,000lb vs 18,000lbs total with about 3,000lb internal capacity which you can't honestly bring up for F-16 because that allows F-35 too enter contested airspace for which the F-16 could not without a dedicated SEAD/DEAD strike to clear the way.

 

Also The F-16 must carry external TGPs, Jammers, and Drop tanks to even have Close to ballpark; range, EW, and targeting Capabilities the F-35 has built in. All of which severely limits how many actual weapons it can bring to the strike.

 

A typical strike load for the F-16 has around 2 - 2000lb class or 4 - 500lb class munitions the rest of its payload capacity go to self defense and the above mentioned baggage 99 % of the time, and if it doesn't then you would probably send in an A-10 instead at a fraction of the cost.

 

So it can carry about the same load total as the F-16 but unlike the F-16 it can use nearly every pound for weapons since it doesn't need pods or extra fuel, and from that perspective we are getting closer to the F-15Es capabilities in the bomb truck role and on top of that it has the ability to carry a small load into less permissible airspace, an advantage that neither the F-16 or really any 4th gen strike fighter possesses at all.

 

Its flexibility that will make it very good in the strike and interdiction rolls. You have same payload capacity as the F-16 or better and now you can also deploy it against high threat modern Air Defense systems. You may no longer need 3 different types of aircraft running support for the strike you can accomplish the mission with a single type in nearly every scenario. Aside from maybe CAS

[RyboPops]

I was mostly thinking of the F-15E and the F-18E/F in terms of payload capacity in the strike role, both of which are arguably the best strike platforms of their respective branches. The Rhino is the best by default in the USN since they don't currently have any other platforms to begin with and won't for what appears to be a long time. The F-35 is limited in that regard without external stores, which would of course negate it's stealth characteristics.

 

That said, if the US were to get in a war with a 5th gen adversary, the first things into theater would likely be Raptors, Lightnings, and Spirits. Once air superiority is obtained and the deadliest threats are eliminated the remainder of the aircraft need not be stealth and Vipers, Eagles, Mudhens, Hogs, Hornets, Rhinos, Bones, and Buffs could finish the attrition campaign with support from Growlers doing their EW voodoo.

[Hummingbird]

Doesn't the F-35 have a rear view camera to eliminate that blind spot?

 

I thought that was what this was:

 

Thus I'd assume that if 7 were shot down in WVR it was probably solely due to them being outmaneuvered, and not that they didn't see the enemy as all their sensors are there to make sure they have 360 deg SA.

[aaron886]

Where is this 7 deaths number coming from?

[Sweep]

Doesn't the F-35 have a rear view camera to eliminate that blind spot?

 

No, the pilot has eyes. :D

 

Really though, some of the recent posters in the thread might want to read a certain European F-16 pilot's thoughts on the F-35 in dissimilar BFM. He covers visibility concerns, IIRC.

 

Thus I'd assume that if 7 were shot down in WVR it was probably solely due to them being outmaneuvered, and not that they didn't see the enemy as all their sensors are there to make sure they have 360 deg SA.

 

I'd say it's a lack of WVR weapons more than any maneuvering qualities. I mean, two Slammers each, no X-rays, no guns; what are ya gonna do in WVR? Separate, blowthrough and separate, etc. --- Sometimes, the bandits figure out what you're doing too early. That's happened to Raptors, as well (there's audio of it on youtube).

 

Despite popular belief, the F-35 is very likely a good BFM'r. As mentioned, it has more SA than just about anything out there.

 

Where is this 7 deaths number coming from?

 

[aaron886]

Yeah again, numbers without context. RyboPops, you claim a position of authority as an LM employee, and then commit to the same false argument you just complained about. We know nothing about how those losses occurred, except that they were WVR. That's not a surprise, considering the aircraft is designed not to be engaged BVR.

 

We can't even know if 7 losses in 207 sorties is a good or bad attrition rate in this exercise. A majority of this thread is pure conjecture fueled by video games. I know it's the internet, but let's tone down the anonymous claims of authority on this forum and stick with what little data there is.

Edited February 21, 2017 by aaron886

[RyboPops]

Yeah again, numbers without context. RyboPops, you to claim a position of authority as an LM employee, and then commit to the same false argument you just complained about. We know nothing about how those losses occurred, except that they were WVR. That's not a surprise, considering the aircraft is designed not to be engaged BVR.

 

We can't even know if 7 losses in 207 sorties is a good or bad attrition rate in this exercise. A majority of this thread is pure conjecture fueled by video games. I know it's the internet, but let's tone down the anonymous claims of authority on this forum and stick with what little data there is.

 

I make no claim to authority, I merely stated my background and what I have access to. I specifically stated that I'm not working the F-35 program. Hell, I'm not even in the LM Aero LOB. If you or anyone else chooses to disbelieve my claim I certainly wouldn't lay blame...it's the internet after all. Would you like a picture of my LM employee badge as irrefutable evidence? I'll snap a picture of it tonight when I get home with a sticky note that says "RyboPops" on it while holding it in front of this very post displayed on my monitor. :thumbup:

 

I also didn't make a false argument, read it again:

 

Of course there is still some missing information but we have enough information to make logical and reasonable assessments.

 

I made reasonable and logical conclusions using pilot reports that are, for the most part, publicly available and the information shared in the video that it lost 7 WVR fights. I'll again state that I'm not an F-35 hater, and perhaps using the words "poor fighter" is what is causing people think that. In terms of fighters, I think of the WVR arena exclusively as being able to find, sort, and engage targets at BVR ranges doesn't make a fighter IMO. A B-52 with appropriate systems could fire AIM-120's. So I stand by my conclusion that based on available evidence and testimony, the F-35 is a poor performer in the WVR fight. I'm sure, however, that it is going to be great in most other roles (strike, IA, XINT, XATK, and basically any other A-G role except CAS)

 

I'd say it's a lack of WVR weapons more than any maneuvering qualities. I mean, two Slammers each, no X-rays, no guns; what are ya gonna do in WVR? Separate, blowthrough and separate, etc. ---

 

Weapons can be simulated quite easily. The F-16 has been doing it for years. You can pseudo-load weapons into the SMS system and the associated functionality (minus firing, obviously) is present in the jet. Symbology on the HUD is identical, DLZs and release parameters are simulated, etc.

[Hummingbird]

I'd say it's a lack of WVR weapons more than any maneuvering qualities. I mean, two Slammers each, no X-rays, no guns; what are ya gonna do in WVR? Separate, blowthrough and separate, etc. --- Sometimes, the bandits figure out what you're doing too early. That's happened to Raptors, as well (there's audio of it on youtube).

 

Well they could simply simulate the gun as they do the missiles and call it a kill once the firing solution was achieved and the pipper correctly placed, that's how they usually do it anyway.

 

EDIT: Seems Rybopops beat me to it.