The F-35 Thread

[Pilotasso]

Does that mean turn rate or very high AOA without turning much? ;)

[Sweep]

Which do you like more?

 

 

:D

[GGTharos]

Kind of both. High ITR and very high sustained AoA, but not very high STR.

[Big Nuts]

Sustained turn rate would be the most important one no? It implies performance.

High sustained alpha? Means it doesn't stall easily?

 

 

I heard the designer of the F15/F16 say the F35 was a turkey, what's peoples opinion of his opinion?

[GGTharos]

Sustained turn rate would be the most important one no? It implies performance.

 

It means usually somewhat lower TWR or high wing loading or both.

 

High sustained alpha? Means it doesn't stall easily?

 

It just doesn't stall :) (Not really true)

 

I heard the designer of the F15/F16 say the F35 was a turkey, what's peoples opinion of his opinion?

 

No, you didn't, because Pierre Sprey is not the designer of the F-16 :)

[Bullfrog_]

I vaugley remember similar hatred for most of the 4th gen fighters when they were in development. Although there wasn't an internet back then .

 

 

A pretty big factor in it, I would love to see the information highways reaction when the F-14 was something new.:lol:

 

Saddly, it's something we'll never see

[Rangi]

A pretty big factor in it, I would love to see the information highways reaction when the F-14 was something new.:lol:

 

Saddly, it's something we'll never see

 

Although I am sure we will get some pretty over the top reactions here when Leatherneck releases their F-14 beta.

 

I'm surprised no one has jumped on the 'exploding' fuel tanks yet.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fleet-wide-f-35-fix-targets-fuel-tank-over-pressuris-420812/

[mvsgas]

I see that most parts of the media are still jumping at everything they can find to say how bad the F-35 is but neglect to talk about many other aircraft in the past. Does any one here remember when the F-16 hydraulics pumps where failing and all had to be inspected? This happened more than once. Or when the PW-220 exhaust where coming off in flight? Or when the F-117 was grounded a couple of times? All aircraft have problems, the media just loves to hate the F-35.

[Basher54321]

A pretty big factor in it, I would love to see the information highways reaction when the F-14 was something new.:lol:

 

 

However, there was some criticism of the new, high-tech weapons systems. A GAO study said that the Navy's underpowered F-14A would be inferior to the aircraft it was replacing, the F-4J, which led Senator William Proxmire (D-WI) to say the program had been managed by ìa group of kamikaze pilots determined to commit procurement suicide.

 

(Michel III M.L , The Revolt of the Majors: HOW THE AIR FORCE CHANGED AFTER VIETNAM)

 

 

 

 

I heard the designer of the F15/F16 say the F35 was a turkey, what's peoples opinion of his opinion?

 

Sprey loves taking credit for dead peoples work - bit of a scumbag if you ask me.

 

This is not the best video technically (some statements are incorrect) but they are correct to try and pull apart the misinformation he is trying to spread.

 

Go to about 35:40 mins:

 

Edited January 19, 2016 by Basher54321

[Exorcet]

I heard the designer of the F15/F16 say the F35 was a turkey, what's peoples opinion of his opinion?

 

Part of his argument was that the F-35 doesn't have enough wing.

 

F-16 -> 18900/300 = 63

 

F-35 -> 28300/460 = 62

 

He has nothing to say. He is not even aware of reality.

[Rangi]

Getting closer to being useful

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/combat-coded-f-35a-to-begin-dropping-bombs-420924/

[AMEDooley]

So it just dawned on me, after reading this thread and seeing people use what the F-35 did at a red flag, none of those F-35 are combat coded. They are all test planes. I know this because Hill AFB just got the first combat coded F-35 in Septemebr. And there were only two of them. I work on the base and my profile pic is the day they came in. So it doesn't really matter how they did at red flag up to this point. None of those were combat F-35s. Just food for thought.

[Tirak]

So it just dawned on me, after reading this thread and seeing people use what the F-35 did at a red flag, none of those F-35 are combat coded. They are all test planes. I know this because Hill AFB just got the first combat coded F-35 in Septemebr. And there were only two of them. I work on the base and my profile pic is the day they came in. So it doesn't really matter how they did at red flag up to this point. None of those were combat F-35s. Just food for thought.

 

First of all, the F-35's haven't been to Red Flag, they participated in Green Flag. Second of all, the squadron that participated in Green Flag were from the Test Squadron, but that doesn't mean they're not combat birds. Third of all, the ability to physically drop a weapon for the purposes of Green Flag were not important. It was about JTAC integration and air defense penetration. The falling characteristics of a GBU do not change based on the aircraft carrying it, so the F-35s made simulated runs, but they still punched through OpFor air defenses, and operated in concert with JTACS to simulate their runs.

 

So yeah, the Green Flag exercises meant something.

[AMEDooley]

First of all, the F-35's haven't been to Red Flag, they participated in Green Flag. Second of all, the squadron that participated in Green Flag were from the Test Squadron, but that doesn't mean they're not combat birds. Third of all, the ability to physically drop a weapon for the purposes of Green Flag were not important. It was about JTAC integration and air defense penetration. The falling characteristics of a GBU do not change based on the aircraft carrying it, so the F-35s made simulated runs, but they still punched through OpFor air defenses, and operated in concert with JTACS to simulate their runs.

 

So yeah, the Green Flag exercises meant something.

 

I do apologies for mixing up the event, I assumed they were talking about red flag. However the F-35s at green flag were not combat coded. As of right now there are only six combat coded F-35. I know this because I work at Hill in the unit that has them. There is a big difference between a test and evaluation jet and a combat coded jet. So it does make a difference which jets were used. And as no jet from the 34 FS has been anywhere, those test results aren't conclusive to state any case positive or negative. But according to our pilots who have flown against them, the jets really impressive.

[ttaylor0024]

Marines just selected their first F-35 pilot out of training command a couple of months ago. Navy side of the house has 2+ years until we select pilots for it.

 

Maybe one day

[Maximus_G]

American Thinker loves F-35:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/5_reasons_why_our_f35s_are_too_dangerous_to_fly.html

(warning: a heavy-hitter)

[GGTharos]

Already posted in this thread and thoroughly debunked.

[Sweep]

That article smells like my toilet.

[Rangi]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-fires-aim-9x-as-raytheon-snags-next-gen-weapons-421133/

[Tirak]

[Fer_Fer]

 

Pretty ballsy to state that its ready for world wide deployment when the DoD has produced a surprising number of paper on that it isn't

 

[ame]http://www.pogoarchives.org/straus/2015-9-1-DoD-FOIA-ocr.pdf[/ame]

[Emu]

That's not what it actually says. It says the test wasn't designed to test for operational capability but that a few issues were noted, which were likely sorted out during the interim period.

[Heli]

 

https://www.facebook.com/EdwardsAirForceBase/photos/pb.139549732762631.-2207520000.1454136061./1071990312851897/?type=3&theater

[Airway]

I might have missed it here - it's said that F-35 are deployed to Fairford and Farnborough Airshows this year. This has been confirmed but theres rumours that the F-35 will also show up on the Dutch Open Daagen in Leeuwarden in June. This hasn't been confirmed yet but it's said to be likely as the F-35 will be stationed there in the future.

 

Has anybody more details on that?

[Hummingbird]

Part of his argument was that the F-35 doesn't have enough wing.

 

F-16 -> 18900/300 = 63

 

F-35 -> 28300/460 = 62

 

He has nothing to say. He is not even aware of reality.

 

Not that I agree with everything Pierre has said, far from it, but in this case he could be simply refering to wing area in relation to the design, i.e. effective lifting surface, and here the F-16 does have the advantage of featuring a much more ideally shaped blended wing body where'as the F-35 doesn't. Pierre probably didn't bother going into such details with a clueless reporter who wouldn't understand anyway, thus he kept it simple and simply refered to the wing.

 

Also I think a good indication of the F-35's lack of effective lifting surface is how much Lockheed had to increase the wing area of the F-35 to make it capable of operating from an aircraft carrier. Obviously that big chunky fuselage, whilst ofcourse generating lift, just aint very efficient at it - which even the mk.1 eyeball can deduce really.

 

But again IMHO maneuverability has never been part of the top 3 design parameters for the F-35, it is very clear looking at the design that stealth, sensor fusion and payload have been prioritized over all else.

 

All in all I think it'll make an excellent strike craft, esp. against enemy SAM sites, but I fear it will fall short when it comes to either the dedicated CAS or air superiority role.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Hummingbird