# some F35 info



## Torch (Jan 16, 2015)

http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/16/f-35-weapons-suite/

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2015)

I was just about to post that!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 16, 2015)

That is just so cool!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 16, 2015)

Well, that was a "Strike Fighter" designed for ...right ?, a damn good plane, too bad the freaking price.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 16, 2015)

Billions for a plane that will easily be shot down over a well defended battlefield.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 17, 2015)

I have very high hopes for it coupled with very low expectations.

It could be a great one or our downfall ... I'm hoping for the former ... just not really expecting it to be as advertised. Still, the planes to date in the post 3rd-generation jet fighter era have mostly been pretty good ones. Perhaps this one will continue the trend. If it does, I REALLY hate to see what the follow-on will cost!

If we went back to spears and bows and arrows, war would stop or at least be localized ... unless we attack from helicopters with crossbows.

I say balloons and blunderbusses at 50 meters! Liek in "Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines." Stay away from the wastewater pond!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 17, 2015)

The F-35 badly needs some combat cred .... put it to work .... very selectively, I say.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 17, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> The F-35 badly needs some combat cred .... put it to work .... very selectively, I say.



Bombing ISIS perhaps ? almost a holy duty, but I will not like to be in the shoes of the pilot if he has to eject.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 17, 2015)

no worse off than in a downed F-15, F-16 or Tornado .... lets remember that some Lancaster and Halifax crewmen were abused by Germans who caught them ....


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 17, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> no worse off than in a downed F-15, F-16 or Tornado .... lets remember that some Lancaster and Halifax crewmen were abused by Germans who caught them ....



Some were killed too, but that was sporadic, in Irak and sirya is the rule.


----------



## Glider (Jan 17, 2015)

People question the ability of the F35 but personally I am all for it. There is no doubt that the wars that have been fought recently could have been won with an F4 which causes some to doubt the need. However the first time the USAF go up against a sophisticated enemy they will appreciate every advantage it gives them.

Instead of concentrating on what people think it cannot do, does anyone know have a better attack aircraft to fly when up against a modern defence?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 17, 2015)

No doubt the plane will be good. Its just so expensive, its unaffordable. Its plainly obvious that the only way to attack high value targets in a well defended area will be UAVs going on one way missions.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 18, 2015)

.....or send the _Dambusters!_


----------



## Glider (Jan 18, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> No doubt the plane will be good. Its just so expensive, its unaffordable. Its plainly obvious that the only way to attack high value targets in a well defended area will be UAVs going on one way missions.



Possibly but current UAV's will simply get swatted out of the sky. They will need significant improvements before that will happen, which will increase the cost and complexity to an almost unaffordable level.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Billions for a plane that will easily be shot down over a well defended battlefield.



ANY aircraft could be shot down over a well defended battlefield!!!  Any new combat plane WILL cost BILLIONS!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 18, 2015)

Which is my point. They are unaffordable.


----------



## GregP (Jan 18, 2015)

I have a VERY hard time understanding the incremental cost of the capabilities added. The software to fly a modern fly-by-wire aircraft is fairly straightforward. It comes in airliners for crying out loud. It comes in a 6-seat business jet.

I don't need software to drop a piece of ordnance, but I can do it on Microsoft Flight Simulator for under $30.

So exactly what is costing so much? If we break down the costs of the software, my bet is we can rapidly identify things that are NOT and never will be needed. If I were on the Armed Services Committee, that's where I would start ... by identifying the incremental costs of the F-35 and eliminating things that cannot be easily justified, and I don't mean justified by a goup of people hostile to the program who have no qualifications to make the decision. The group doing the justifying it should be composed of senior pilots and senior military leaders. When they gtet finished, send the recommendations to the President and the Congress.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it really should be done.

I have no specific thing I want to elminate, but the cost is ridiculous and there at LEAST would be some understanding of what various things cost to add to an aircraft's capability list. We could balance thath against all the identifiable times we have needed that capability in the past shile looking at new threats coming down the pike.

If manned aircraft are going to be THIS costsly, scrap 'em and let's get to fighting with drones as rapidly as possible. For the cost of a single F-35, how many combat drones of what type could be acquired together with weapons? I would hate for it to come to that exclusively, but the companies that design manned fighter aircraft are pricing themselves out of the business as far as I'm concerned. Maybe this puppy SHOULD be the last manned combat aircraft.

I suppose we'll have to see the combat legacy of the F-35 to know for sure, but the cost is not in any manner acceptable to me as a taxpayer. Since we're buying it anyway, we should at LEAST understand why it costs so much, down to the penny.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 18, 2015)

Neither the Russians nor the Chinese will forego the use of _manned_ fighter/multi-strike aircraft for drones .... they operate on a different cost-benefit model than NATO countries .... but I think we have no choice but to push the envelope and bear the costs ... that is the price of leadership.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Which is my point. They are unaffordable.



And UAVs alone aren't going to cut it - and start building larger and more sophisticated UAVs and they will be expensive as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2015)

GregP said:


> I have a VERY hard time understanding the incremental cost of the capabilities added. The software to fly a modern fly-by-wire aircraft is fairly straightforward. It comes in airliners for crying out loud. It comes in a 6-seat business jet.
> 
> I don't need software to drop a piece of ordnance, but I can do it on Microsoft Flight Simulator for under $30.
> 
> So exactly what is costing so much? If we break down the costs of the software, my bet is we can rapidly identify things that are NOT and never will be needed. If I were on the Armed Services Committee, that's where I would start ... by identifying the incremental costs of the F-35 and eliminating things that cannot be easily justified, and I don't mean justified by a goup of people hostile to the program who have no qualifications to make the decision. The group doing the justifying it should be composed of senior pilots and senior military leaders. When they gtet finished, send the recommendations to the President and the Congress.



Look at all the specs and requirements imposed on certain systems. There was a push to use "off the shelf" equipment, but you have a lot of pentagon bureaucrats who just add on more and more compliance and oversight. The F-35 "SHOULD HAVE" eliminated a lot of this waste, instead it added to it. 


GregP said:


> Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it really should be done.


That the problem with think takns and "dreamers' within the military. There's always a push to improve things - it looks good on your military resume.


GregP said:


> I have no specific thing I want to elminate, but the cost is ridiculous and there at LEAST would be some understanding of what various things cost to add to an aircraft's capability list. We could balance thath against all the identifiable times we have needed that capability in the past shile looking at new threats coming down the pike.


Agree


GregP said:


> If manned aircraft are going to be THIS costsly, scrap 'em and let's get to fighting with drones as rapidly as possible. For the cost of a single F-35, how many combat drones of what type could be acquired together with weapons? I would hate for it to come to that exclusively, but the companies that design manned fighter aircraft are pricing themselves out of the business as far as I'm concerned. Maybe this puppy SHOULD be the last manned combat aircraft.


Combat drones as primary combat aircraft are a pipe dream, especially in an air to air scenero. I think there will always be manned combat aircraft and I also believe that drones will eventually SUPPLEMENT but never replace... 


GregP said:


> I suppose we'll have to see the combat legacy of the F-35 to know for sure, but the cost is not in any manner acceptable to me as a taxpayer. Since we're buying it anyway, we should at LEAST understand why it costs so much, down to the penny.



I remember similar arguments in 1976 when the F-15 and F-16 were entering service and people were questioning why we needed TWO fighters!


----------



## GregP (Jan 18, 2015)

I remember those arguments and I also understood the need for both. The price was expensive but nowhere NEAR the escalation of the F-35. We will spend more on this one weapon system than the GNP of many nations, and more than is healthy for the country.

Think of what we could have done to the national debt if we just didn't buy the thing and went with develoments of existing designs or modifications of same just lie ... Russia did with the Su-27 / Su-35 series that are VERY capable.


----------



## gumbyk (Jan 18, 2015)

GregP said:


> I have a VERY hard time understanding the incremental cost of the capabilities added. The software to fly a modern fly-by-wire aircraft is fairly straightforward. It comes in airliners for crying out loud. It comes in a 6-seat business jet.
> 
> I don't need software to drop a piece of ordnance, but I can do it on Microsoft Flight Simulator for under $30.



It's a matter of the quality of service, and guarantees.
It is the same reason that commercial rates for things like my phone cost 2-3 times as much. A business account comes with a guaranteed level of service.

That, and how much scope creep has gone into this thing?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2015)

GregP said:


> I remember those agruments and I also understaood the need for both. The price was expensive butwhere NEAR the escalation of the F-35. We will spend more on this one weapon system than the GNP of many nations, and more thanis healthy for the country.
> 
> Think of what we could have done to the national deby if we just didn;t buy the thing and went with develoments of existing designs or modifications of same just lie ... Russia did with the Su-*27 / Su-35 series that are VERY capable.



There is no doubt this program is expensive and has spiraled out of control. There were supposed to be polices in place to hold costs down but the DoD continued(s) to add, change and come up with more and more requirements, and it's not only on this program, there are other DoD programs that piss money away beyond belief. Adding to this dilemma is the state of the US economy, which if it was in better shape the F-35 would be an easier pill to swallow (I don't want to go into a political rant here) so some of the F-35 detractors do have a valid argument and it has nothing to do with the aircraft LMCO or it's performance, it's all about what the priorities are in defending this country. When this aircraft was being developed, there was "money in the bank" and the program seemed affordable, now it's a entirely different story.

With the exception of the A-10, I don't think modification of existing airframes is the answer, if anything it's just prolonging old technology and brining a disservice to our pilots who, IMO should have the best money could buy efficiently. One of the purposes of this aircraft was to standardize parts, procurement, training, etc., so all 3 branches of the military could use this aircraft, hence the cost savings. I think LMCO is trying (they're exisitance depends on it), but when you have your primary customer run by bureaucrats who place their jobs ahead of what best for the country, then you'll have the results seen on the F-35.

This aircraft will be built and it will be a game changer IMO - what pisses me off are the detractors who continually hang their hat on the 2011 Rand report and who continually buys some of the crap the media put out about this aircraft, aviation and the military. Don't fear, there are plans afoot that will not only take the limelight away fro this program, but will usher in new discussions on how and how much we need to spend on modern combat aircraft.

At Whiteman, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel calls for the U.S. to build a replacement for the B-2 bomber | The Kansas City Star


----------



## Tracker (Jan 19, 2015)

Can we build another NCC-1701?


----------



## GregP (Jan 20, 2015)

I have read the Rand Corp stuff and some is valid ... some is not.

I've been trying to find out if the scenarios suggested by Riccione are likely, and can't find anything about it, But if they DO go and hang external ordnance on the F-35, then the Su-27 / MiG-29s of the world CAN find it an shoot it down. So I hope they employ it sensibly ... and sensible employment has been a problem for the U.S.A. since about 1968 or so in Viet Nam.

I'd believe in the F-35 if the pilots and squadrons are allowed to plan their fight. If the White House is going to plan the fight, like they did in Viet Nam, we're probably doomed. I think it will be OK if the politicians give the Military a task and then back off and let them plan and exceute the task.

It is probably a political thing, but I think we should avoid the crap out of "police actions." If we are going to fight and die it is war. Declare it and fight it according to Geneva Convention, and then enforce harsh penalties after the war for violations of same on any side. Alternatively, come up with a document that can be signed by everyone, like the Geneva convention, for limited skirmishes. 

No particular disrespect for the office of the president, but I have been in 2 military services and would decline to go anywhere I don't have the right to return fire at any time. I don't buy into "rules of engagement." If someone shoots at me, I demand the right to return fire and escalate as required until the threat is eliminated. Otherwise I have no interest in participating in the fight and would decline to serve again. I'd serve the COUNTRY, but not a military service who wants me to get shot at and not respond in kind.

Civilized response work only when both sides are civilized. Otherwise, the only thing understood is a big stick.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 20, 2015)

Even if these jets perform better than specified, some are still going to be lost. Slowly through accidents or several through combat losses. And its the expense of them that is unsustainable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 20, 2015)

One question I have been wondering about concerns the F-22. 

The F-35 is about a generation ahead in computers and software and I wonder if any of these wonders we are paying so dearly for could be retrofitted to the F-22 as upgrades. At least THAT should increase the electronics production numbers and result in cost some savings relative to F-22 upgrades developed from scratch.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Even if these jets perform better than specified, some are still going to be lost. Slowly through accidents or several through combat losses. And its the expense of them that is unsustainable.


Really? the same thing was said of the F-15 during the early 80s. Not one was lost in combat but there have been several lost in accidents, this is called "attrition." It is calculated, tracked and computed into the aircraft's operating costs. By the time these aircraft enter service they will have been paid for.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2015)

GregP said:


> I have read the Rand Corp stuff and some is valid ... some is not.
> 
> I've been trying to find out if the scenarios suggested by Riccione are likely, and can't find anything about it, But if they DO go and hang external ordnance on the F-35, then the Su-27 / MiG-29s of the world CAN find it an shoot it down. So I hope they employ it sensibly ... and sensible employment has been a problem for the U.S.A. since about 1968 or so in Viet Nam.
> 
> ...



Agree - ALL functions of these aircraft HAVE to be utilized. We limited dogfights over Vietnam (a few years earlier there were think tank folks who said that there will be no more dogfights) and were getting our butts kicked because we had to fight VR. When things changed, we just about wiped out the NVNAF.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2015)

GregP said:


> One question I have been wondering about concerns the F-22.
> 
> The F-35 is about a generation ahead in computers and software and I wonder if any of these wonders we are paying so dearly for could be retrofitted to the F-22 as upgrades. At least THAT should increase the electronics production numbers and result in cost some savings relative to F-22 upgrades developed from scratch.



Lockheed awarded $68M contract for F-22 work at Hill AFB > U.S. Air Force > Article Display


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 21, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Really? the same thing was said of the F-15 during the early 80s. Not one was lost in combat but there have been several lost in accidents, this is called "attrition." It is calculated, tracked and computed into the aircraft's operating costs. By the time these aircraft enter service they will have been paid for.



Our economy was in far better shape in the 80's. Loosing several planes was sustainable. Now if we lose a few F35's, we are in billion dollar territory. Unsustainable for any economy.


----------



## Glider (Jan 21, 2015)

An observation on the cost of the 'cheap' drones. The Pentagon are questioning the cost of the combat ready drones. *Each *combat ready drone costs approx. $0.5 billion. Test drones about $200m each, Air National Guard drones are about $180m each

These are aircraft that in defended airspace wouldn't last five minutes. They are starting to make the F35 look like good value for money.

Detail as below

Air Force Did Not Justify the Need for MQ-9 Reaper Procurement Quantities

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Our economy was in far better shape in the 80's. Loosing several planes was sustainable. Now if we lose a few F35's, we are in billion dollar territory. Unsustainable for any economy.


"Mid" 1980s. We were suffering during the early 80s. 


The only thing unsustainable is the loss of the aircraft. You don't seem to understand that these aircraft are already paid for by the time they enter service.


----------



## GregP (Jan 21, 2015)

I think everyone understands they are paid for when delivered. We question the *decision to purchase* at the price paid. We can't afford it and should stop it. There are options that don't cost as much.

What I'd REALLY like to see is for the Air Force to design one on its own and then get competitive bids for production. Mandate that congrss doesn't get to add any requirements, only combat requirements from a group of people from combat pilots, threat anayysts, and senior commanders ... ohm yeah, add in senior crew chiefs so maintenance would get considered. In fact, the maintenance guys should have an equal say to the design guys and the end design doesn't go forward without 75% approval (or pick a number).

Too late to do anything about the F-35, but we shoudl damned well do SOMETHING better for the next one, if there IS a next one. We could get off a LOT cheaper by buying Su-35's and modifying them with our own avionics suites ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2015)

GregP said:


> I think everyone understands they are paid for when delivered.


 I think there's at least a few folks out there that don't grasp that.


GregP said:


> What I'd REALLY like to see is for the Air Force to design one on its own and then get competitive bids for production. Mandate that congrss doesn't get to add any requirements, only combat requirements from a group of people from combat pilots, threat anayysts, and senior commanders ... ohm yeah, add in senior crew chiefs so maintenance would get considered. In fact, the maintenance guys should have an equal say to the design guys and the end design doesn't go forward without 75% approval (or pick a number).


 Actually that does happen, the only thing there is members of congress try to ensure that their states get the biggest piece of the production pie. the one who continually add on things are engineers, analysts and yes, senior pilots.


GregP said:


> Too late to do anything about the F-35, but we shoudl damned well do SOMETHING better for the next one, if there IS a next one. We could get off a LOT cheaper by buying Su-35's and modifying them with our own avionics suites ...


The Su 35 will be cannon fodder for the F-22, remember the F-35 IS NOT and WAS NEVER MEANT to be a dogfighter.


----------



## GregP (Jan 22, 2015)

It may not have ever been meant to be a dogfighter, but it SURE AS HELL was SOLD that way. If I recall correctly, it was to have "potent dogfighting capabilities when the ground attack weapons were expended." 

I figured at the time it was a load of malarkey, and would have voted to cancel it THEN, but I wasn't in the Senate or the House, so I just stewed about Congress being deluded ... again. And then we bought it.

Hope it all works out. If you go back and look it up, the F-35 most certainly was sold as a fighter after the bomb load was delivered.BGeing VERY into that, I paid close attention.

Since we DID buy it, again I hope it is very successful. If so, then this, too, shall pass.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 22, 2015)

GregP said:


> It may not have ever been meant to be a dogfighter, but it SURE AS HELL was SOLD that way. If I recall correctly, it was to have "potent dogfighting capabilities when the ground attack weapons were expended."


Yes - drop your bombs, shoot down your enemy BVR and go home. If this aircraft (or for that matter an F-22) is drawn into a close in visual dogfight (with no systems failures or political rules of engagement), you've just pissed away millions if not billions of dollars worth of technology.


GregP said:


> I figured at the time it was a load of malarkey, and would have voted to cancel it THEN, but I wasn't in the Senate or the House, so I just stewed about Congress being deluded ... again. And then we bought it.


Actually it wasn't "malarkey" then or now - it does have an air to air capability and can "compete" against other modern fighters. Remember, the specification for this aircraft, INCLUDING it's air-to-air capability was written by the Pentagon, not LMCO...

VIDEO: F-35 test pilot defends JSF's dogfighting capability - The DEW Line

"U.S. military test pilots say the JSF is similar to the Boeing F/A-18C in speed and maneuverability."

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/can-the-f-35-win-a-dogfight-95462ccd6745

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 22, 2015)

I fully agree that to get into a close-in dogfight is not a good use of assets designed for BVR lethality. I only hope they make rules of engagement that don't get all our assets shot down by forcing visual identification before engagement. If they don't, then BVR is a load of political crap and needs to be dropped like a hot potato ... and we need to get back to building dogfighters.

We'll have to disagree about the "malarkey" part but that's OK. We'll see in the future. Again, I'm pulling for the F-35 since we will buy it regardless of any like or dislike on anybody's part.

When I read about the Cope India fiasco of a few years ago, I saw the writing on the wall. The US was flying against odds of 3-to-1 minimum or better against us and they removed our BVR capabilities, AWACS, and air refueling. In that situation, you will almost certianly get shot down, even Raptors.

I don't mind the odds, but at least let the players use their available assets as they would in the real world. It looks like the U.S.A. agreed to fight that way so the other side could enjoy a rare taste of victory. Too bad the press claimed it showed our Air Force was inerffective. They should have looked at the ROE, which were stacked rather heavily so we'd have to eat the losses and taste defeat. No wonder the guys came home saying it was a "setup."

Real aerial conflicts usually aren't fought with the pilot's hands tied behind their backs. Usually their hands are only duct taped, like in Korea and Viet Nam. We couldn't attack MiG bases or cross the Yalu in Korea and we were rather heavily constrained in Viet Nam by the White House. Talk about STUPID, it WAS.

I hope we have learned our lesson about stupid constraints once the shooting starts, but I doubt it.

Cheers, Joe.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 23, 2015)

GregP said:


> It may not have ever been meant to be a dogfighter, but it SURE AS HELL was SOLD that way. If I recall correctly, it was to have "potent dogfighting capabilities when the ground attack weapons were expended."
> 
> .



If it had been sold as a close in fighter then the RAF and a number of other nations wouldn't have bought the Typhoon. The F35 was purchased as a multi role aircraft which by definition isn't going to be able to be best at everything.

The F16 was never the best fighter in the world as the F15 was always around but it was a very effective multi role aircraft, well able of taking care of itself and has done excellent service. I see the F35 more as a replacement for the F16 than the F15.


----------



## GregP (Jan 24, 2015)

I see it that way, too, but it WAS hyped as having a significant air-to-air capability that we now realize is not really the case.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 25, 2015)

GregP said:


> I see it that way, too, but it WAS hyped as having a significant air-to-air capability that we now realize is not really the case.


This is what LMCO says about it.._
*
"The F-35 and the F-22 are the world's two premier fighters, but there are some differences between the aircraft. The F-35 is optimized to be a multirole fighter, with the ability to perform air-to-air, air-to-ground and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. While the F-22 is superior to the F-35 in air-to-air missions, the F-35’s air-to-air capability is superior to all other fighters. The F-35 is better than any other fighter aircraft, including the F-22, for air-to-ground strike missions."*_

https://www.f35.com/about

From Wiki, this is how the F-35 came about, it's purpose and those responsible for it.
*
"Project formation

The JSF program was the result of the merger of the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) and Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) projects. The merged project continued under the JAST name until the engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) phase, during which the project became the Joint Strike Fighter.

The CALF was a DARPA program to develop a STOVL strike fighter (SSF) for the United States Marine Corps and replacement for the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The United States Air Force passed over the F-16 Agile Falcon in the late 1980s, essentially an enlarged F-16, and continued to mull other designs. In 1992, the Marine Corps and Air Force agreed to jointly develop the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter, also known as Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL). CALF project was chosen after *Paul Bevilaqua persuaded the Air Force that his team's concept (if stripped of its lift system) had potential as a complement to the F-22 Raptor. Thus, in a sense the F-35B begat the F-35A, not the other way around.

The Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program was created in 1993, implementing one of the recommendations of a United States Department of Defense (DoD) "Bottom-Up Review to include the United States Navy in the Common Strike Fighter program." The review also led the Pentagon to continue the F-22 Raptor and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet programs, cancel the Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) and the A/F-X programs, and curtail F-16 and F/A-18C/D procurement. The JAST program office was established on 27 January 1994 to develop aircraft, weapons, and sensor technology with the aim of replacing several disparate US and UK aircraft with a single family of aircraft; the majority of those produced would replace F-16s. Merrill McPeak, former Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, has complained that Les Aspin's decision to force all three services to use a single airframe greatly increased the costs and difficulty of the project.

In November 1995, the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding to become a formal partner, and agreed to pay $200 million, or 10% of the concept demonstration phase.

In 1997, Canada's Department of National Defense signed on to the Concept Demonstration phase with an investment of US$10 million. This investment allowed Canada to participate in the extensive and rigorous competitive process where Boeing and Lockheed Martin developed and competed their prototype aircraft.

JSF competition

Two contracts to develop prototypes were awarded on November 16, 1996, one each to Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Each firm would produce two aircraft to demonstrate conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL), carrier takeoff and landing (CV version), and short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL). McDonnell Douglas' bid was rejected in part due to the complexity of its design. Lockheed Martin and Boeing were each given $750 million for the development of the concept demonstrators and definition of the Preferred Weapon System Concept (PWSC). The aim of this funding limit was to prevent one or both contractors bankrupting themselves in an effort to win such an important contract.

Also in 1996, the UK Ministry of Defense launched the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft project. This program sought a replacement for the Sea Harrier (and later the Harrier GR7); the Joint Strike Fighter was selected in January 2001.

During concept definition, two Lockheed Martin airplanes were flight-tested: the X-35A (which was later converted into the X-35B), and the larger-winged X-35C. Arguably the most persuasive demonstration of the X-35's capability was the final qualifying Joint Strike Fighter flight trials, in which the X-35B STOVL aircraft took off in less than 500 feet (150 m), went supersonic, and landed vertically – a feat that Boeing's entry was unable to achieve.

Outcome

The contract for System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was awarded on 26 October 2001 to Lockheed Martin, whose X-35 beat the Boeing X-32. One of the main reasons for this choice appears to have been the method of achieving STOVL flight, with the Department of Defense judging that the higher performance lift fan system was worth the extra risk. When near to the ground, the Boeing X-32 suffered from the problem of hot air from the exhaust circulating back to the main engine, which caused the thrust to weaken and the engine to overheat.

The United States Department of Defense officials and William Bach, the UK Minister of Defense Procurement, said the X-35 consistently outperformed the X-32, although both met or exceeded requirements. The development of the JSF will be jointly funded by the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark.

Lockheed Martin's X-35 would become the basis of the F-35 Lightning II, currently in development. On April 6, 2009 US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that the US would buy a total of 2,443 JSFs."*

*EDIT: BTW Paul Bevilaqua is the Lockheed engineer who invented the lift fan on the F-35B. 

Paul Bevilaqua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 26, 2015)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlxxeogPBoE_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jan 27, 2015)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdq-ROAAu2g_


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2015)

We have a multi role aircraft thats good in a few roles and nothing great in 
one. And we cant afford them

Call it for what it is. A turkey.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2015)

I saw this in Yahoo news today. The F35B is turning into an unmitigated disaster.

Our New Stealth Jet Can?t Land - Yahoo News


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> I saw this in Yahoo news today. The F35B is turning into an unmitigated disaster.
> 
> Our New Stealth Jet Can?t Land - Yahoo News



Once again old news and utter BS - look at the date of the article - May 26, 2014!!!! This has been addressed and dealt with months ago. Oh something I read that shows the bias against this aircraft...

_"The main engine exhaust, the engineers said, was hot and energetic enough to have a *50% chance *of spalling concrete on the first VL. (“Spalling” occurs when water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and steam blows flakes away from the surface)"_

Note - 50% "CHANCE" 

The "main engine" does not blow hot gases down, all the hovering energy is from the lift fan.

From Wiki..

_"The configuration of the propulsion system is somewhat like a vertical ducted turboprop embedded into the center of the aircraft's fuselage. The three-bearing swivel module (3BSM) is a thrust vectoring nozzle at the tail of the aircraft which allows the main turbofan cruise engine exhaust to pass either straight through with reheat capability for forward propulsion in conventional flight, or to be deflected downward to provide aft vertical lift.

In "lift" mode for assisted vertical maneuvers, 29,000 hp is diverted forward through a driveshaft from the engine's low-pressure (LP) turbine via a clutch and bevel-gearbox to a vertically mounted, contra-rotating lift fan located forward of the main engine. The fan efflux (low-velocity *unheated air*) discharges through a thrust vectoring nozzle on the underside of the aircraft, thus balancing the aft lift generated by the 3BSM. Owing to the significant increase in LP turbine expansion ratio, implied by the large power off-take, the exhaust of the turbofan is switched from a mixed to unmixed configuration. For lateral stability and roll control, bypass air from the engine goes out through a pair of roll-post nozzles in the wings on either side of the fuselage. For pitch control, the areas of exhaust nozzle and LiftFan inlet are varied conversely to change the balance between them while maintaining their sum, and with constant turbine speed. Yaw control is achieved by yawing the 3BSM. Forward, and even backward, motion is controlled by tilting the 3BSM and Lift Fan outlet."_

Kind of funny, you post this OLD article but yet the Marines (VMA-121) are about to deploy the first units in a few months. I'm sure they'll do that KNOWING the F-35 will tear up their runways! 

Here's a NEW article on the F-35...

F-35A testing took back seat to F-35B IOC preparation in 2014 - IHS Jane's 360

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 30, 2015)

Confirmed: China stole U.S. stealth fighter's top secret plans : Science : Chinatopix

_Real _troubles to consider


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> Confirmed: China stole U.S. stealth fighter's top secret plans : Science : Chinatopix
> 
> _Real _troubles to consider



I take these reports with a grain of salt for several reasons. No one from within the pentagon is confirming this, it would be politically beneficial to do so. And even if they got "some" data, they have to be able to exploit it to their own purposes. So far they built a "stealth' fighter prototype that resembles the F-22 and smokes like an F-4. 

"Just because you got part of a recipe, you have to have the kitchen to cook it in."


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 30, 2015)

agreed .... besides, didn't we watch the Soviets play that game all the way through the Cold War ..?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 30, 2015)

THe F-35 is a remarkable aircraft if you can look past the price tag. It has all this great technology that has been implemented into an aircraft, and the amount of information available to the pilot is mind blowing.

Here is a video of the demonstrator to give you a idea of what is going on in the cockpit. Of course, none of the real good stuff is shown, but its a idea. 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oyCzT6sB_4_

Here is my plane AF-03 doing GCAS testing.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkBA9cCAtTY_

Our 2014 year in review

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNQOeZpRT3E_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2015)

FYI

Boeing P-8A 2014 flyaway cost - $179.81 million

F-35 cost $85/ $100 million depending who you ask...

Mind you, the P-8A will never be built in the numbers planned for the F-35.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2015)

It will be shot down with no effort. Its not really good at anything. Just average. A hugely expensive mediocre mistake. If it was for an attack role, at least design it for that role. And dont throw away taxpayer funds to adapt it for the marines. Let them design a dedicated Harrier replacement.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> The F-35 badly needs some combat cred .... put it to work .... very selectively, I say.


Too expensive to risk in combat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> It will be shot down with no effort. Its not really good at anything. Just average. A hugely expensive mediocre mistake. If it was for an attack role, at least design it for that role. And dont throw away taxpayer funds to adapt it for the marines. Let them design a dedicated Harrier replacement.



Your biased and uneducated opinion. You know nothing about this aircraft except what been poured into your glass by yahoo news. I've shown more than enough evidence that this aircraft is not only a game changer, but has taken a bashing in the media from those who either don't have a clue or who just have an agenda against LMCO, the program, the military or all of the above.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Too expensive to risk in combat.



The B-2 cost 800 million a copy in 1997 dollars, they are worth 2 billion a copy today. They seen combat and 23 were built, 22 are left. Your point?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 31, 2015)

"....The B-2 cost 800 million a copy in 1997 dollars, they are worth 2 billion a copy today. They seen combat and 23 were built, 22 are left."

To fly none stop from Whitman AFB to Af'stan return is an incredible mission. The B-2 is an amazing achievement. Worth every penny


----------



## Glider (Jan 31, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> It will be shot down with no effort. Its not really good at anything. Just average. A hugely expensive mediocre mistake. If it was for an attack role, at least design it for that role. And dont throw away taxpayer funds to adapt it for the marines. Let them design a dedicated Harrier replacement.



Is this a good time to remind everyone that the cost of a combat drone is $500 million. Something that for certain will last minutes in a defended airspace.

If we rule out drones and the F35 because of cost, can I ask what you would use to attack the enemy with?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 31, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Once again old news and utter BS - look at the date of the article - May 26, 2014!!!! This has been addressed and dealt with months ago. Oh something I read that shows the bias against this aircraft...
> 
> _"The main engine exhaust, the engineers said, was hot and energetic enough to have a *50% chance *of spalling concrete on the first VL. (“Spalling” occurs when water in the concrete boils faster than it can escape, and steam blows flakes away from the surface)"_
> 
> Note - 50% "CHANCE"



"Spalling" is a property with many causes. It may be caused by moisture but has many other potential causes. There are many types of concrete and many ways to screw up its application. I used to test pipeline concrete "weight coat" and blast furnace refractories for spalling resistance, no one lands jet aircraft on a sub sea pipe line or furnace wall. A badly laid drive will spall quickly without any heat applied. If you want to land an aircraft on a concrete pad choose a concrete that can withstand the weight, thermal shock and searching action of the jet stream. Not a dig at you Flyboy, I cant stand misuse of "science" to make a point. Is anyone seriously suggesting the F35 will take off from supermarket car parks or that special landing pads are a major problem in light of the total cost of the plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jtm55 (Jan 31, 2015)

Hi All

I have a question, considering the high cost of combat aircraft do you think that we would consider a joint venture with our NATO allies in developing the next generation fighter?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 31, 2015)

jtm55 said:


> Hi All
> 
> I have a question, considering the high cost of combat aircraft do you think that we would consider a joint venture with our NATO allies in developing the next generation fighter?



Well the UK is a contractor on the J35. From Wiki
The F-35 is descended from the X-35, which was the winning design of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. It is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin. Other major F-35 industry partners include Northrop Grumman, Pratt Whitney and BAE Systems. 
and
F-35 JSF development is being principally funded by the United States with additional funding from partners. The partner nations are either NATO members or close U.S. allies. The United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Turkey are part of the active development program;[11][12] Several additional countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the F-35.



Joint ventures are a great idea in theory but can be a nightmare in practice, politiking horsetrading and simple dishonesty become the norm.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2015)

pbehn said:


> "Spalling" is a property with many causes. It may be caused by moisture but has many other potential causes. There are many types of concrete and many ways to screw up its application. I used to test pipeline concrete "weight coat" and blast furnace refractories for spalling resistance, no one lands jet aircraft on a sub sea pipe line or furnace wall. A badly laid drive will spall quickly without any heat applied. If you want to land an aircraft on a concrete pad choose a concrete that can withstand the weight, thermal shock and searching action of the jet stream. Not a dig at you Flyboy, I cant stand misuse of "science" to make a point. Is anyone seriously suggesting the F35 will take off from supermarket car parks or that special landing pads are a major problem in light of the total cost of the plane.


No problem, but I think you made my point. the report on tis gave a "50%" chance that this would happen, in other words some one coming up with a possible scenario and the media running with it as it was a major issue, something that's been going on since day one with the F-35.

There was a recent issue over "hot fuel" and some of the fuel trucks being painted white to ensure cooling. This seems to be a precautionary decision made by one of the current USAF commands (AETC). An air force E-4 fuel servicer (dumb as a box of rocks) was interviewed about this and the next thing you hear is the "F-35 can't operate in the desert." Then there are those "near and far" who drink this cool aid with gusto!



jtm55 said:


> Hi All
> 
> I have a question, considering the high cost of combat aircraft do you think that we would consider a joint venture with our NATO allies in developing the next generation fighter?



We've already done that with the f-35. it will depend if the Pentagon wants to allow any technology to be shared with our allies and if partnering arrangements are worth some of the headaches encountered on programs as such (schedule, quality, costs). If you go back a few posts ago I posted a piece that shows the JSF was a "shared" program from the start. The F-22 was the opposite.


----------



## jtm55 (Jan 31, 2015)

Hi All

Sorry I missed that FlyBoyJ Pbehn, but thanks for responding. I'm rereading post now


----------



## jtm55 (Jan 31, 2015)

Hi All

Bureaucrats in charge of the f35 program is probably the main reason cost of this aircraft is so high. Shouldn't qualified fighter pilots be the ones with the most input as they know what is needed to make said aircraft successful without adding all the extra cost?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2015)

jtm55 said:


> Hi All
> 
> Bureaucrats in charge of the f35 program is probably the main reason cost of this aircraft is so high. Shouldn't qualified fighter pilots be the ones with the most input as they know what is needed to make said aircraft successful without adding all the extra cost?



Sometimes yes, some times no - some of the bureaucrats who run these programs are/ were pilots. It helps to understand the product line, it's another thing to grasp contracting and engineering.


----------



## jtm55 (Jan 31, 2015)

Hi All

So most if not all of the opposition to the f35 is politically driven, however said opponents offer no viable alternative. Or is their position that we do nothing while our enemies get stronger?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2015)

jtm55 said:


> Hi All
> 
> So most if not all of the opposition to the f35 is politically driven, however said opponents offer no viable alternative. Or is their position that we do nothing while our enemies get stronger?



I think you answered your own question. The F-35 began through a competition and the best aircraft was chosen. Those who oppose this program only want to kill it without offering any viable alternatives. Is LMCO blameless with some of the issues encountered? Absolutely not, but many believe that the F-35 was just a private offering to the government at the expense to the taxpayer. Like every combat place before it, the F-35 will have teething issues, but IMO these issues are no better or worse than what has been experienced on 4th or even 3rd generation jet combat aircraft.


----------



## jtm55 (Jan 31, 2015)

Hi All 

I agree with you FlyBoyJ. Thank you for explanations, they were very helpful.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 31, 2015)

"...the F-35 will have teething issues..."

The media and the naysayers tried to kill the VTOL Osprey too ... which is turning out to be a game changer ... as will the F-35 .... interchangeable ... deployed in _meaningful_ numbers ... and deployed by America's _allies_


----------



## pbehn (Jan 31, 2015)

Having read the proposed use of the B version with VTOL capability I cannot see what the comment about concrete is all about. During training most take off and landing will be under ideal conditions which I would say would be a rust proof metal pad. In operation they will take off and land from ships or temporary pads. These pads will be close to enemy activity so they are prepared to sacrifice range and so must be moved every 24 to 48 hours. Personally I do not believe an efficient unit can change its base every day or every other day but if they do they certainly cannot use concrete, wiki suggests interlocking aluminium sheets which can be lifted by helicopter. To use concrete means having teams of men building pads telling your enemy where the F35 will be stationed in the next few days, no concrete is cured completely in 2 days. 
Flyboy I now understand your frustration...even from an outsiders view it is complete borrocks. Personally I don't believe the "B" variant is a good option for the UK but then that is where politics come in, Rolls Royce and BAE are involved in the fan lift system and so I think may be obliged to buy some.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 31, 2015)

jtm55 said:


> Hi All
> 
> So most if not all of the opposition to the f35 is politically driven, however said opponents offer no viable alternative. Or is their position that we do nothing while our enemies get stronger?



A good chunk of the opposition is due to it being tremendously expensive for its mediocre performance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> A good chunk of the opposition is due to it being tremendously expensive for its mediocre performance.


The aircraft is expensive, agree - you get what you pay for - but show us some real, unbiased non Yahoo news *PROOF* to back up your claim because so far you've been posting twisted reports and old news articles about the program.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Having read the proposed use of the B version with VTOL capability I cannot see what the comment about concrete is all about. During training most take off and landing will be under ideal conditions which I would say would be a rust proof metal pad. In operation they will take off and land from ships or temporary pads. These pads will be close to enemy activity so they are prepared to sacrifice range and so must be moved every 24 to 48 hours. Personally I do not believe an efficient unit can change its base every day or every other day but if they do they certainly cannot use concrete, wiki suggests interlocking aluminium sheets which can be lifted by helicopter. To use concrete means having teams of men building pads telling your enemy where the F35 will be stationed in the next few days, no concrete is cured completely in 2 days.
> Flyboy I now understand your frustration...even from an outsiders view it is complete borrocks. Personally I don't believe the "B" variant is a good option for the UK but then that is where politics come in, Rolls Royce and BAE are involved in the fan lift system and so I think may be obliged to buy some.



Good points but don't underestimate the movement of the landing pad, or if it will even be used when the F-35 enters service. The UK has the second biggest stake in this aircraft so I think the partnership between LMCO, BAE and Rolls will ensure it will work as advertised. Despite all this doubt over the F-35B, it's entering service in a few months.


----------



## jtm55 (Feb 1, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> A good chunk of the opposition is due to it being tremendously expensive for its mediocre performance.



Hi All

If I'm not mistaken the F35 performance is equal to the F/A18. Hardly what i would call mediocre.


----------



## Glider (Feb 1, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> A good chunk of the opposition is due to it being tremendously expensive for its mediocre performance.



I am interested to know what you would use to attack the enemy. It seems to cost less than two combat drones and has an infinitely better performance and flexibility. Looked in that way it seems quite good value.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 1, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good points but don't underestimate the movement of the landing pad, or if it will even be used when the F-35 enters service. The UK has the second biggest stake in this aircraft so I think the partnership between LMCO, BAE and Rolls will ensure it will work as advertised. Despite all this doubt over the F-35B, it's entering service in a few months.


The question of which variant for the UK is a vexed one. The VTO F35B means the carriers, which are now being built, dont need catapults and can swap use with helicopters. The last time I saw a figure the addition of catapults alone was $2 billion.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2015)

> If I'm not mistaken the F35 performance is equal to the F/A18. Hardly what i would call mediocre.



It is said it has similar "fighter" performance to the F/A-18C. Remember, this is strike aircraft and although there has been some sales pitches thrown around about it's air-to-air capability, it is basically a bomber. I'll say it again, if this aircraft finds itself in a close in visual dogfight, about 20 things went terribly wrong. "Track your enemy, shoot your missiles BVR, kill your enemy, go home."



Glider said:


> I am interested to know what you would use to attack the enemy. It seems to cost less than two combat drones and has an infinitely better performance and flexibility. Looked in that way it seems quite good value.



The funny thing about those who have drank the Yahoo news cool aid is they seriously think combat drones will cost less and will be able to fully replace manned aircraft, not going to happen in at least our lifetime.


pbehn said:


> The question of which variant for the UK is a vexed one. The VTO F35B means the carriers, which are now being built, dont need catapults and can swap use with helicopters. The last time I saw a figure the addition of catapults alone was $2 billion.



I saw that, maybe that gives the UK an option to forgo the F-35B and possibly adopt the F-35C?


----------



## pbehn (Feb 1, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I saw that, maybe that gives the UK an option to forgo the F-35B and possibly adopt the F-35C?



I think the C is the best option for the UK , but from experience the geniuses in the MOD will order 2 catapults and cut back on the number of F35Bs to balance the costs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I think the C is the best option for the UK , but from experience the geniuses in the MOD will order 2 catapults and cut back on the number of F35Bs to balance the costs.


Agree..

Meanwhile...

USAF Names F-35 Integration Office Head

"The stealth fighter is expected to go operational for the Air Force sometime between *August and December of 2016*."


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 19, 2015)

Joe, didn't you predict something like the happening (the unit cost coming down as more aircraft were built)?

Pentagon Revises Down Estimated Cost of F-35 Fighter | Defense: Aviation International News


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2015)

Yep. And there's a trickle up effect as well. Subcontractors and vendors will reduce costs as they are building in quantity. I think in the end the F-35A and C will be not much more expensive than a new F/A-18. I bet this article will be buried in all the negative press about the program.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 20, 2015)

It really depends how it goes for the 35, I am slowly being more convinced of its abilites as a targeting platform, and that it should be expected no to be a fighter - something that the media that were for it and those against it were using as their main topic points in its early days being a fighter - a misnomer inherited from its older twin borither in the JSF-X project.

The mbiggest and mains problem with the the whole 35 program, is that prototyping, development and production are all at the same time to save time money from a long winded process, by moving the costs to having to remodel, rejig and recalibrate produced and in production aircraft systems as the whole lots moves along while costing the same amount of a possibly shorter period of time - and that is with out the old Macnamara F/B-111B (Naval) like task of minimising differences between shared components and systems for 3 different main services and their sub-roles.

I hope the code writing checking and electronically limited flight perameters are also going well to unlock its abilities from 'training wheels mode' towards actual performance.

I do hope it continues to progress at a quickening pace to quieten the naysayers or wrinkle out those faults, so soon to be important decisions can be be made about dropping it, or temporalily un-mothballing Mk.3 Sea Harriers/Gr.10 Harriers can be done before Mr V.V.Poobox, or the deviously framing opposition members to Mrs Ferdi.D.C does/do something(s) really stupid and we all on this side of the pond drop it for other flyable service/production ready local equipments.

P.S. Flyboy, is it me, or have I seen your avatar in a documentary a few years ago...?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2015)

razor1uk said:


> It really depends how it goes for the 35, I am slowly being more convinced of its abilites as a targeting platform, and that it should be expected no to be a fighter - something that the media that were for it and those against it were using as their main topic points in its early days being a fighter - a misnomer inherited from its older twin borither in the JSF-X project.


 I think the media and some of the opposition to this program ignored the fact that the primary mission of this aircraft was to drop bombs. As a fighter it carries the same performance of an F/A-18C which isn't too shabby but then again if its flown as designed it should never have to dogfight within VR.


razor1uk said:


> The mbiggest and mains problem with the the whole 35 program, is that prototyping, development and production are all at the same time to save time money from a long winded process, by moving the costs to having to remodel, rejig and recalibrate produced and in production aircraft systems as the whole lots moves along while costing the same amount of a possibly shorter period of time - and that is with out the old Macnamara F/B-111B (Naval) like task of minimising differences between shared components and systems for 3 different main services and their sub-roles.


That was the whole purpose of the flyoff between the X-35 and X-32, most of the basic design was demonstrated. Structurally there was little "remodel, rejig and recalibrate." The major issues have been in software, contract directed suppliers meeting their schedule and chenges induced by the Pentagon in the "cost plus" portion of this program. LMCO made some mistakes as well as there were some running this program who had no business being at the helm of a project such as this.


razor1uk said:


> I hope the code writing checking and electronically limited flight perameters are also going well to unlock its abilities from 'training wheels mode' towards actual performance.


 The US Marines are looking to start deployment later this year, the USAF next year, despite some setbacks(which is to be expected while developing a new combat aircraft).



razor1uk said:


> P.S. Flyboy, is it me, or have I seen your avatar in a documentary a few years ago...?



I think you have!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Mar 20, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think the media and some of the opposition to this program ignored the fact that the primary mission of this aircraft was to drop bombs. As a fighter it carries the same performance of an F/A-18C which isn't too shabby but then again if its flown as designed it should never have to dogfight within VR..


The only bit that worries me is this is the same theory used when the F4 fighters first went to Vietnam and I have no confidence in our politicians letting our pilots fire at BVR ranges.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2015)

Glider said:


> The only bit that worries me is this is the same theory used when the F4 fighters first went to Vietnam and I have no confidence in our politicians letting our pilots fire at BVR ranges.



That's my fear as well. Considering that this aircraft "should be" used as a bomber first, more than likely the ROEs will allow it to defent itself after a strike.


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 20, 2015)

I wish I could talk more about this, but for reason I am unable. The F-35 , as FlyboyJ has mentioned, is to first be a bomber and then fighter. First mission is to take out threats using stealth. Once air dominance has been acheived, then you slap on more pylons and start bombing the crap out of them. It carries missiles for self-defense. F-22's will be providing the Air-to-Air role. The manuverabilty of this aircraft is very impressive, and the power of the engine is outstanding. Very loud too. I would almost compair it to a B-1 taking off in full burner. Standing next to it in full burner, I could only do it for a short amount of time, as it started to hurt. F-15's and F-16's I could stand next to all day. I recommend staying away from the Yahoo kool-aid bowl, as their stories are non-sense. Every aircraft has problems, always will be that way. But I will say this aircraft has some excellent technology built into it, that its almost scary what it can do. If anyone has questions, please ask. I will answer what I can.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Mar 20, 2015)

The main thing I'm worried about the F-35 is that it'll be like the F-22 in the sense that our politicians will be too afraid to use it for 'limited engagements', and countermeasures will have partially caught up to stealth technology in the F-35 and it might experience a small loss rate. This wouldn't be as much of a problem if the F-35 was like the F-16 or the A-10, which are cheap and don't require large amounts of the taxpayer's dollars to repair/replace. The other thing I'm worried about is how other Nations will fly it, as an air superiority fighter. As many have discussed earlier on this thread, the F-35 isn't a fighter, it's more of a stealth F-16 as compared to the F-15 in the F-22. Particularly I'm worried about nations like Israel and Japan, who will be flying air superiority/defense missions against hoards of enemy fighters in a comparatively small airspaces. I think the use of stealth should be as a spearhead, with the F-22 being the air superiority fighter, the B-2 and various drones taking out high priority targets on the grounds (such airfields), and the F-35 taking out ground targets slightly lower on the chain with it's higher sortie rate. I still think the F-16/A-10/B-52 workhorses should still be the backbone of the air force, they're just becoming ever more vulnerable to various threats and need more help. Doctrine, not the airframe, may be the problem in my opinion


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 20, 2015)

"....The other thing I'm worried about is how other Nations will fly it, as an air superiority fighter. As many have discussed earlier on this thread, the F-35 isn't a fighter, it's more of a stealth F-16 as compared to the F-15 in the F-22. Particularly I'm worried about nations like Israel and Japan, who will be flying air superiority/defense missions against hoards of enemy fighters in a comparatively small airspaces. I ..."

Think you're over-thinking this ...  .... don't worry about the Israelis, the Japanese et al .... they are well trained and will shake out the platform (the Israelis) against known opposition capabilities and air space ... and _learn_ how to use the platform ... just as P-40 pilots in China and Curtiss Hawk pilots in Finland learned to use the strengths of their fighters to advantage. Over history
every development has had a costly learning curve and this will be no different. Democracy cannot be intimidated by the 
'price' tag. Get them in the game and start learning.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> if the F-35 was like the F-16 or the A-10, which are cheap and don't require large amounts of the taxpayer's dollars to repair/replace.



Their initial production costs were cheap when compared in today's dollars. Look what it's costing to sustain them in operating and maintenance costs.


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 21, 2015)

Don't worry about other countries as it is their business on how they want to employ the F35. With the A10,F16, and B52, they will not last forever. The F35 will most likely replace them in the future at some point. As for software, training wheels were off a long time ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2015)

Other countries who will purchase and deploy the F-35 have considered the cost, attrition (attrition is the reduction of an aircraft fleet that naturally occurs during operation to include accidents, possible combat losses and natural wear and tear) and their operational needs. You could buy a J39 for 70 million a copy or buy the export version of this aircraft for around 90 million and have a greater capability. If the client country is planning to use this aircraft as a primary air-to-air fighter, they might want to reconsider their needs and their threat assessments, IMO this might not be the best use for this aircraft if you're putting your eggs in one basket. The press still continues to quote 4 and 5 year old reports about this aircraft and gives no CURRENT validation of suspected issues, and many people swallow this up like cool aid on a hot day. If this aircraft was performing as badly as the press makes it out to be, not only would it have been cancelled years ago, it would have lost to the X-32 during the original fly off. 

People are quick to also condemn the "multi-role" "one fits all" concept of the F-35. Although all 3 models share similar components, their missions are quite different and the compromises in the design was made up by the advanced avionics designed for this aircraft. The F-111B debacle happened 50 years ago; are we that closed minded that we can't conceive that SOMEONE may eventually make the "multi-role" concept actually work?!?!?

Read about the original JSF program and see how this program started;

Joint Strike Fighter program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It had problems, (like any modern combat aircraft will) they are being addressed, this aircraft WILL be a game changer.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 21, 2015)

beaupower32 said:


> Don't worry about other countries as it is their business on how they want to employ the F35. With the A10,F16, and B52, they will not last forever. The F35 will most likely replace them in the future at some point. As for software, training wheels were off a long time ago.




I sincerely hope that the USA and UK both consider exactly how they use the F35 because there is every chance they will be flying in the same airspace sometime in the life of it. I believe pilot training is in the US, they may as well all be trained the same way. I think though, beaupower, you were discussing the politics more than the practice of deployment. I wouldnt like the two fleets to become a danger to each other.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 22, 2015)

If the F35 goes into any defended airspace, its a goner. If the strategists think that it will be shooting missiles at long range and make some kills, well we all know how that turned out in 1965 over North Vietnam.

The only way to hit an important enough target in todays multilayered defensive belts is to use long range stand off munitions. In which case you need a dump truck and not a high priced gold plated lawn dart.

If your target is a low tech adversary like ISIS or Biko Harem, you want an A10. Not this this contraption.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 22, 2015)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> *If the F35 goes into any defended airspace, its a goner*. If the strategists think that it will be shooting missiles at long range and make some kills, well we all know how that turned out in 1965 over North Vietnam.


 And what information do you have to back that up??? 1965?? Gee, the Beatles were in their 20s, radios still had tubes in them, and a computer was something that fit in a large room. Great progressive thinking there! If you really knew WTF you were talking about you would KNOW that in Vietnam there was a situation called RULES OF ENGAGEMENT that prohibited BVR engagements.


syscom3 said:


> The only way to hit an important enough target in todays multilayered defensive belts is to use long range stand off munitions. In which case you need a dump truck and not a high priced gold plated lawn dart.


 Small diameter bombs? Smaller munitions? Do your home work.
Small Diameter Bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
US Lethal Miniature Aerial Munition System Programme | UAS VISION
AGM-176 Griffin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
JAMS Home




syscom3 said:


> [
> If your target is a low tech adversary like ISIS or Biko Harem, you want an A10. Not this this contraption.


How about attack helicopters??? The A-10 is perfect for this, agree, but you're jabbering about a singe combat scenario. Please stop making an idiot out of your self. If you have nothing to back up your arguments other than your stupidity and short sided comments based on Yahoo news articles, I suggest you quit while you're ahead!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I sincerely hope that the USA and UK both consider exactly how they use the F35 because there is every chance they will be flying in the same airspace sometime in the life of it. I believe pilot training is in the US, they may as well all be trained the same way. I think though, beaupower, you were discussing the politics more than the practice of deployment. *I wouldnt like the two fleets to become a danger to each other*.



I don't understand your concern? So they're flying in the same airspace. Aside from the good ole eyeball, there's TCAS and IFF for collision avoidance.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 22, 2015)

Victim to friendly fire? 
Talking about Vietnam, don't mean to hijack the thread here, but....what was it the late Mr. Olds said about this with no guns fighters, remember it was on this Dogfights series...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Victim to friendly fire?
> Talking about Vietnam, don't mean to hijack the thread here, but....what was it the late Mr. Olds said about this with no guns fighters, remember it was on this Dogfights series...


"A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing"

The F-35 carries a 25mm cannon


----------



## Glider (Mar 22, 2015)

This is total rubbish



syscom3 said:


> If the F35 goes into any defended airspace, its a goner. If the strategists think that it will be shooting missiles at long range and make some kills, well we all know how that turned out in 1965 over North Vietnam.


I) I am pretty sure you have been asked this before but what exactly would you rather fly into contested airspace?
II) Yes I think we are aware of what happened in N Vietnam, the aircraft were up to the task the training of the pilots wasn't and when fixed with top gun schools and other changes everything worked pretty well. The US had total freedom to fly anywhere they wanted, when they wanted, and should you disbelieve this then I suggest some research as to what happened in Hanoi.
III) If you evidence to support this I would like to see it.


> The only way to hit an important enough target in todays multilayered defensive belts is to use long range stand off munitions. In which case you need a dump truck and not a high priced gold plated lawn dart.


I) Long range stand off munitions stand little chance of getting through. Some examples - Since the late 1970's the technology (and in the case of the Seawolf the kit) to shoot down individual cannon shells in mid air. Israel have developed very effective systems to shoot down rockets from Hammas launchers, very very few get through. The important point here is that these are launched at short range, no notice and still get shot down. The Seawolf and no doubt other more modern missiles can shoot down a cannon shell which is very small and very fast. Long range missile which you seem to depend on, mean long notice periods and an increased chance of being destroyed. The much maligned F35 would have no difficulty dealing with such a threat as the first layer of defence. Modern AA missiles would be a very effective second layer and short range gun and/or missile systems a third layer.
II) The dump truck. Just how long do you think they will last or how close do you think they will get in a real shooting war.


> If your target is a low tech adversary like ISIS or Biko Harem, you want an A10. Not this this contraption.


I said earlier that an airforce equipped with F4's would be more than capable of dealing with ISIS or Biko Harem and no one would disagree with this point of yours.

The joke is on you as all you have done is prove the case for the F35. The scenario you believe in stands a zero chance of achieving anything (unless you can supply evidence which so far you have totally failed to do). 
You have proved that the only was to make a successful attack against a prepared defence is to take on that defence, and for that you need an F35 (unless again you could you tell us what you would rather use) Remember before replying that drones are very vulnerable and more expensive than the F35 you dislike so much.
Re cost check the paper I posted a link to on post 32. Each combat drone costs the USA $500m

Your response (with evidence) is awaited with anticipation

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 22, 2015)

.....and something about desk people, what do they know, etc., etc.,etc...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

"The goals of the air campaign were limited and President Johnson hoped to achieve results through tightly controlled, applied pressure on the N. Vietnamese government. The controls however, *violated accepted air doctrine and tied the hands of the military commanders that were tasked to meet the arduous objectives of the campaign. *Rolling Thunder barely achieved any of the desired results -- *restrictive rules of engagement undoubtedly played a major part in the failure of U.S air power in this singular black mark on the record of American military aviation."*

The Effects Of Restrictive Rules Of Engagement On The Rolling Thunder Air

Syscom, you have your opinions about the F-35, fine - but if you're going to come on here and keep posting undocumented and unsubstantial BS, it's going to get ugly. If you have nothing to back up your argument, flat out STFU!


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 22, 2015)

Im actually the sane one here. Asking why something that is neither a great bomber or a great fighter is being allowed to continue as a program. Its useless when engaging modern air defenses. Its an overpriced gilded lawn dart against low tech adversaries. I will accept its a good solution for the Marines who have a unique set of circumstances they have to deal with. But to build thousands for what purpose? At what cost? And knowing the stealth features are going to be vulnerable in a decade or so. This plane will have a short production run. A few hundred or so as the generals and admirals fund secret designs that are true fighters and true bombers. And no more of this multi-role crap that the budget analysts sold to congress.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Im actually tho same one here. Asking why something that is neither a great bomber or a great fighter is being allowed to continue as a program. Its useless when engaging modern air defenses. Its an overpriced gilded lawn dart against low tech adversaries. I will accept its a good solution for the Marines who have a unique set of circumstances they have to deal with. But to build thousands for what purpose? At what cost? And knowing the stealth features are going to be vulnerable in a decade or so. This plane will have a short production run. A few hundred or so as the generals and admirals fund secret designs that are true fighters and true bombers. And no more of this multi-role crap that the budget analysts sold to congress.



Are you done?!?!? Because I've asked you to back up your bull sh1t, so one more time, do so...


----------



## pbehn (Mar 22, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't understand your concern? So they're flying in the same airspace. Aside from the good ole eyeball, there's TCAS and IFF for collision avoidance.



Not really a great concern but both aircraft will have weapons that can strike beyond visual range. Chinese and Russian stealth AC look similar to F35s. I would like to think US and UK pilots use exactly the same systems protocols and habits so they can fight together rather being kept apart in case of an accident. For example a Tornado was downed by a patriot missile when its IFF failed, I presume the US Air Force and Navy has a system to deal with this.


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Mar 22, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Their initial production costs were cheap when compared in today's dollars. Look what it's costing to sustain them in operating and maintenance costs.



Average cost per flying hour of the F-16C: 25.5K
As compared to the F-35A: About 34K
And the A-10: 17.8K
That doesn't factor in maintaining things such as the stealth in the F-35. I support the F-35, just not the the huge sweeping numbers some advertise.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 22, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> Average cost per flying hour of the F-16C: 25.5K
> As compared to the F-35A: About 34K
> And the A-10: 17.8K
> That doesn't factor in maintaining things such as the stealth in the F-35.



In Libya the UK spent £250,000 a day using tornados to watch people driving Toyota pick ups, the cost of AC and missiles is completely out of proportion to the value of the targets. Pick ups, machine guns and manic fruitcakes can be found on any Libyan street.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Not really a great concern but both aircraft will have weapons that can strike beyond visual range. Chinese and Russian stealth AC look similar to F35s. I would like to think US and UK pilots use exactly the same systems protocols and habits so they can fight together rather being kept apart in case of an accident. For example a Tornado was downed by a patriot missile when its IFF failed, I presume the US Air Force and Navy has a system to deal with this.


That was an IFF failure IIRC, the one in a 10,000 chance



ScreamingLighting said:


> Average cost per flying hour of the F-16C: 25.5K
> As compared to the F-35A: About 34K
> And the A-10: 17.8K
> That doesn't factor in maintaining things such as the stealth in the F-35. I support the F-35, just not the the huge sweeping numbers some advertise.



That's an hourly operating cost and for the F-35 it will go down. I'm talking about factoring in Depot Level Maintenance. you do that and you'll have the real operating cost of those aircraft


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

pbehn said:


> In Libya the UK spent £250,000 a day using tornados to watch people driving Toyota pick ups, the cost of AC and missiles is completely out of proportion to the value of the targets. Pick ups, machine guns and manic fruitcakes can be found on any Libyan street.



That's the dilemma the west is up against when using advanced weapons against terrorists. Even using an A-10 is like driving a semi-trucks to deliver one bundle of flowers when you start factoring out costs.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 22, 2015)

I say, bring back the Hawker Typhoon/Tempest and the Skyraider!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 22, 2015)

Stealth is not a cloaking device. Eventually your stealth plane will be lit up.

Radar theory 101: If you cant see it, crank up the power till you do see it. And there's all sorts of clever radar systems that will do just that.

The F35 is not invisible. Its low observable. And it can be detected far enough away by using the the concept in radar 101. Just like that F117 that was downed.

If its low observability allows it to remain relatively immune to detection at a long stand off range, why not just purpose build a lower cost bomb truck that does the same thing for a fraction of the cost?

The Russian S400 is good enough to make the attrition of the F35's unsustainable. And that's the whole concept of layered air defenses. Lots of detection technologies with several types of missiles with different capabilities. The F35 will not survive these defenses without a lot of drones going in first and taking the defenses out. Which then begs the question, on why do we need an F35 when a drone can do it better.

Once its in range of opposing fighters, its stealth means nothing. Then its the plane that is purpose built for maneuvering that will down it.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Stealth is not a cloaking device. Eventually your stealth plane will be lit up.



That's been known for years


syscom3 said:


> Radar theory 101: If you cant see it, crank up the power till you do see it. And there's all sorts of clever radar systems that will do just that.


And there are still all sorts of clever ways to defeat it


syscom3 said:


> The F35 is not invisible. Its low observable. And it can be detected far enough away by using the the concept in radar 101. Just like that F117 that was downed.


 And the B-2 and all the other fighters being built with LO technology. A -117 was shot down after how many sorties???? NO ONE ever said this aircraft was "invisible" and I think you're pulling that out of thin air.


syscom3 said:


> If its low observability allows it to remain relatively immune to detection at a long stand off range, why not just purpose build a lower cost bomb truck that does the same thing for a fraction of the cost?


 Because this aircraft does MORE than just a limited strike like the F-117, READ the capabilities and LEARN. Because of the shared airframe it could be built in numbers that will supply 3 armed services. It seems you're perspective on this this is one dimensional.


syscom3 said:


> The Russian S400 is good enough to make the attrition of the F35's unsustainable. And that's the whole concept of layered air defenses. Lots of detection technologies with several types of missiles with different capabilities. The F35 will not survive these defenses without a lot of drones going in first and taking the defenses out. Which then begs the question, on why do we need an F35 when a drone can do it better.


 The point is a drone CAN NOT do it better and would cost just about as much. Again, rigidity - do you honestly think a F-35 strike on a heavily defended won't happen without other EW aircraft jamming radar?!?!?


syscom3 said:


> Once its in range of opposing fighters, its stealth means nothing. Then its the plane that is purpose built for maneuvering that will down it.


 Only if they could kill it first. You've given worse case scenarios that could possibly happen but won't. With your points, every F-117 should have been shot down during the Gulf War.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M_

*YOU'RE STILL QUOTEING THE RAND REPORT!!!! *

Here, update your browser, the first RAAF pilot is on his way to the US

Future Fleet: Australia?s F-35 Commitments ? Choices


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 22, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M_




Sukhoi sales video?


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 22, 2015)

A _lot_ can happen and a lot _will_ happen in the aviation industry under six to eight years, looking at that website...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Sukhoi sales video?



It probably is - I think their Australian based marketing rep is now floating in the Volga


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> A _lot_ can happen and a lot _will_ happen in the aviation industry under six to eight years, looking at that website...



YUP - from an Australian report condemning the F-35 to their liberal government buying over 50 F-35A!


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 22, 2015)

...and the F-35 being outdated!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> ...and the F-35 being outdated!



 Are you drinking cool aid too!?!


----------



## Glider (Mar 22, 2015)

One countermeasure development and the S400 is blind and ineffective. Besides you haven't given your reply to the question what would you use to attack the enemy with given that the drones are both more expensive and far more vulnerable than the F35.

Also you keep saying this
_If its low observability allows it to remain relatively immune to detection at a long stand off range, why not just purpose build a lower cost bomb truck that does the same thing for a fraction of the cost?_
Without giving a reply to the obvious question How close do you think your bomb truck will get in a shooting war?

I am still waiting for any reply to the many questions that have been asked

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

The S-400 (an upgrade to the S-300) started to be developed in the early 1990s and deployed around 2000, so I guess it's outdated as well???


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Mar 22, 2015)

Glider said:


> One countermeasure development and the S400 is blind and ineffective. Besides you haven't given your reply to the question what would you use to attack the enemy with given that the drones are both more expensive and far more vulnerable than the F35.
> 
> Also you keep saying this
> _If its low observability allows it to remain relatively immune to detection at a long stand off range, why not just purpose build a lower cost bomb truck that does the same thing for a fraction of the cost?_
> ...



Well, I'll say this time and time again. The F-35s, B-2s, F-22s and various drones we don't know about will do their thing. Stealth planes will sweep up the most hostile parts of the environment, but the bomb trucks such as the F-16 will be maintained for their abilities to have a higher sortie rate, being more easy to maintain, and being generally less expensive. The other fact of life is that in 90% of our future engagements, the F-35 won't be necessary as compared to the F-16. You keep some F-35s for the 10%, but not replace the entire fleet.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> Well, I'll say this time and time again. The F-35s, B-2s, F-22s and various drones we don't know about will do their thing. Stealth planes will sweep up the most hostile parts of the environment, but the bomb trucks such as the F-16 will be maintained for their abilities to have a higher sortie rate, *being more easy to maintain, and being generally less expensive*. The other fact of life is that in 90% of our future engagements, the F-35 won't be necessary as compared to the F-16. You keep some F-35s for the 10%, but not replace the entire fleet.



If you're sustaining an aging airframe it will eventually cost more to keep it around, although agree, the later block F-16 aren't going away quite yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 22, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That was an IFF failure IIRC, the one in a 10,000 chance



True Flyboy but it was just an example, the Tornado is not a stealth AC. Does a stealth AC operate an IFF system I would have thought it gives you awayto your enemies and your friends. If your enemy knows how the IFF system operates then surely they can "impersonate" you until close to visual range? My original post was a reply to beaupower, in my opinion the UK and US fleets mus know EXACTLY how each other operate and preferably all use the same systems, no criticism of the F35 jut a point on how it is used.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2015)

pbehn said:


> True Flyboy but it was just an example, the Tornado is not a stealth AC. Does a stealth AC operate an IFF system I would have thought it gives you awayto your enemies and your friends. If your enemy knows how the IFF system operates then surely they can "impersonate" you until close to visual range? My original post was a reply to beaupower, in my opinion the UK and US fleets mus know EXACTLY how each other operate and preferably all use the same systems, no criticism of the F35 jut a point on how it is used.



Any modern combat aircraft has a transponder that "should" identify themselves to friends and not to enemies and when two nations operate in a join mission this is a given. I know no other friendly fire within coalition or NATO forces incident due to inoperative or uncoordinated IFF procedures


----------



## pbehn (Mar 22, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Any modern combat aircraft has a transponder that "should" identify themselves to friends and not to enemies and when two nations operate in a join mission this is a given. I know no other friendly fire within coalition or NATO forces incident due to inoperative or uncoordinated IFF procedures



Like I said FB, if a radar signal prompts an aircraft to say "here I am and I am an F35 from HMS Elizabeth" then it is not stealth, I am sure both sides put a lot into breaking IFF systems.

Not a big point FB, I was just responding to BPower, I know many countries are buying the F35, it is essential that they can work together within NATO in my opinion, that means a universal system of operation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Any modern combat aircraft has a transponder that "should" identify themselves to friends and not to enemies and when two nations operate in a join mission this is a given. I know no other friendly fire within coalition or NATO forces incident due to inoperative or uncoordinated IFF procedures



Back in 1994 two Blackhawks from my unit (obviously before my time) where shot down by Friendly Fire from 2 F-15's over Northern Iraq. A contributing factor was the transponder or lack of function.

1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 22, 2015)

Wouldn't one turn off one's transponder over hostile territory?


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 22, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Wouldn't one turn off one's transponder over hostile territory?



From what I understand, an IFF transponder only responds to a discreet code, so if you don't transmit that code with the interrogation, the transponder won't reply.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Wouldn't one turn off one's transponder over hostile territory?



Nope. You squawk a friendly IFF code that designates you as a friendly aircraft.

The codes are kept secrect and only known by friendly forces. The codes also change frequently.

For instance when I was in Iraq we would load the transponder codes every day before takeoff.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 23, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Back in 1994 two Blackhawks from my unit (obviously before my time) where shot down by Friendly Fire from 2 F-15's over Northern Iraq. A contributing factor was the transponder or lack of function.
> 
> 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I returned from a 4-month det to Turkey just a week before the shootdown incident. Tragic loss of life, including a couple of people who were just on "ride-alongs", as well as 2 Brits who were ground liaison and heading back to their area of ops after some R&R.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> I returned from a 4-month det to Turkey just a week before the shootdown incident. Tragic loss of life, including a couple of people who were just on "ride-alongs", as well as 2 Brits who were ground liaison and heading back to their area of ops after some R&R.



At my old airfield in Germany, they have a memorial with all the names of everyone who was killed.

I have a pic of it somewhere, but I think it is on my external that is not working well.

Interestingly, the Wiki site says the monument was moved to Fort Rucker when Giebelstadt Army Airfield in Germany closed in 2006. That is not true. The unit from Giebelstadt moved to Ansbach, Germany and the monument moved to Ansbach as well. It is right next to the base HQ and the ATC Tower.

Edit: It appears there are two monuments. One in Fort Rucker, and a copy of it in Ansbach.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Back in 1994 two Blackhawks from my unit (obviously before my time) where shot down by Friendly Fire from 2 F-15's over Northern Iraq. A contributing factor was the transponder or lack of function.
> 
> 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Yep - you're 100% correct on that, I remembered when that happened, quite a tragedy


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep - you're 100% correct on that, I remembered when that happened, quite a tragedy



I believe it is one of the worst crashes involving the Blackhawk and Army Aviation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Like I said FB, if a radar signal prompts an aircraft to say "here I am and I am an F35 from HMS Elizabeth" then it is not stealth, I am sure both sides put a lot into breaking IFF systems.


Only if your enemy can pick up the signal 


pbehn said:


> Not a big point FB, I was just responding to BPower, I know many countries are buying the F35, it is essential that they can work together within NATO in my opinion, that means a universal system of operation.



And that they have and multi force operations is a big part of the F-35 "teaming" with other countries for the development, construction and deployment.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2015)

This is a great article about the F-35 and one of it's most vocal critics. Although I disagree with the writer of this piece as far as the F-35's limitations, he shoots down most of the BS being said about the F-35. Since we're posting "dated" material about the F-35's issues, I figured this should be shown as well...

_"Some metrics are available regarding the F-35's raw performance and by and large most everyone agrees that the F-35 is as maneuverable as an F-16 with a comparable stores load-out, and in many ways the F-35A actually exceeds the F-16's nimbleness under real world operational circumstances. Most sources, including the test pilot corps flying the F-35 to the extremes of its envelope today, say that the aircraft most closely matches the F/A-18 Hornet in performance, which is no slouch."_

A bad bomber?!?

_"You simply do not need a massive bomb load like we once did when dumb gravity bombs were our primary form of aerial destruction, and as munitions continue to shrink and the amount of targets that a single F-35 can hit on a single sortie will be outstanding. Even the F-35's SDB carrying capabilities is already enticing, as is the F-22's. Also, the F-35 can carry many more thousands of pounds of munitions and fuel tanks if it does so like Mr. Sprey's F-16 does, and just slings them under its wings, so there is really no value to Mr. Sprey's "ridiculous payload" argument at all." _


And finally...

_"Apparently Mr. Sprey tuned out the last 25 years of air combat activities including Desert Storm, Allied Force, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Neptune Spear and Operation Odyssey Dawn, or he just chose not to accept the fact low-observable aircraft performed brilliantly during all those operations and most likely many more that we do not know about.

During Operation Allied Force, a single F-117 was lost due to multiple circumstances, yet this single and uniquely isolated event is in no way some sort of perfect invalidation of low observable technologies. The fact that Sprey would use this example almost singularly for his argument against stealth capabilities is troubling as it is either a sign of a lack of understanding of the technology and its history or it is clear evidence that he is willing to dumb down a very complex issue in order to act as if his views are undebatable and everyone who believes otherwise is silly or a is a scam artist. Even with an aircraft that has a very low radar cross-section and a fantastic mission plan that is tailored to its particular low-observable strengths and the enemy's air defense weaknesses, it does not mean that the aircraft will be inherently invisible to enemy radar and other sensors. What it does mean is that the stealth aircraft may only be detectable at much shorter ranges and from a limited number of angles, and just because the jet may be detected momentarily by the enemy, that does not mean that it can be successfully engaged.

So although stealth aircraft are not invisible, they can work far closer to many enemy sensor sites and anti-aircraft emplacements than traditional non-stealthy aircraft can. Thus allowing them to exploit areas where the enemy's sensor systems have enough reduced detection range that their "threat rings" do not overlap, which could allow the stealthy aircraft in question to safely fly though these gaps. This is precisely why building a very clear and up-to-date picture of the enemy's electronic order of battle is very important for successful stealth operations."_

and in the end...

_*"But many of Mr. Sprey's views are built around very generous and convenient assumptions that just don't hold up. In the end he is an aerospace and defense extremist, and a colorful one at that, but he needs a new bag of tricks to woo over a well informed crowd as the decades old ones he keeps using just aren't believable or even historically accurate anymore."*_

Pierre Sprey's Anti-F-35 Diatribe Is Half Brilliant And Half Bullshit


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 23, 2015)

> If the F35 goes into any defended airspace, its a goner. If the strategists think that it will be shooting missiles at long range and make some kills, well we all know how that turned out in 1965 over North Vietnam.


Any combat aircraft has a chance of being a goner going into defended airspace. Its part of the risk. Stealth aircraft just have the capability to get them more time to get in and out, plus closer and a lot easier than say a F-16 or Tornado. The F-35 primary role is air to ground, it carries the Air to air missle incase it needs to defend itself. 



> The only way to hit an important enough target in todays multilayered defensive belts is to use long range stand off munitions. In which case you need a dump truck and not a high priced gold plated lawn dart.



Not true. The F-35 along with other stealth aircraft will fly around the threats using stealth to penetrate deep into the target area. You dont need a dump truck to take out targets, one or two smart bombs are now a days more than capable of doing what a dump truck full of dumb bombs can do. 




pbehn said:


> True Flyboy but it was just an example, the Tornado is not a stealth AC. Does a stealth AC operate an IFF system I would have thought it gives you awayto your enemies and your friends. If your enemy knows how the IFF system operates then surely they can "impersonate" you until close to visual range? My original post was a reply to beaupower, in my opinion the UK and US fleets mus know EXACTLY how each other operate and preferably all use the same systems, no criticism of the F35 jut a point on how it is used.



As for IFF, the F-35 has IFF, Link 16, and the MADL antennas. These 3 things alone provides the necessary information to friendly forces to prevent a possible blue on blue incident. It would be almost impossible for an adversary to get the correct frequency, plus like a few others have said, they change everyday.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 23, 2015)

Good stuff FB. I recall participating in Cope Thunder more years ago than I care to remember. My unit was flying Tornado GR1s in a hostile threat environment. The threat radars all had cameras fitted so, during debrief, the validity of kill claims could be verified. We went in at (very) low level and although the threat radars were able to acquire us, they didn't have enough time to engage before we disappeared over ridgelines etc. 

The key lesson I drew from that experience was that every second counts in air combat. Being able to "see" a target does not mean you have sufficient time to engage. If the F-35's stealth capabilities gain our pilots that few extra seconds of time, it can mean the difference between mission success or mission failure. That's what it's all about - completing a successful mission (to paraphrase the end of 633 Sqn!).

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2015)

Thanks Buff and great info Beau!


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 23, 2015)

beaupower32 said:


> You dont need a dump truck to take out targets, one or two smart bombs are now a days more than capable of doing what a dump truck full of dumb bombs can do.



In fairness, I think he meant a dump truck full of stand-off guided missiles not dumb bombs, the objective being to stand-off outside the threat environment and just launch smart missiles to take our key targets. Of course, that's fine providing the target can be readily acquired, identified, validated and tracked with stand-off ISR assets. If it can't, then you're back to the old human-in-the-loop decision-action cycle to determine what and when to engage...and that means getting closer to the target and, hence, into the threat environment which means your dump truck is now useless and you need something more capable that has better survivability (ie F-35).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2015)

If you go by the current numbers pumped by Wiki, only the F-15E could carry more ordnance than the F-35. What's been missed in the F-35 argument is that the F-35A (and probably the B C) with an internal bomb load and no hard points had the maneuverability of an F/A-18 and arguably the same as an F-16. For a design that was a "compromise" because of the V/STOL requirement, plus a top speed of Mach 1.6 I’d say that pretty damned good.

“Can't Turn, Can't Climb, Can't Run” 100% BS!!! And we haven’t even scratched the surface on what some of the avionics can do!!!!

Could you imagine the flak the USAF would have received if the public knew about the F-117A's development and issues it had?!?!? The F-117A, just by it's looks alone would have never been built!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 23, 2015)

Glider said:


> One countermeasure development and the S400 is blind and ineffective. Besides you haven't given your reply to the question what would you use to attack the enemy with given that the drones are both more expensive and far more vulnerable than the F35.
> 
> Also you keep saying this
> _If its low observability allows it to remain relatively immune to detection at a long stand off range, why not just purpose build a lower cost bomb truck that does the same thing for a fraction of the cost?_
> ...



There is no single way to blind the S400 short of an EMP. The S400 is very effective. And that's why the Russians have been asked not to sell it to Syria or Iran. Would it be 100% effective? Probably not. But if it makes the attrition rate on the attacker so severe that its unsustainable, it has accomplished its task. 

If your aircraft isnt planning on going into hostile airspace, you can lessen up on on its avionics and increase the size of the bomb bay. And if it can stay outside the AA missile range, then so much the better. Just carry stand off weapons and let them do the job.

With the money being sunk into this program, we could have developed plenty of low cost drones to do the dangerous work. Its not that hard to make one that can handle far more G's than a manned plane, which will come in handy to avoid AA missiles. Especially if the drone is planned for one way missions.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 23, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The S-400 (an upgrade to the S-300) started to be developed in the early 1990s and deployed around 2000, so I guess it's outdated as well???



They are now developing the S500. And everyone knows that electronic systems get upgrades from time to time.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 23, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> In fairness, I think he meant a dump truck full of stand-off guided missiles not dumb bombs, the objective being to stand-off outside the threat environment and just launch smart missiles to take our key targets. Of course, that's fine providing the target can be readily acquired, identified, validated and tracked with stand-off ISR assets. If it can't, then you're back to the old human-in-the-loop decision-action cycle to determine what and when to engage...and that means getting closer to the target and, hence, into the threat environment which means your dump truck is now useless and you need something more capable that has better survivability (ie F-35).



Yes, I meant smart munitions, not gravity bombs. If your target is permanent fixed, not to tough to hit it. If its mobile, that's would on board sensors are for (or external sensors able to provide updates).


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 23, 2015)

Comparing the F35 maneuverability to our own fighters is stupid. How does it compare to foreign fighters? Thats the key.


----------



## Glider (Mar 23, 2015)

So to sum up. Your drone has a range of at least 400 miles so the carrier can stay out of range of the defences. Have sensors that can detect any incoming threat, sufficient agility to avoid incoming AA missiles, be immune to jamming, carry a sufficient warhead to destroy the target, presumably have sufficient ECM to help deal with the enemy point defence radars so weapons such as Seawolf and Isreali Iron Dome defence systems don't destroy them at the last layer of defence. 

To have all these characteristics and still be small enough so the launch aircraft can carry lots of them and of course they must be cheap. Am I the only one that can see the obvious problem here?

Heaven help you if the target moves or changes after launch as that adds a whole new level of complexity, size and cost.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> They are now developing the S500. And everyone knows that electronic systems get upgrades from time to time.


And we're developing a B-2 replacement, what's the point?!?!?



syscom3 said:


> Comparing the F35 maneuverability to our own fighters is stupid. How does it compare to foreign fighters? Thats the key.



Is it stupid?!? That's EXACTLY what the detractors did and OUR fighters were used as a benchmark. Then they did a video game scenario and the Rand Corporation along with Pierre Spey ran with it, THAT'S THE KEY!!!

Sys, give it up, you are so talking out of your @ss you don't have enough 5 year old yahoo news articles to keep up. As we speak the F-35B is going to begin it's sea trials and more offset vendors are being chosen when production ramps up. The plane had problems, they're being fixed, it will enter service and it will perform its job well. I suggest less video games and less Top Gun comparisons, and please once again, update your browser. 

F-35B tests to set stage for combat readiness - Military - The Daily News, Jacksonville


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 23, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> There is no single way to blind the S400 short of an EMP. The S400 is very effective. And that's why the Russians have been asked not to sell it to Syria or Iran. Would it be 100% effective? Probably not. But if it makes the attrition rate on the attacker so severe that its unsustainable, it has accomplished its task.



FWIW, from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(missile)

Foreign interest:

Vice Chairman of Russia's State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky has urged the fast delivery of the S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran.[68]

In September 2009, it was reported that the S-400 system is part of a two billion dollar arms deal being negotiated between Russia and Saudi Arabia. As of March 2010, this was still under negotiation. The Saudis want to buy twelve systems, each of eight launchers. The Saudis were trying to buy the more modern S-400, but the Russians reportedly only wanted to sell the older S-300.[70][71]

In March 2014, it was announced that Russian President Vladimir Putin gave authorization to sell the S-400 system to the People's Republic of China.[76] If China should acquire the S-400, reported to initially consist of six batteries, it would significantly improve China's ability to defend its own air space and serve as an effective stand-off weapon against American and Japanese air attacks. With a 400 km (250 mi) coverage range, aircraft in disputed areas off the coast could be targeted by SAMs from the mainland; all of Taiwan would be covered from Fujian Province, and the Diaoyu Islands would be covered from Shandong Province, making it difficult for the US and Japan to deploy combat aircraft over those airspaces. Taiwan seeks to address its potential advantages by locating S-400 batteries once activated using extensive SIGINT units and destroying them with stand-off weapons, cruise and ballistic missiles, and anti-radiation missiles.[77]


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 23, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And we're developing a B-2 replacement, what's the point?!?!?



I asked that question too. Why dump so much money into this type of plane? 


Are you saying that it is wrong to compare the F35 against foreign fighters? And the only true way of measuring the F35 is against the F15/F16/F18? That's a sure recipe for failure.

So what if its entering service. It will still be an over priced mediocre aircraft that will have a short production life. I like to think of it as being a modern day version of the TFX debacle of the 60's. Out of that came the F15 and F14.

If it isnt a great fighter, then it better be a great bomber. And if its a great bomber, it better not have any air to air capability other than to run away.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> With the money being sunk into this program, we could have developed plenty of low cost drones to do the dangerous work. Its not that hard to make one that can handle far more G's than a manned plane, which will come in handy to avoid AA missiles. Especially if the drone is planned for one way missions.



This is laughable. * If it was possible to develop low cost drones to accomplish a strike or primary air to air mission it would have been done years ago*. Drones will supplement manned aircraft but in the end will never replace them, at least not in our lifetime. You say low cost? Tell us what that is?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> I asked that question too. Why dump so much money into this type of plane?


 Because the concept works? 



syscom3 said:


> Are you saying that it is wrong to compare the F35 against foreign fighters?


Nope never said that - what I said it our own aircraft were used as a bench mark for comparison. Look at what the foreign contemporaries of say the F-16 and F/A-18 are and then compare away!!! Tornado, MiG-29, J10, to name a few...



syscom3 said:


> And the only true way of measuring the F35 is against the F15/F16/F18? That's a sure recipe for failure.


Well that's what the Rand study initially did and then attempted simulated comparisons basically guessing on how Russian and Chinese aircraft would perform.



syscom3 said:


> So what if its entering service. It will still be an over priced mediocre aircraft that will have a short production life.


 WHAT PROOF OF THAT DO YOU HAVE?!? 


syscom3 said:


> I like to think of it as being a modern day version of the TFX debacle of the 60's. Out of that came the F15 and F14.


Small minds think small...


syscom3 said:


> If it isnt a great fighter, then it better be a great bomber. And if its a great bomber, it better not have any air to air capability other than to run away.


And you can't comprehend that it has an air to air capability that will enable it to destroy opponents BEFORE it has to run!!!


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 24, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> If its mobile, that's would on board sensors are for (or external sensors able to provide updates).



Unfortunately, those sensors aren't good enough. You have to be able to see the target - radar just isn't good enough. For confirmation, rules of engagement often demand visual ID either using FAC, targeting pod or ISR assets. At stand-off distances, you can't visually ID the target using onboard sensors due to obliquity (low slant angle, even from high-altitude) coupled with image distortion due to atmospheric conditions. To suggest these physical issues can be overcome, in both day and night operations, to detect relatively small, mobile targets in high-clutter environments like cities is laughable. 

If the onboard sensors of your launch platform have to stay outside the threat environment, how are you going to get ISR assets in close enough so offboard sensors can do the job? Something has to go in harms way and that something has to be survivable. 

I'm no fan of the costs of the F-35. As a taxpayer, it makes my eyes water, and I still think the STOVL version is an expensive diversion of resources - there's no practical need for a vertically-landing asset these days, other than to maintain the superiority complex of the Harrier mafia. However, my 20 years in the military, including a number of operational deployments ranging from force-on-force to low-intensity conflict to peacekeeping to humanitarian relief, tell me that the F-35 is the right beast for the job. As manoeuverable as the F-18 (and maybe F-16) and yet capable of stealthy approach...sounds pretty good to me as an option for mission success!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm no fan of the costs of the F-35. As a taxpayer, it makes my eyes water, and I still think the STOVL version is an expensive diversion of resources - there's no practical need for a vertically-landing asset these days, other than to maintain the superiority complex of the Harrier mafia. However, my 20 years in the military, including a number of operational deployments ranging from force-on-force to low-intensity conflict to peacekeeping to humanitarian relief, tell me that the F-35 is the right beast for the job. As manoeuverable as the F-18 (and maybe F-16) and yet capable of stealthy approach...sounds pretty good to me as an option for mission success!


Buff with this statement, I couldn't agree more. As you put it the "Harrier Mafia" got their way when the concept of this aircraft was being developed. It was an 'after the fact' proposal when the designer of the lift fan stated that the airframe of the V/STOL could be adapted to other missions. 

Portions of this contract were cost plus which meant the LMCO could bill the government for actual expenses. That combined with changing/ adding components had the development costs of the program go hog wild. What should be investigated is who approved some of the add-ons and changes and have them show why they were justified, but it seems that situation is mute. The production portion of the program is Firm Fixed Priced so the contractor is held to keep costs down. I've been told by people who I know who were on the program that some of the vendors fell on their @sses - these vendors were not a choice by LMCO and were not in the US...

The F-35A had met or will meet it's test requirements. The sustained 9G issue is one compromise the USAF conceded to and IMO, why the hell to you have to maintain a sustained 9G turn when you have all these wonderful weapons that should keep you from having to "yank and bank" in a close in combat situation. The F-35C passed it's carrier qualifications with flying colors and the F-35B is about to go to sea. The design is just about proven and anyone who believes that this program will just be a "short production run" is on drugs!!! *PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND SHOW US PROOF OF THAT!!!!*

Like the 4th generation aircraft before it, the F-35 have/ had issues, they are being fixed and I think the latest milestones show the potential of this aircraft. This aircraft is expensive but if it's around 60 years from now I think the costs will be more than justified...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2015)

As we speak, more BS...

With the U.S. F-35 Grounded, Putin?s New Jet Beats Us Hands-Down - Yahoo Finance

F-35 grounded? Really?


----------



## Glider (Mar 24, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> I asked that question too. Why dump so much money into this type of plane?


Because its cheaper than a drone, more flexible than a drone, has a better payload than a drone, far more survivable than a drone, has infinitely more weapon options than a drone and is so, so much cooler than a drone. The last one being my nephews contribution


> Are you saying that it is wrong to compare the F35 against foreign fighters? And the only true way of measuring the F35 is against the F15/F16/F18? That's a sure recipe for failure.


 I can confidently say that the USA and its partners would love to test it against a fully equipped, latest Russian standard fighter. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian pilots wouldn't mind such a test but I don't see it happening. Now if we work on the basis that this isn't going to happen what do you suggest the USAF test it against? 
I am also confident that the RAF will have compared it against the Typhoon, the French will be testing it against the Rafael and a number of countries against the Grippen. 


> So what if its entering service. It will still be an over priced mediocre aircraft that will have a short production life. I like to think of it as being a modern day version of the TFX debacle of the 60's. Out of that came the F15 and F14.


If it were mediocre the RAF wouldn't be buying it as they already have the Typhoon. If it were overpriced the RAF would have simply dropped the F35 order and purchased more Typhoons. There was a lot of political pressure for that to happen but it didn't and its noticeable that all the UK political parties are sticking with it.


> If it isnt a great fighter, then it better be a great bomber. And if its a great bomber, it better not have any air to air capability other than to run away.


Its a great all round aircraft it will not be the best fighter but it will probably be the best attack aircraft. A lot of countries have been very happy with the performance of the F16 as a multirole aircraft and I have no doubt that the F35 will do the same.

Once again your entire posting is based on no support at all. Who believes that comparing the F35 against the F15 the benchmark for air combat is unreasonable, only you. Who says its a mediocre aircraft again only you. It is an expensive aircraft no doubt, but many nations believe its worth the cost and are proving it by paying the price so who doesn't believe its worth it, only people with an axe to grind.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2015)

Meanwhile...

*"First-Ever Italian F-35A Rolls Out of Cameri, Italy, Production Facility"*
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/fir...rolls-out-of-cameri-italy-production-facility







https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lockheed-f-35-program-costs-decline-7.5-billion-pentagon-says

Senior admiral reiterates U.S. Navy commitment to F-35 warplane | Reuters

*AND PLEASE NOTE THE DATES OF THESE ARTICLES!!!*


----------



## Glider (Mar 24, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Meanwhile...
> 
> *"First-Ever Italian F-35A Rolls Out of Cameri, Italy, Production Facility"*
> https://www.f35.com/news/detail/fir...rolls-out-of-cameri-italy-production-facility
> ...


That must be the grounded one that was being talked about. Or it could be the short production run i.e. only one (so far)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 24, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> <SNIP> and I still think the STOVL version is an expensive diversion of resources - there's no practical need for a vertically-landing asset these days, other than to maintain the superiority complex of the Harrier mafia. <SNIP>



For the US, has the AV-8B Harrier II been a worthwhile endeavor?
Has the AV-8B shown that the concept deserves to be continued in the F-35?
Supposedly, US Army General Norman Schwarzkopf named the USMC Harrier II as one of the seven most important weapons of the Gulf War.

PS: The AV-8B has provided fixed-wing capability from amphibious assault ships.
It would seem that that is a capability worth continuing.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 24, 2015)

Gulf War I was 25 years ago. To put that time shift in context, how many aircraft from 1966 were still considered vital combat assets in 1991? Also, what proportion of USMC missions were flown by AV-8B compared to CTOL USMC aircraft? I'd argue that the whole raison d'etre for Harrier died when the threat of the Soviet 3rd Shock Army rolling over the inner German border evaporated. I just don't see a case where we need rough-field STOVL operations today - it provides nothing that cannot be done with aircraft that can fly further and/or carry more.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 24, 2015)

I have noticed most aircraft coming out of hangars are grounded, my wife is sometimes astounded at my powers of observation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 24, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> Gulf War I was 25 years ago. To put that time shift in context, how many aircraft from 1966 were still considered vital combat assets in 1991? Also, what proportion of USMC missions were flown by AV-8B compared to CTOL USMC aircraft? I'd argue that the whole raison d'etre for Harrier died when the threat of the Soviet 3rd Shock Army rolling over the inner German border evaporated. I just don't see a case where we need rough-field STOVL operations today - it provides nothing that cannot be done with aircraft that can fly further and/or carry more.



The time shift thing seems to have changed though.
For example, how many aircraft from 1991 (and much earlier) are still considered vital combat assets today?


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 24, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I have noticed most aircraft coming out of hangars are grounded, my wife is sometimes astounded at my powers of observation.



But do you observe well when she wants chocolate, or flowers?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2015)

Here is the FY14' report on the F-35. The press doesn't report any of this stuff (even if it's negative) because they're too stupid to look for it.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/da.../DOT-E_2014_Annual_Report_Section_on_F-35.pdf


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 24, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> Gulf War I was 25 years ago. To put that time shift in context, how many aircraft from 1966 were still considered vital combat assets in 1991? Also, what proportion of USMC missions were flown by AV-8B compared to CTOL USMC aircraft? I'd argue that the whole raison d'etre for Harrier died when the threat of the Soviet 3rd Shock Army rolling over the inner German border evaporated. I just don't see a case where we need rough-field STOVL operations today - it provides nothing that cannot be done with aircraft that can fly further and/or carry more.



Wouldn't that have been better performed by organically incorporating the Harrier into US Army forces Europe?


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 24, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Wouldn't that have been better performed by organically incorporating the Harrier into US Army forces Europe?



Maybe, but that's the event for which the RAF's Harriers trained. Not USMC, I know, but it was the origin of the Harrier's role.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 24, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> The time shift thing seems to have changed though.
> For example, how many aircraft from 1991 (and much earlier) are still considered vital combat assets today?



It's not the age of the issue that's relevant but the need for STOVL capability. There are plenty of airframes dating from earlier than 1991 that are still entirely relevant today but others that aren't. For my money, A-10 and Harrier both fall into the latter category. Don't get me wrong - I think both aircraft are fantastic. It's just that their roles have disappeared. Rather like horse-borne cavalry, really.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 24, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> It's not the age of the issue that's relevant but the need for STOVL capability. There are plenty of airframes dating from earlier than 1991 that are still entirely relevant today but others that aren't. For my money, A-10 and Harrier both fall into the latter category. Don't get me wrong - I think both aircraft are fantastic. It's just that their roles have disappeared. Rather like horse-borne cavalry, really.



At the risk of thread creep, would you perhaps say the same applies to the M1 Abrams tank? It seems today a diesel reciprocating-engine powered vehicle, better suited to long periods of idling, more economical fuel consumption, urban warfare and working closely with dismounted troops would be more appropriate?

The M1 was envisioned to be working in the same environment as the A-10 and Harrier previously mentioned.


----------



## Glider (Mar 24, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Here is the FY14' report on the F-35. The press doesn't report any of this stuff (even if it's negative) because they're too stupid to look for it.
> 
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/da.../DOT-E_2014_Annual_Report_Section_on_F-35.pdf



Its an interesting read and not as negative as I expected. There were engine problems that caused delays in the flight testing which in turn meant that a number of goals were missed which is understandable. A structural failure yes but well into the second lifetime test cycle.
The good progress of the F35B and F35C plus the use of the 3F to make up ground lost with the 2B. Its behind on the mission systems but they were held up by the engine problems.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2015)

About drone costs..

The X-47B which was a UCAV demonstrator (of which two were built) had a program price tag of $813 million. Do the math!


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 27, 2015)

How does F-35 bomb-load capacity compare to the F-22 and YF-23?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> How does F-35 bomb-load capacity compare to the F-22 and YF-23?



IIRC the F-22 can carry 2000 pounds or bombs internally and another 2000 pounds on wing pylons. In that configuration the RCS is increased so it loses some of it's stealth capability.

The YF-23 in it's prototype form carried no bombs.

The F-35 can carry 3000 pounds of bombs internally and another 15,000 pound on hardpoints, 18k total

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2015)

*"The Kremlin is cutting its initial production of the Sukhoi T-50 fighter by 75 percent amid cost overruns and rumored technical concerns – the same kind of issues that have plagued US development of the F-35."*

Grounded? Russia's answer to US next-gen fighter hits the skids. - Yahoo News

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 27, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> About drone costs..
> 
> The X-47B which was a UCAV demonstrator (of which two were built) had a program price tag of $813 million. Do the math!



Deliberaty ignoring the fact that this is a one off "X" plane?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Deliberaty ignoring the fact that this is a one off "X" plane?



Do your home work - 2 (two, dos, два) were built

and *POINTING OUT* the fact that the basic F-35 airframe came from the* X-35*


----------



## Glider (Mar 27, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Deliberaty ignoring the fact that this is a one off "X" plane?



Are you ignoring the US Govt paper I produced much earlier that gave the cost of a combat drone of $500m?
It should ne noted that current combat drones don't have a fraction of the capabilities of the 'cheap' drones that you are after. What one of those would cost I can only guess at.

Re the Su T50 fighter. The Russians have announced that they are going to build 12 aircraft over the coming years which to me sounds like prototypes which means that the AA missiles you are relying on, are on there own. The Su27 which seems to be the fighter that Russia are relying on is generally considered to be a match for the F15 which makes the F15 an excellent aircraft to compare the F35 against, or do you disagree?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 27, 2015)

The F35 "Schitzoid". Doesnt know if its fighter or a bomber. Its really good to know it carries a paltry 4000 pound internal payload when in full stealth profile. Pathetic. The fact it can carry even more on hardpoints at the cost of stealth just prives what many critics have condemed it for. 

A purpose built bomber would carry a lot more internally. And if its selling point is it can carry a lot externally, then why have a stealth capability to begin with?

As fighter, its just a joke. It wont be able to maneuver with any modern fighters. 

As for its software, its going to be its downfall. One issue after another. It wont be till 2020 that all the bugs are worked and by then the plane is already obsolescent. A great multi hundred billion dollar investment in a flying turkey. It would have been far better to invest the money in drone R&D and embrace the future rather than this deadend.


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 27, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> It would have been far better to invest the money in drone R&D and embrace the future rather than this deadend.



Like this?


----------



## Glider (Mar 28, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> The F35 "Schitzoid". Doesnt know if its fighter or a bomber. Its really good to know it carries a paltry 4000 pound internal payload when in full stealth profile. Pathetic. The fact it can carry even more on hardpoints at the cost of stealth just prives what many critics have condemed it for.
> 
> A purpose built bomber would carry a lot more internally. And if its selling point is it can carry a lot externally, then why have a stealth capability to begin with?
> 
> ...


I take that to be a Yes you are ignoring the cost, survivability, size and other drone issues which will presumably have no developmental problems.

Re the aircraft it will be fighting against can you tell us which Russian fighter the F35 will not be able to outperform?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> The F35 "Schitzoid". Doesnt know if its fighter or a bomber. Its really good to know it carries a paltry 4000 pound internal payload when in full stealth profile. Pathetic.


More myopic drivvle...  And I guess the F-117A was just as pathetic as it carried even less of an internal payload?!?!?



syscom3 said:


> The fact it can carry even more on hardpoints at the cost of stealth just prives what many critics have condemed it for.



If you expand your brain cells you'll find that this is an option to be utilized when striking lower risk targets


syscom3 said:


> A purpose built bomber would carry a lot more internally. And if its selling point is it can carry a lot externally, then why have a stealth capability to begin with?



Genius, see above


syscom3 said:


> As fighter, its just a joke. It wont be able to maneuver with any modern fighters.



Prove it - maneuverability of an F/A-18 WITH and internal payload as admitted by pilots who fly the Typhoon. 


syscom3 said:


> As for its software, its going to be its downfall. One issue after another. It wont be till 2020 that all the bugs are worked and by then the plane is already obsolescent. A great multi hundred billion dollar investment in a flying turkey. It would have been far better to invest the money in drone R&D and embrace the future rather than this deadend.



More BS from the uneducated, uninformed, and unenlightened. The F-18 has software issues as we speak, an ongoing situation, same with the F-22. You're a bundle of optimism, I bet you have a picture of Pierre Spey hung up on your wall!

meanwhile...

General Defends Embattled $850 Billion F-35 Program | The Fiscal Times


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 28, 2015)

The cost of a drone at 700 million? Sure . I believe that. Maybe for a one time airframe. With all the money pissed away for the Schitzo fighter, we could have put it in R&D for drones and would be able to deploy them by 2020 at a fraction of the cost of what were paying now.


----------



## Glider (Mar 28, 2015)

Still ignoring that official paper I posted.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> The cost of a drone at 700 million? Sure .* I believe that. Maybe for a one time airframe.* With all the money pissed away for the Schitzo fighter, we could have put it in R&D for drones and would be able to deploy them by 2020 at a fraction of the cost of what were paying now.





Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk

Weight: 14,950 lbs (6,781 kg)



*Unit cost: $222,700,000–$222,700,000 USD (2013)*




Sure Sys, and this could fly them...






You have not provided one iota of proof, data, information to support your uninformed and sometimes ignorant argument. Please stop reading the articles on yahoo that reference data from 2007


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2015)

Speaking of Drones, next week I am working on a General Atomics aircraft. That is the company that builds the Predator Drones.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Speaking of Drones, next week I am working on a General Atomics aircraft. That is the company that builds the Predator Drones.



Is it one of the chase planes?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 28, 2015)

pod of drones ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2015)

EDW AFB


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2015)

General Defends Embattled $850 Billion F-35 Program | The Fiscal Times

Kind of funny that this article reports a 'scathing' DOD report on the program. I posted the same report several posts ago. It identifies issues and recommendations, but nothing earth shattering.

This is from LMCO explaining the aircraft's software. 

https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/software

Meanwhile the Dutch just bought 8 F-35s

Netherlands Orders Eight F-35s | Defense content from Aviation Week


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2015)

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/raaf-pilot-paves-future-with-first-f-35-flight

*“Everything I’ve done in the simulator made the F-35 remarkably easy to fly." 

“It felt very similar to the F-18 Hornet that I have flown previously, so it was a very comfortable transition."*

Squadron Leader Andrew Jackson, RAAF, Eglin Air Force Base march 18, 2015

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 28, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> https://www.f35.com/news/detail/raaf-pilot-paves-future-with-first-f-35-flight
> 
> *“Everything I’ve done in the simulator made the F-35 remarkably easy to fly."
> 
> ...



Well, to quote our highly regarded member fly boy...._fly boy:"isn't that the first jet bomber because I have flown one in a flight sim before and I know how it handles"_

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2015)

I think our F-35 sim is just a smidge more advanced


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Is it one of the chase planes?



Not sure exactly what they use it for. It is s King Air 200, with a large electronics pod underneath. I did some work on one in December, and next week they are bringing another one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 29, 2015)

Just shows you, how much I follow this modern.....rubbish, but I thought that Italy was in with this Eurofighter, or whatever it's called....


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 29, 2015)

I got to spend time in the sim. Very impressive. Wish I had one at home... Just got word that we are going to shoot live missiles and bombs off my plane a little later this year. Will be exciting, can't wait.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 29, 2015)

The way things are moving forward, missiles will soon be useless and we're back to square one, guns and cannons only...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Just shows you, how much I follow this modern.....rubbish, but I thought that Italy was in with this Eurofighter, or whatever it's called....



Italy will be building 90 F-35s, both A/B models

Modern rubbish? Is it just jets or all modern aircraft?


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 29, 2015)

Hey, I prefer aircraft where the pilot do the _actual_ flying, with the bottom of his pants.....the F-35 and others (except for the Gripen of course ) are just pile of old and used razorblades melted together...  

















.......and did I say _ugly?_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Hey, I prefer aircraft where the pilot do the _actual_ flying, with the bottom of his pants.....the F-35 and others (except for the Gripen of course ) are just pile of old and used razorblades melted together...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. IMO if it doesn't suck or blow it ain't worth a sh!t!


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 29, 2015)

Have we changed the subject to women now?


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Mar 29, 2015)

I like my women like I like the A-10. They may not be pretty, but they're cheap and get the job done.


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 29, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> I like my women like I like the A-10. They may not be pretty, but they're cheap and get the job done.



But your signature photo is an expensive classy bird


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2015)

And someone needs to resize their signature. 

ScreamingLightning please review the signature rules of the forum and make the appropriate changes. Thanks.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/signature-general-pics-upload/signature-rules-19460.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 29, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> I like my women like I like the A-10. They may not be pretty, but they're cheap and get the job done.



Ha!


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 29, 2015)

beaupower32 said:


> I got to spend time in the sim. Very impressive. Wish I had one at home... Just got word that we are going to shoot live missiles and bombs off my plane a little later this year. Will be exciting, can't wait.



YGTBSM!!

This contraption hasnt dropped or fired live munitions yet? You just cant make this stuff up on how poorly designed and mismanaged this schitzo fighter program!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> YGTBSM!!
> 
> This contraption hasnt dropped or fired live munitions yet? You just cant make this stuff up on how poorly designed and mismanaged this schitzo fighter program!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 30, 2015)

We been dropping a long time. My plane AF03 is about to start shooting for the current software we have on board, which is a head of every one else. If you actually pull your head out your ass syscom you would have known we have been shooting for a long time. Or did you not read that part on yahoo...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 30, 2015)

beaupower32 said:


> We been dropping a long time. My plane AF03 is about to start shooting for the current software we have on board, *which is a head of every one else.* If you actually pull your head out your ass syscom you would have known we have been shooting for a long time. Or did you not read that part on yahoo...



Now, I wouldn't be too sure about that....


----------



## Glider (Mar 30, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> YGTBSM!!
> 
> This contraption hasnt dropped or fired live munitions yet? You just cant make this stuff up on how poorly designed and mismanaged this schitzo fighter program!



Priceless


----------



## Torch (Mar 30, 2015)

F-35A Fires First Missile in Test Flight | Defense Tech


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 30, 2015)

Couple of observations. Firstly I HATE the word "drone" which implies mindlessly following a pre-arranged mission agenda. Modern UAVs are either RPAs with a pilot in command, albeit on the ground. In the future, we may well have UCAVs with a host of sensors that can respond dynamically to a threat environment. Either way, it's hardly a "drone".

Secondly, I'm not entirely sure what Syscom's term "schitzo fighter" is supposed to mean. If it's a general opposition to multi-role aircraft, then we should have never fitted rockets and bombs to Hurricanes, P-47s, P-51s or tried turning the Mosquito bomber into an effective multi-role platform...and that's before we consider the F-4 or F/A-18 both of which have multi-role capabilities. His earlier post about having a "purpose built bomber" politely ignores the fact that you'd then have 2 aircraft to maintain in your front-line inventory with double the logistics chain etc. 

As a final observation, if the F-35 is so crappy why are the USMC trying to accelerate its deployment, even with the current software faults? According to National Defense Magazine, the Corps is willing to take the F-35 even earlier than other operators because, despite its ongoing issues, even in its current form it's better than what's in use today across the various missions that the F-35 can accomplish.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 30, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> His earlier post about having a "purpose built bomber" politely ignores the fact that you'd then have 2 aircraft to maintain in your front-line inventory with double the logistics chain etc.
> .



Many of the weapons for ground attack are missiles, if the F 35 was to be used to drop iron bombs from 25,000ft then it would be a waste of money. The difference between the missiles is not so great so provided they can acquire and take out the target what is the difference between a fighter and a bomber anyway?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> YGTBSM!!
> 
> This contraption hasnt dropped or fired live munitions yet? You just cant make this stuff up on how poorly designed and mismanaged this schitzo fighter program!



God, you're being an idiot!


















I think Syscom, with his Yahoo news aviation education knows more than the US, British, Australian, Singapore, Italian, Dutch and Canadian militaries combined!!!!

If anything this aircraft is going to be one of the most intensively tested (maybe even over tested) weapons platform ever developed and rightfully so in some respects. The statement that it will be obsolete by 2020 is one of the dumbest things said about this aircraft that I could recall. I guess the F-22 is obsolete as well and the Super Hornet is ready for the boneyard!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Many of the weapons for ground attack are missiles, *if the F 35 was to be used to drop iron bombs from 25,000ft then it would be a waste of money*. The difference between the missiles is not so great so provided they can acquire and take out the target what is the difference between a fighter and a bomber anyway?



Joint Direct Attack Munition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## pbehn (Mar 30, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Joint Direct Attack Munition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I was thinking about Paveway and Brimstone.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 30, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Many of the weapons for ground attack are missiles, if the F 35 was to be used to drop iron bombs from 25,000ft then it would be a waste of money. The difference between the missiles is not so great so provided they can acquire and take out the target what is the difference between a fighter and a bomber anyway?



The use of any wholly dependent on the target type and threat environment. Long-range, stand-off missiles are great for fixed targets that can be readily identified using sensors onboard the missile but they're far less effective against mobile targets where there's a need for real-time intelligence feeds and human eyes on the target before the weapon is pickled. 

From the Hurricane onwards, fighters have been able to carry out more than one mission. The challenge is how well a multi-role platform performs each of the roles assigned to it as, clearly, a dedicated fighter will be optimized more for air combat than an aircraft that must perform both air combat and ground attack roles. Typically, it's a difference in sensors and systems integration rather than in the size/shape of the airframe, except in the case of dedicated bombers like the B-52 and B-2 where the ability to lift lots of heavy weapons a long distance takes precedence over air combat manoeuvring.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 30, 2015)

What concerns me most, is that those doors will lock either in closed or open position...stealth is gone then...if open!


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 30, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Now, I wouldn't be too sure about that....



The software currently loaded on my jet is the most current verson there is. No other jet has the software that is on my jet at the moment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 30, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> The use of any wholly dependent on the target type and threat environment. Long-range, stand-off missiles are great for fixed targets that can be readily identified using sensors onboard the missile but they're far less effective against mobile targets where there's a need for real-time intelligence feeds and human eyes on the target before the weapon is pickled.
> 
> From the Hurricane onwards, fighters have been able to carry out more than one mission. The challenge is how well a multi-role platform performs each of the roles assigned to it as, clearly, a dedicated fighter will be optimized more for air combat than an aircraft that must perform both air combat and ground attack roles. Typically, it's a difference in sensors and systems integration rather than in the size/shape of the airframe, except in the case of dedicated bombers like the B-52 and B-2 where the ability to lift lots of heavy weapons a long distance takes precedence over air combat manoeuvring.


That was the point I was also trying to make. The F35 may not be as good as an F22 as a fighter but it is still good. To attack in a hostile environment you need stealth and stand off weapons. The F35 can carry more external weapons at the expense of stealth if/when threats are eliminated.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2015)

pbehn said:


> That was the point I was also trying to make. The F35 may not be as good as an F22 as a fighter but it is still good. To attack in a hostile environment you need stealth and stand off weapons. The F35 can carry more external weapons at the expense of stealth if/when threats are eliminated.



That's EXACTLY the way the F-35 works.

*SYSCOM, ARE YOU LISTENING?!?!?!*


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 30, 2015)

pbehn said:


> That was the point I was also trying to make. The F35 may not be as good as an F22 as a fighter but it is still good. To attack in a hostile environment you need stealth and stand off weapons. The F35 can carry more external weapons at the expense of stealth if/when threats are eliminated.



Yep...we're on the same page. The other thing to note is that the use of stealth is typically required only for high-value targets and so you don't need a large quantity of ordinance because you're going after very specific targets. In a high-threat environment, stealth would be used to neutralize surface-to-air threats at key locations to allow conventional, non-stealth aircraft through the gap and attack other targets. Stand-off missiles can be used as part of the force package for static targets, but even then stealth will allow the launch platform to get closer without detection, thus decreasing missile flight time which increases surprise and reduces the defender's ability to respond. Conversely, in a low-threat environment, there's no real need for stealth and so the F-35 can carry more weapons as needed by the mission, including "taxi-cab" orbits for on-call CAS if needed.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 30, 2015)

beaupower32 said:


> The software currently loaded on my jet is the most current verson there is. No other jet has the software that is on my jet at the moment.


As far as you know, aye...wink, wink, nudge, nudge...
Which makes me wonder (I know, slight off topic), are the South African Air Force using those helmets with.....d*mn....what was it called again...helmet display thingmajig, that's the best technical term that I can come with at the moment....pmsl
Does the F-35 have the same potential built in as the Gripen (I know, but it's the only fighter that I've ben working with, sort of), what would it cost to increase fuel by 40%, two more hardpoints, to name a few....mind you, this is five years ago, try to remember the name web system they used over Libya....

Carry on gentlemen, this highly entertaining...


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 30, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> As far as you know, aye...wink, wink, nudge, nudge



With as many engineers telling me this, (again they are engineers, what do they know, wink wink) I will take their word for it.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 30, 2015)

I don't trust engineers!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 30, 2015)

"... I don't trust engineers! "

Day to day life must be cause for considerable nervousness in that case, my friend

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2015)




----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 30, 2015)

what's that, about 9 ton?


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 30, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... I don't trust engineers! "
> 
> Day to day life must be cause for considerable nervousness in that case, my friend



Wouldn't say that, as long as there's bacon, I'm good...


----------



## pbehn (Mar 30, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> what's that, about 9 ton?



in my British European world 2.2 pounds = 1Kg so 18,000LB = circa 8,200Kg metric, long and short tons loses me lol


----------



## parsifal (Mar 30, 2015)

This campaign against the F-35 reminds me of the F-111 debate back in the 60's. It was considered a disaster as well, and took years longer to deliver than originally promised. When we received them, they were the most expensive piece of military hardware ever used by the Australian military. They never fired a shot in anger, but despite all of that, they were worth every penny.

We used them for 43 years, lost 4 or so to operational accidents. Some money was spent to give them digital targeting capability and enhanced standoff weapon systems. In the numerous simulated battles that they were endlessly subjected to I do not believe that they were ever considered "defeated" Just 30 or so airframes allowed us to completely dominate our region for 40 years and gave us influence far beyond our standing as a nation. 

I remember exercising against these things at several RIMPAC and KANGAROO exercises in the 80's. Their electronics suite made them a very difficult target to lock onto with our American Standard and the Army's Rapier missile systems. They would come in low with their ECM systems, launch their harpoons at about 40 miles. Very fast, hard to hit. Even when loaded with just iron bombs we had a hard time. I remember trying to track and engage with 5in guns in the DDGs, guns could not track fast enough to be effective.

Things have changed, I know, but I doubt the dynamic has changed that much. This talk about manned aircraft being obsolete is very similar to the talk in the UK back in the 50s and 60s when they said all carriers and all fighters were no longer needed because of nuclear weapons. UAVs have a role, but they cant do everything a manned a/c can do.

Despite its rocky start, we came to view our Aardvarks as the birds on our shoulders. I am confident the f-35 will do the same. They just need to get delivery and completion going sooner rather than later.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2015)

beaupower32 said:


> The software currently loaded on my jet is the most current verson there is. No other jet has the software that is on my jet at the moment.



Oh stop lying! Sys knows more about the happenings than you do, even though you are working on the program. Bow down to him...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2015)

parsifal said:


> This campaign against the F-35 reminds me of the F-111 debate back in the 60's.


Except I don’t see the naval version of this aircraft going away!
What boggles my mind with this is the F-35 haters don't realize that a multi-service, multi-mission fighter/ strike aircraft was initially achieved with the F-4. It worked well in all missions and the greatest handicap it faced were the politicians not allowing it to fully exploit its potential (BVR engagements). Had the USAF decided to go with the F-17, we would have had that same tri-service mix. The F-35 uniquely blends the tri-service concept with the offering of a production derivative that also gives the USMC their desired V/STOL strike aircraft.

The ignorance of the F-35 bashing community is amazing. They don't question WHY the so-called cost over-runs were allowed and approved. They don't ask about what part of the contracts were firm fixed price and what portions were cost plus, and finally they refuse to recognize the true mission of the aircraft, the progress made since the 2007 Rand Report, and can’t conceptualize that VR air to air combat IS NOT the primary way you deal with your enemy (unless your elected officials enter a combat situation tying the hands of the F-35 pilots). 150 plus F-35s have been built and right now there are negotiations ongoing for the next 150 aircraft within the US military. Production jigs are being built by BAE and the first Italian F-35 just rolled out. If this aircraft was anywhere near the dog some slightly less than educated people say it is, they’re smarter than some of the best military minds, aircraft manufactures and engineers this planet has to offer and perhaps should be running their own aircraft companies and building drones!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh stop lying! Sys knows more about the happenings than you do, even though you are working on the program. Bow down to him...



BOOM HEADSHOT!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovsVU6mktOw_


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 31, 2015)

Abe with a F-35 mockup not knowing when it will be deployed.
The aged F-4 is still active together with F-15 and F-2(F-16 variant) in my country. 
Air defense blank period may come soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 31, 2015)

pbehn said:


> in my British European world 2.2 pounds = 1Kg so 18,000LB = circa 8,200Kg metric, long and short tons loses me lol



Same here, used to think that it was only one sort of Ton, but...._nooooo!_


----------



## pbehn (Mar 31, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Same here, used to think that it was only one sort of Ton, but...._nooooo!_



I dont know about Sweden but to queer things even more many European countries call a half kilo a "pound", yes horror of horrors even the French use "Livre" in markets and for a babies weight.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 31, 2015)

What we use in Sweden, Gram, Hekto, Kilo, Ton....


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 31, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They...can’t conceptualize that VR air to air combat IS NOT the primary way you deal with your enemy (unless your elected officials enter a combat situation tying the hands of the F-35 pilots)



Yep...if you're going into a fair fight, you're doing it wrong. Objective is to kill the other guy with as little fuss and at as long a range as possible. Shooting your watch off in the bar makes for great war stories but it's much better to get him at long range with you flying straight-and-level than to lose the tactical advantage and get into the close-in ACM knife-fight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77gTSr07Jqs_




Drones and F-35s, no yahoo BS!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 31, 2015)

so i have a question for those guys working in the program. Our DOD propaganda is saying deliveries are expected to begin 2018, with completion of our order 2023. Does that line up with whats happening inside the company?


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 1, 2015)

The F4 was/is bad*ss, while the F-22/35 are just.....meeeh..






























That should be a big enough spanner in the works...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 1, 2015)

Funny one, Jan...just not very accurate. 

For the AF, you're missing the F-101, F-102, F-104 and F-105 all of which were replaced by the next generation F-15 and F-16 jets.

On the Navy front, you're missing the A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and F-8.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> The F4 was/is bad*ss, while the F-22/35 are just.....meeeh.



The F-4 was able to step up and fill a role that was left vacant by stupidity and lack of planning.

The F-22 reall hasn't been able to prove itself in combat although it's FMC rates were very poor for a while. The jury is still out on the F-35 although I believe it's going to work as advertised.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2015)

parsifal said:


> so i have a question for those guys working in the program. Our DOD propaganda is saying deliveries are expected to begin 2018, with completion of our order 2023. Does that line up with whats happening inside the company?



Beau is on the program but at flight test, but still may be able to give a better perspective than I. 

I worked for Lockheed years ago building USN P-3s. We were also building P-3s for Canada (CP-140s) Australia, Japan and the Netherlands. Each international customer had a separate contract and delivery dates were negotiated. The USN could place production line priority on their P-3s but for the most part that didn't happen. If LMCO has a contract with the RAAF and committed to those delivery dates, they should be expected to see their aircraft to be delivered on schedule. Having worked with the RAAF, it would not surprise me if the late delivery penalties are pretty steep.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 1, 2015)

I think this discussion about the effectiveness of the F-35 is like debating the existence of God, by the time you find out the correct answer it is way too late to change your point of view.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I think this discussion about the effectiveness of the F-35 is like debating the existence of God,* by the time you find out the correct answer it is way too late to change your point of view*.



That being going to war with it.

Here's a great blog written a few years ago that gives IMO a fair assessment of the aircraft with regards to Canada's purchase of their CF-35s. Things have changed a bit but for the most part intelligentally spells out what this aircraft can and can't do. It's worth the reading, especially for the "uninformed."

American Innovation: Canada and the F-35


----------



## pbehn (Apr 1, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That being going to war with it.
> 
> Here's a great blog written a few years ago that gives IMO a fair assessment of the aircraft with regards to Canada's purchase of their CF-35s. This have changed a bit but for the most part intelligentally spells out what this aircraft can and can't do. It's worth the reading, especially for the "uninformed."
> 
> American Innovation: Canada and the F-35



Good stuff FB but what I was saying that facts play little part in the discussion, I think it is a great A/C but it will need a war not a conflict to answer the question.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## beaupower32 (Apr 1, 2015)

parsifal said:


> so i have a question for those guys working in the program. Our DOD propaganda is saying deliveries are expected to begin 2018, with completion of our order 2023. Does that line up with whats happening inside the company?



Last I heard yes they are still on time. 



I did find this,
F-35D+ to Feature Titanium Bathtub and GAU-8 Avenger | The Tactical Air Network







Figured I would give you guys a sneak peek at what is new in the F-35 world, before Syscom sees it on yahoo and reports that it is real. BTW, Happy April Fools everyone.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 1, 2015)

Actually, the F-35D is unmanned...the titanium bathtub is for the pilot to have a nice relaxing soak and play with his (or her!) loofah while the aircraft autonomously spreads death and destruction in its wake. Program costs will still spiral out of control due to increased demand for post-traumatic stress treatments as the pilots are subjected to a never-ending stream of "Where's the soap?" jokes.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Apr 1, 2015)

This is April 2 in my town

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 1, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> Actually, the F-35D is unmanned...the titanium bathtub is for the pilot to have a nice relaxing soak and play with his (or her!) loofah while the aircraft autonomously spreads death and destruction in its wake. Program costs will still spiral out of control due to increased demand for post-traumatic stress treatments as the pilots are subjected to a never-ending stream of "Where's the soap?" jokes.



This is so...English. Only the Poms would have a bath to relax in ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 2, 2015)

It's just the decadent lifestyle we lead - baths are for relaxing, showers are for getting oneself clean. What can I say? Some of us are just more civilized.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 2, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I think this discussion about the effectiveness of the F-35 is like debating the existence of God, by the time you find out the correct answer it is way too late to change your point of view.



.....or change, what is needing changed, with the aircraft!


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 2, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> It's just the decadent lifestyle we lead - baths are for relaxing, showers are for getting oneself clean. What can I say? Some of us are just more civilized.



_Civilized??_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2015)

Sys got awfully quiet...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 2, 2015)

It takes a lot of time and effort ignore reality. As General Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett would say...

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 2, 2015)




----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 2, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> It takes a lot of time and effort ignore reality.
> 
> View attachment 288809



I think I just found a slide for my next business presentation!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 2, 2015)

You're welcome!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 2, 2015)

vikingBerserker said:


> I think I just found a slide for my next business presentation!



The Blackadder series is a gold mine of quotes.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 2, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sys got awfully quiet...



Im here. Just shaking my head in amazement in how you've come under the spell of the schitzo fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 2, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Im here. Just shaking my head in amazement in how you've come under the spell of the schitzo fighter.



The only "schitzo" here is the one that believes yahoo news, drinks the cool aid of the ignorant and anti-military news media, quotes 8 year old news articles and can't accept that the F-35 is becoming operational in months. I could think of more words than schitzo but I'm trying to be patient with the uninformed...

In the mean time...

1,000th F-35 training sortie flown at Luke AFB > U.S. Air Force > Article Display


* "I’m extremely proud of the extraordinary work our maintainers are doing to ensure our pilots have mission-ready and safe jets," Pleus said. “The F-35 is going to be the backbone of the Air Force's fighter fleet for decades to come and Luke will play a vital role in producing the world's greatest, most lethal F-35 pilots. With initial operational capability scheduled to occur late next year, it's important that we get our training program and process dialed in and as efficient and refined as our F-16 training program is, so we can help meet the Air Force's scheduled goal."*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Im here. Just shaking my head in amazement in how you've come under the spell of the schitzo fighter.



Under the spell? 

Please show me one post to justify this absurd claim. Please walk the talk sys.

I'm shaking my head in utter amazement in how you are going to argue with someone who obviously has more know how on the project than you ever will. He is working on it.

I think I know what really is schitzo here...


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 2, 2015)

I think it's spelled t-r-o-l-l. Sorry but it seems like Sys is just trying to wind people up. He isn't providing any substantive evidence to back up his claims, just repeating the same stuff over and over again. 

I'm kindda done with this thread - it isn't going to improve and the naysayers aren't going to be silenced. I still reckon the F-35B is a huge waste of resources but the A and C models will be highly capable and around for a very long time.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 3, 2015)

I'm just surprised, that something can be that expensive and have only one engine, makes you wonder, what it would have cost with _two!_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> I'm just surprised, that something can be that expensive and have only one engine, makes you wonder, what it would have cost with _two!_



Some of the costs have nothing to do with the airframe.

F-35 pilots to wear $400,000 helmets that can see through the plane | Fox News


----------



## Glider (Apr 3, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Im here. Just shaking my head in amazement in how you've come under the spell of the schitzo fighter.



Logic left your argument some time ago, the theories you believe in are just that and evidence to support your theories never made it into print.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 3, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Some of the costs have nothing to do with the airframe.
> 
> F-35 pilots to wear $400,000 helmets that can see through the plane | Fox News



Well, they're not exactly seeing _through_ the plane now, are they?  

_There are six cameras in the fighter's 'skin' and, when working correctly, can pick up sensors for when the pilot moves his head..._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## beaupower32 (Apr 3, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Some of the costs have nothing to do with the airframe.
> 
> F-35 pilots to wear $400,000 helmets that can see through the plane | Fox News



It is very weird thing to see, can hardly describe it. Closest thing I can think of is take a video camera, turn on the black and white filter, and cup it in your hands to where the only view is the screen and enjoy. Pilots have said that at night they would rather fly with DAS than with night vision, as it is almost as clear as day.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Well, they're *not exactly seeing through the plane now, are they?*
> 
> _There are six cameras in the fighter's 'skin' and, when working correctly, can pick up sensors for when the pilot moves his head..._



It gives the same effect. The aircraft was critized for not having a bubble canopy thus poor vision from behind, well this system blows that argument out of the water and then some, but then again, if all weapons are used correctly, the pilot won't have to worry about what's on his 6!!!


----------



## parsifal (Apr 3, 2015)

Im unconvinced by Syscoms argument that unmanned craft make the F-35 obsolete. But one does wonder if all the money spent on the F-35 had been poured into drone programs, and the US had soldiered on with either the updated Eagle or say super Hornets, would the combination of an older less capable Eagle/F-18 on the one hand, with better developed drones and unmanned a/c supporting those aircraft on the other, would we be better off in terms of military capability?

Id would really like to hear the arguments for and against these two basic scenarios....

My position is that im a great believer in the f-35. It looks like a helluva a/c to me. but Ive been out of the loop far too long so I really cant make a balanced assessment on this...are drones the new HMS Dreadnought of the 21st century, or would we risk our lead in aerospace technology if we allow ourselves to slip out of the front runners position?

Who feels they are sufficiently on top of this to attempt a cogent argument, one way or the other?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2015)

Syscom's cool aid 'can't turn, can't climb, can't run' The line from Spey, a jealous old man, half brillaint, half BS

Pierre Sprey's Anti-F-35 Diatribe Is Half Brilliant And Half Bullshit

Max speed over 1,200 mph

Climb rate: CLASSIFIED

Can't turn - we showed here on more than one occasion what was said about the F-35s maneuvability.

So Sys, what flavor cool aid to you like, and do you put salt on the BS you swallow from yahoo news?!?!?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2015)

parsifal said:


> Im unconvinced by Syscoms argument that unmanned craft make the F-35 obsolete. But one does wonder if all the money spent on the F-35 had been poured into drone programs, and the US had soldiered on with either the updated Eagle or say super Hornets, would the combination of an older less capable Eagle/F-18 on the one hand, with better developed drones and unmanned a/c supporting those aircraft on the other, would we be better off in terms of military capability?
> 
> Id would really like to hear the arguments for and against these two basic scenarios....
> 
> ...



I think you'll find that any updated F-15 or F-18 will cost almost as much as the F-35. the USN is buying several F-18 growlers. If you do the math they come out to almost 100 million a piece. For the extra money spent on an aircraft that will last another 40 or 50 years and is more capable in lieu of 10 or 20 is well worth it. 

BTW, the F-35 should be more compared to the F/A-18 and F-16 in their strike role. As we know BOTH aircraft have an air to air capability, but I guess that makes them schitzo fighters as well!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 3, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It gives the same effect. The aircraft was critized for not having a bubble canopy thus poor vision from behind, well this system blows that argument out of the water and then some, but then again, if all weapons are used correctly, the pilot won't have to worry about what's on his 6!!!



Well, they way it was written at first, it sounded like the helmet would have x-ray vision....is it a bird, is it Superman...well, you know....


----------



## rochie (Apr 3, 2015)

As someone with little knowledge of these things, I ask.

Is the development program particularly long ?

And by the time the F-35 is in full squadron service around the world will it be still ahead of the game ?


No real axe to grind just this thread has sparked an interest for me !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Well, they way it was written at first, it sounded like the helmet would have x-ray vision....is it a bird, is it Superman...well, you know....



"The *ignorant* and anti-military press."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2015)

rochie said:


> As someone with little knowledge of these things, I ask.
> 
> Is the development program particularly long ?
> 
> ...



The development of the F-35 was long, slipped almost 2 years in schedule for a number of reasons. For comparison The F-22 won it's competition against the YF-23 in 1991 IIRC, The first production model flew in 1997. Work on the aircraft began in in 1986. Where the US governmet threw LMCO under the bus is they put a budget on some of the cost plus R&D work, of course that got blown out of the water, some of it LMCO's fault, a large portion of it the government's fault.


----------



## rochie (Apr 3, 2015)

Thanks Joe.

I suppose it is taken for granted as the technology gets more and more complex so development will take that bit longer.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 3, 2015)

Development of modern combat aircraft takes decades...literally. Development continues during its front-line service to integrate new weapons, replace obsolete technology etc. 

The problem with the "drones can do anything" argument is that they simply haven't been proven yet. Reaper is a great aircraft but it has significant operating limitations and, frankly, is slow. Trying to implement RPA capabilities in a fast jet is fraught with problems due to comms latency (ye cannae break the laws o' physics!) which impacts the pilot's ability to respond to situations that are changing very rapidly ('cos everything changes fast when you're flying at 1,000 mph). Modern aircraft like F-35 are providing technologies, like the "see-through the aircraft" capability that would be readily applicable to UCAVs but the development cycle would still apply so wouldn't gain anything in terms of earlier or cheaper deployment. Then there's the whole sense-and-avoid issue which is, AFAIK, still at the research and test phase for military-grade UAVs. 

It's pretty easy to build a UAV that doesn't have to manoeuvre much and simply stands off to launch missiles at fixed targets. However, that one-trick-pony only works for part of the time. I think we're still some way from having UCAVs that are fully flexible to meet the demands of different mission profiles and changing threat environments. Certainly, F-35 is part of that evolutionary process as demonstrated by its extensive sensor suite and data fusion capabilities...but we're not there yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Apr 3, 2015)

Ok I get the continued development in service.
I just googled F-35.

First flight 2006.
First operational squadron later this year so 9 years now doesn't seem that long really, considering the technology involved.


----------



## Glider (Apr 3, 2015)

parsifal said:


> Im unconvinced by Syscoms argument that unmanned craft make the F-35 obsolete. But one does wonder if all the money spent on the F-35 had been poured into drone programs, and the US had soldiered on with either the updated Eagle or say super Hornets, would the combination of an older less capable Eagle/F-18 on the one hand, with better developed drones and unmanned a/c supporting those aircraft on the other, would we be better off in terms of military capability?
> 
> Id would really like to hear the arguments for and against these two basic scenarios....
> 
> ...



My personal take is that while the F15 and F18 are still very capable aircraft they have reached the end of their development. You can always update them with the latest electronics as they are both big enough to accept changes, but technology moves on and to be left behind carries huge risks. In combat there is no second place, you win or lose, you live or die.
Against technically up to date opponents you need to have the best. Even today there are a number of scenarios such as recent combats in Iraq, Libya etc. where you don't need the sophistication of the F35. However if Russia gave an enemy the latest Russian fighters flown by 'volunteers' then you are in a serious place where the F15 could well be outclassed. This may seem fanciful but aircraft such as the Typhoon are better than the F15 in air to air combat, the Rafael is probably in the same area, the Grippen would give it a good run for its money and it would be foolish to pretend that Russia isn't capable of producing equally effective fighters. 
The F15/F18 would be covered by the F22 but you only have 200ish for the whole world and if anything big goes up I feel they will not be enough. To a large degree your attack F15/F18 will be on their own or at least vulnerable.

Drones have a place in the future but there is a long way to go. Had you spent these sorts of numbers on the development of the drone instead of the F35 who knows where we would end up, I don't know. What I do know is that the development would be even more complex than the F35 if only for the command and control problems. The probability of development issues is close to certain and we would be having the same discussion railing at the decision makers on banking the safety of the USA on the development of brand new technology.

To put the end a different way. With the F35 you have a very capable aircraft entering service, it might be later and more expensive than you want but its being delivered. If you had put faith into the drones my guess is that would have nothing to show for the money spent and a of Europeans beating a path to your door proposing license production agreements for the Typhoon, Rafael and Grippen. Together with Lockheed giving you a big number bill for the reopening of the F22 production line plus R+D cost proposal for the GA role.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2015)

I think the A and C versions are a good option so of course the UK orders the F35-B, how on earth does a catapult cost $2Bn? The Harrier rarely took off vertically why order the F35 to do the same?


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 3, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "The *ignorant* and anti-military press."



Like in the link that I posted earlier, that the Gripen had also been designed for unmanned flight, _riiiiight!_



LMCO??


----------



## beaupower32 (Apr 3, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I think the A and C versions are a good option so of course the UK orders the F35-B, how on earth does a catapult cost $2Bn? The Harrier rarely took off vertically why order the F35 to do the same?



Its not so much taking off, its landing vertically is what counts. They will be operating on the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship which can get in closer to the shore than what the super carriers can. Smaller decks require the aircraft to be able to land without arresting gear.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> LMCO??



Lockheed-Martin Corporation


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 3, 2015)

Aaah....cheers Joe!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2015)

April 2, 2015

_"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been flown in air-to-air combat maneuvers against F-16s for the first time and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations, test pilots say the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option. 

*Although the F-35 is designed primarily for attack rather than air combat, U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircraft’s recently proven overall handling qualities and basic flying performance. “The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability,” says Lockheed Martin F-35 site lead test pilot David “Doc” Nelson."*_

F-35 Tested Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers | Defense content from Aviation Week


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 3, 2015)

Hmmmm ..... only 4000 pounds internal capacity for weapons. About the same as the F117. That's progress for you!

Carries an impressive payload on external racks. But then its not a stealth aircraft anymore and this expensive contraption is doing the work that a far cheaper attack aircraft can do.

The F35 is useless against a foe like ISIS or other low intensity groups. A close support aircraft like the A10 is needed. Not this contraption.

As the years go by, air defenses are going to get deadlier and deadlier. And this over priced schitzo plane is going to get increasingly more vulnerable. By 2025, this jet will not be allowed to fly into dense air defenses because it will be a suicide mission. Hundreds of billions of dollars on an aircraft project that cant fulfill its role. And of course the drone jockies at Creech AFB will be saying "we could have done it for a fraction of the cost if you would have only funded us".

Fighter? Ha. How does it do against foreign competitors, not our own dated airframes.

I will admit that this is a useful fit for the Marines. Anything is better than the Harrier they have now.

It doesn't matter that the DOD is at fault for the immense cost over runs. The fact is it's taken decades to build this and its final cost is extremely expensive. The F117 project was an outstanding example of designing and producing a great airplane at an affordable price. Obviously the Pentagon cash-whores refused to learn the lessons.

In the end, only a fraction of these planes will be built. Already the follow on replacements are being worked on in the secret drone programs.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2015)

beaupower32 said:


> Its not so much taking off, its landing vertically is what counts. They will be operating on the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship which can get in closer to the shore than what the super carriers can. Smaller decks require the aircraft to be able to land without arresting gear.



bpower I am from UK the F35 will operate from Queen Elizabeth class carriers
Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I undersatnd the ship is big enough but a quote of $2Bn for the catapult led to the B option being taken.


from wiki

Although the F-35B is fully capable of performing vertical landing, in a similar fashion to the way that the Harrier and Sea Harrier operated, this method of operation places limitations on the loads that the aircraft is capable of returning to the ship with. As a consequence, to avoid the costly disposal at sea of both fuel and munitions, the Royal Navy is developing the Shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique for its operation of the Lightning II. SRVL is a hybrid landing technique that utilises the Lightning's vectored thrust capability to slow its forward speed sufficiently to allow it to make a rolling landing, using its disc brakes, without the need of an arrestor wire.[66]

I think the best bet would have been the catapult and arrestor wire but what do I know.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Hmmmm ..... only 4000 pounds internal capacity for weapons. About the same as the F117. That's progress for you!



It is - and it's more than what the F-117 could carry. Can you name any other low RCS aircraft other then the B-2 that could carry more weapons internally?!?!


syscom3 said:


> Carries an impressive payload on external racks. But then its not a stealth aircraft anymore and this expensive contraption is doing the work that a far cheaper attack aircraft can do.


 Again you're wrong!!! It gives up some if its low RCS but is still harder to detect on radar than any other strike aircraft in it's class, and the "stealth' capability is not the only thing that made it expensive.


syscom3 said:


> The F35 is useless against a foe like ISIS or other low intensity groups. A close support aircraft like the A10 is needed. Not this contraption.


 I could agree to a point, but if you're a real progressive thinker you would say that a helicopter or DRONE is cheaper to operate then an A-10 in this role!!!! 


syscom3 said:


> As the years go by, air defenses are going to get deadlier and deadlier. And this over priced schitzo plane is going to get increasingly more vulnerable.


 I bet in 1978 some geek in a polyester suit said the same thing about the F-15 and f-16!!! I bet they also said we didn't need BOTH fighters


syscom3 said:


> By 2025, this jet will not be allowed to fly into dense air defenses because it will be a suicide mission. Hundreds of billions of dollars on an aircraft project that cant fulfill its role. And of course the drone jockies at Creech AFB will be saying "we could have done it for a fraction of the cost if you would have only funded us".


 Proof? Do you have a crystal ball? 

I guess the Eurofighter, Gripen, Su 27, F-22 J-20 and t-50 "will not be allowed to fly into dense air defenses" as well?!?!? hmmmmm...







With that kind of foresight you should go to work for the Rand Corporation or start buying lottery tickets!!!!


syscom3 said:


> Fighter? Ha. How does it do against foreign competitors, not our own dated airframes.


That will be done in time when both the UK and Italy fly it in tests against the Typhoon and other aircraft.


syscom3 said:


> I will admit that this is a useful fit for the Marines. Anything is better than the Harrier they have now.


You know this how?
How about a DRONE? 


syscom3 said:


> *It doesn't matter that the DOD is at fault for the immense cost over runs*.



*THAT IS ABOUT THE DUMBEST THING I'VE HEARD IN A VERY LONG TIME!!!!*



syscom3 said:


> The fact is it's taken decades to build this and its final cost is extremely expensive. The F117 project was an outstanding example of designing and producing a great airplane at an affordable price. Obviously the Pentagon cash-whores refused to learn the lessons.


 The F-117 had similar issues in it's development and in todays dollars cost almost as much as the f-35 with far less capabilities. Again, you know this by yahoo news and osprey books - I worked on the program. If the public knew how much was really spent on the B-2 and F-117 in R&D costs, the press would be lining up to suck the exhaust out of the F-35


syscom3 said:


> In the end, only a fraction of these planes will be built. Already the follow on replacements are being worked on in the secret drone programs.


150 are built, 150 are on order excluding over seas assembly lines, so tell us in your infinite wisdom, what's you're definition of a "fraction?"

Syscom, give it up - I thought you were a lot smarter than this. You're mimicking yahoo news propaganda that's 6 and 7 years old. You're really making yourself look like a idiot.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2015)

FBJ I suggest you warm up by discussing the end of civilisation with one of the "The end of the world is neigh" banner carriers before you post.....facts have no place in the discussion. I have done it a few times and the only thing that bothers me is that the people I am speaking to have a vote. Syscom if you dont bring some up to date facts to the conversation then I can declare that the F 35 is only a front ....anyone attempting an invasion of the UK will be smitten by King Arthur with his sword Excalibur the powers of excalibur are also well documented on Yahoo
Excalibur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2015)

I would like to know sys's experience in air combat that qualifies him in determining that the aircraft is useless.

Still waiting on his response to my other post as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2015)

*fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"*


*Syscom:"It doesn't matter that the DOD is at fault for the immense cost over runs."*


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2015)

This is a wwII forum and I am not an expert in any field of aviation but in my view WWII experience was that you must go for the best possible. 
The Spitfire upstaged the Hurricane because it was designed to be the best possible not a production compromise much as I love the Hurricane it would always be a bridemaid.
The UK had order books full will twin engined bombers when war broke out all became secondary after the Mosquito was in service, only the mosquito was designed for maximum speed and becauseof that it could live in a fighter environment, not outfight a SE fighter but could be a nuisance, could cause problems difficult to solve and out cruise the opposition.
The P51 designed from the start to be the bees knees in low drag which normally equates to high speed, it also equates to long distance economy which gave it its role as escort par excellance.
F4U Corsair biggest engine behind the biggest prop with sound dynamics behind it must have a lot of uses and it did.

In short you must go for the best.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 3, 2015)

In a sense, Sys is right that the drone programs have already begun, because the Pentagon has a little thing called _foresight_. They know the drones will at least take another 10-15 years to be fully developed, not to mention combat ready.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 4, 2015)

Then we'll have Robocop!


----------



## beaupower32 (Apr 4, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> As the years go by, air defenses are going to get deadlier and deadlier. And this over priced schitzo plane is going to get increasingly more vulnerable. By 2025, this jet will not be allowed to fly into dense air defenses because it will be a suicide mission.



Just by that quote right there, nothing will be able to fly into dense air defenses if a F35 can't do it. You might want to re-think that...


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 4, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> In a sense, Sys is right that the drone programs have already begun, because the Pentagon has a little thing called _foresight_. They know the drones will at least take another 10-15 years to be fully developed, not to mention combat ready.


Drones have been used in combat for quite some time now...


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 4, 2015)

They're usually Generals etc...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 4, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Drones have been used in combat for quite some time now...



But not in a hostile air environment and not with the kind of dedicated strike capability of F-35.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 4, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Then we'll have Robocop!



With a titanium bathtub for the pilot...sorry, couldn't resist.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 4, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Drones have been used in combat for quite some time now...



I was referring to day-to-day combat drones which will replace the F-18/F-16 some time in the future, see the X-47. The stealth drones which the Pentagon will have the balls to use outside of secret ops.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 4, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would like to know sys's experience in air combat that qualifies him in determining that the aircraft is useless.
> 
> Still waiting on his response to my other post as well.



Actually, I'm waiting for Sys to respond to any of the reasoned posts on this thread. He hasn't addressed challenges of comms latency, attacking mobile targets etc that pertain to UCAV ops. He hasn't even tried to refute, with logic or an alternative view, the tactically viable concept of using stealth for attacking high-value, high-payoff targets to neutralize air defences, and then using subsequent missions, carrying with more weapons under the pylons, to attack non-threat targets. 

Bottom line is he's not interested in an intelligent debate. He simply is repeating the same stuff in hopes that if he shouts loud enough and long enough, he'll win. He talks about keeping A-10s around to fight ISIS but that presupposes the next war will be like the last few...which is a big assumption. If the next war happens to be a large-scale force-on-force, then A-10s will be SAM-fodder. Also, the weapons carried by the A-10 can be strapped to pretty much any launch platform...so why maintain the dedicated A-10 platform? 

C'mon Sys, quit repeating yourself and actually engage in the conversation. If you disagree with what's being said, provide evidence to justify your remarks instead of just spouting the same stuff over and over again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2015)

Well said. If sys continues on this path his credibility will be gone. You want in on an adult conversation, then be one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> I was referring to day-to-day combat drones which will replace the F-18/F-16 some time in the future, see the X-47. The stealth drones which the Pentagon will have the balls to use outside of secret ops.



An autonomous drone will NEVER replace a manned combat aircraft. Drones will supplement manned combat aircraft, but never entirely replace them.

Some of us have worked on Drones and are also ACTIVELY engaged in the business. I've worked 3 drone programs and I could tell you in the past 20 years huge strides have been made in the field. The X-47 is well known in the aviation circles. A friend of mine deployed with the aircraft aboard the Roosevelt and AFAIK it is being deployed again. There are two of them and they will provide great test information for future development.

BTW, the program is going to run well into the billions, they are not cheap and it needs to be determined when a drone is expendable or a valuable asset.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> C'mon Sys, quit repeating yourself and actually engage in the conversation. If you disagree with what's being said, provide evidence to justify your remarks instead of just spouting the same stuff over and over again.




*Boom - headshot!*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Then we'll have Robocop!



No, far worse!!!


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 4, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> An autonomous drone will NEVER replace a manned combat aircraft. Drones will supplement manned combat aircraft, but never entirely replace them.
> 
> Some of us have worked on Drones and are also ACTIVELY engaged in the business. I've worked 3 drone programs and I could tell you in the past 20 years huge strides have been made in the field. The X-47 is well known in the aviation circles. A friend of mine deployed with the aircraft aboard the Roosevelt and AFAIK it is being deployed again. There are two of them and they will provide great test information for future development.
> 
> BTW, the program is going to run well into the billions, they are not cheap and it needs to be determined when a drone is expendable or a valuable asset.



I know that much, notice how I said they will eventually replace the *F-18/F-16*, which you yourself said are aging and in need of replacement. These drones will *not* replace the F-22, F-35, B-2, etc. There will always be need for manned aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> I know that much, notice how I said they will eventually replace the *F-18/F-16*, which you yourself said are aging and in need of replacement. These drones will *not* replace the F-22, F-35, B-2, etc. There will always be need for manned aircraft.


These drones *will not *replace the F-16 and F-18 either, the F-35 will only do that.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 4, 2015)

I think true drones which perform a mission from start to finish without any input have limited use and may even be dangerous. Unmanned AC controlled remotely may be more useful but in a combat situation surely the lag between signals being sent received and acted upon would be a major drawback?


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 4, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I think true drones which perform a mission from start to finish without any input have limited use and may even be dangerous. Unmanned AC controlled remotely may be more useful but in a combat situation surely the lag between signals being sent received and acted upon would be a major drawback?


That sums up the need for manned aircraft. Their main purpose would be to hit ground targets in a high threat environment using their stealth to slip in the air defenses. A pilot's ingenuity is still a huge advantage in situation such as the good-ol'-fashioned dogfight. And the lag between controls right now is about 1/4 of a second, which will vastly improve by the time standardized drones such as the X-47 ilk enter service.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2015)

“I can see a scenario where you’ve got an F-35 orchestrating an attack with 20 RPAs [remotely-piloted aircraft] that are weapons-equipped and that F-35, with all its sensors and communications, is essentially an orchestrator.”

Pawlikowski On Air Force Offset Strategy: F-35s Flying Drone Fleets Â« Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 4, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> And the lag between controls right now is about 1/4 of a second, which will vastly improve by the time standardized drones such as the X-47 ilk enter service.



Not entirely sure I agree with this statement for RPAs. In large part this is a "laws of physics" issue based on the speed of communication (electromagnetic spectrum stuff - you can't beat the speed of light) -vs- the distance from the ground station to the platform. There is a finite limit to the the improvement we can make in RPA control latency but it will always be there unless the aircraft can operate autonomously (in which case it's no longer an RPA).


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 4, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> An autonomous drone will NEVER replace a manned combat aircraft. Drones will supplement manned combat aircraft, but never entirely replace them.



"Never" is a very long time and it kindda depends what you mean by "supplement". I can definitely see a time where manned aircraft supplement UAVs, with the latter making up the majority of a force package. The key trade-off is between control latency for UCAVs -vs- human-limited manoeuverability for manned platforms. The use of either platform will depend on the threat and mission scenarios.

Your point about the cost of UAVs is well made. They were supposed to be cheap and expendable but UCAVs that can take the place of manned aircraft are no cheaper. Yes, they don't need life support systems but they do need controls to a pilot on the ground. 'Fraid I don't have enough faith in algorithms to detect and identify targets to support concepts of fully-automated operation in a complex operating environment where there are hostiles, friendlies and neutrals all mixed together (which, let's face it, is the norm these days).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> "Never" is a very long time and it kindda depends what you mean by "supplement".



I say never in terms of a scenario - will we ever see (or want to see0 an autonomous UCAV with live weapons on their own with no human input? How about that UCAV carrying a nuke? 

See the link on my last post...


----------



## pbehn (Apr 4, 2015)

I would think that it is not so difficult for an advanced country to come up with systems to isolate a drone from its centre or blitz it with spurious signals. The taliban maybe cant but I am sure Russia China Iran and others could give it a good go.


----------



## Torch (Apr 4, 2015)

Interesting story.AEGIS Fail in Black SEA, Ruskies Burn Down USS Donald “Duck” | Veterans Today


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2015)

Torch said:


> Interesting story.AEGIS Fail in Black SEA, Ruskies Burn Down USS Donald “Duck” | Veterans Today



Interesting read but I have to throw the BS flag out in some of that.

First, Aegis is not a new system, it's been around for many years. If this is true there is no way 27 officers and enlisted men could just "resign." 

The Donald Cook's skipper took command prior to this cruise. I could see him resigning his command or being relieved, but neither has happened since then.

What The Captain Of The USS Donald Cook Faced This Weekend In The Black Sea

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 4, 2015)

Torch said:


> Interesting story.AEGIS Fail in Black SEA, Ruskies Burn Down USS Donald “Duck” | Veterans Today


There is a serious BS slant to this story.

First of all, this sentance:


> US destroyer “Donald Cook” with cruise missiles “Tomahawk” entered the neutral waters of the Black Sea on April 10. The purpose was a demonstration of force and intimidation in connection with the position of Russia in Ukraine and Crimea. The appearance of American warships in these waters is in contradiction of the Montreux Convention about the nature and duration of stay in the Black Sea by the military ships of countries not washed by this sea.


Not only looks like it came from a RT (Russia Today) article, but it's failing to mention that several U.S. warships have been in the Black Sea since the Sochi olympics (one of which ran aground and laid over in Turkey for repairs). It also failed to mention that there has been numerous "buzzings" by Russian aircraft on other NATO and Balkan warships, all in violation of the INCSEA aggreement made between Washington and Moscow about 45 years ago.

And the "Montreux Agreement" has been relaxed by Turkey after Russia invaded the Crimea...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Apr 4, 2015)

Actually there's multiple articles on this topic, but if you dig deeper the sources are usually Russian related, I call BS on it also but since the topic of jamming and electronics came up this would be a hell of a scenario.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 5, 2015)

Im surprised that it is not considered to be adequate as a fighter. Our defence establisment is expecting the F-35 to fill both roles. that was the problem with the F-111s. They were a peerless long range strike a/c, but of course werent a fighter. The F-18 super hornets we have now do both jobs, but sacrifice some capability in both areas, particularly range. The F-35 for us will primarily be a fighter, with some enhanced strike capabilities, including a little bit more range. Still not up to the capabilities of the f-111, which i think was a mistake, but better than the inadequate strike capabilities of the super hornets that we are currently relying on.

Having somewhat trashed the super hornets, im told by my RAAF mates that the 8 currently deployed in Northern Iraq and supporting the anti-Isil forces there are doing pretty well in this GS role. We cant afford to lose even one a/c in these ops, and whilst we looked at rotary wing support for this job it was rejected because they were just too vulnerable to ISIL ground fire. Getting down and close will give better accuracy, but its too risky for small outfits like the RAAF. And just so we are clear, the Kurds are saying without that critical support being provided by the RAAF F-18s, they could not make any headway against the terrorists that they have. 

So, F-35 as a fighter, case remains unproven, but the expectation is that it will fulfil both our offensive and defensive air combat needs until at least mid century. It would need to be shown that the a/c was a net step backwards compared to our F-18 (standard) currently doing that job for us (and by all accounts doing the job pretty well based on exercise results). Similarly, in the ground strike role, the f-35 would need to be shown to be a backward step compared to the current a/c (the f-18 supers) currently filling that role for us. I find that a hard pill to accept to be honest.

The aircraft is trying to do a lot of different things for a lot of different countries, with much different expectations. thats a hard gig in anyones book. Sure some of the hype put out by the company might be just that, but I still remain confident this a/c will deliver the goods, and well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 5, 2015)

I'm surprised that they didn't give it vector thrust(?) engines like the Sukhoi Su-35, more than just for take off, or did they?

With all this fighter/attack (bomber) stuff, I can't help but draw parallels with the Me 262 and others....just saying..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> I'm surprised that they didn't give it vector thrust(?) engines like the Sukhoi Su-35, more than just for take off, or did they?
> 
> With all this fighter/attack (bomber) stuff, I can't help but draw parallels with the Me 262 and others....just saying..



Thrust vectoring technology has been around for several years and as we know id used on the Su-37. It's great when you have to maneuver within VR and it looks great at an airshow. If you're tracked and locked on 5 miles out and have 3 seconds to use it, it's not going to help you much. Sought of like this...


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWB3VXLdgeg_

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 5, 2015)

1) 200 million dollars per aircraft. A budget buster in peacetime. Unsustainable in wartime. Political realities will not go away no matter how you try to downplay them.

2) 4000 pound internal payload. Wow. Impressive. A purpose built attack plane would have a heck of a lot more. Than that. But of course this contraption has to also be a fighter thus it cant be too big.

3) If its carrying a lot of weapons externally, its no longer stealth. Then why have an immensely expensive aircraft that does what a cheaper aircraft could do?

4) Stealth is irrelevant against the types of battles we will most probably fight in the future. Kind of like in Vietnam. The Skyraiders did a heck of a better job in support for the grunts than the F4s.

5) Modern air defenses are cheap compared to a squadron of F35s. And they are deadly now and will get deadlier each year. Anyone care to say that no one updates or upgrades their defensive systems? The F35 will never penetrate a layered system without unsustainable losses. Now of course a purpose built attack plane would have an internal bomb bay that could hold several stand off weapons. But not this plane. Only a paltry one or two. 

6) The Hanoi air defenses and the Arab missile belts in the Oct 73 war proved how vulnerable fighters and bombers were to layered defenses and that has not changed a bit now, nor in the future.

7) Who says you need to control a drone remotely. AI is getting quite sophisticated and it wont be too long before it comes into being.

8 ) just because you believe a human needs to be in the loop doesnt negate the technology that makes a drone autonomous.

9) A drone doesnt need to use GPS that can be spoofed or jammed. Theres several types of solid state INS systems that can do the same thing. Especially when you dont need absolutely perfect positioning.

10) The people pushing the "we need manned aircraft" are the communities that have the most to lose by being replaced by drones.

11) You say I drink the kool aid? Listen to yourselves parrot what the generals, admirals and organizations say when they have every reason to be less than truthful and have every reason to make themselves look good.

12) I still say this is a good aircraft for the Marines. If only because they have no alternative for their unique needs.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2015)

The first serious ideas about jet engines were formed about 1926-28 although the first self sustaining gas turbine ran in 1903. Despite a world war running and all parties throwing as much as they could at the issue jet engined fighters and then much later bombers did not become operational until mid 1944. Unmanned A/C may well be the future we just are not there yet by a long way. 

Maybe the German wings civil A/C disaster in France will give a kick to pilotless AC. It is one possible solution to protect passengers from terrorist attackers and suicidal pilots....just a thought.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 5, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Thrust vectoring technology has been around for several years and as we know id used on the Su-37. It's great when you have to maneuver within VR and it looks great at an airshow. If you're tracked and locked on 5 miles out and have 3 seconds to use it, it's not going to help you much. Sought of like this...
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWB3VXLdgeg_




_That_ is a _classic!_


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> 1) 200 million dollars per aircraft. A budget buster in peacetime. Unsustainable in wartime. Political realities will not go away no matter how you try to downplay them.
> 
> *I am surprised at you as an American, the investment in the computing graphics and imaging technologies will give Amercan industry a lead for 10 years at least and filter down to smaller businesses. The Nasa men who landed on the moon could not imagine a digital watch*
> 2) 4000 pound internal payload. Wow. Impressive. A purpose built attack plane would have a heck of a lot more. Than that. But of course this contraption has to also be a fighter thus it cant be too big.
> ...



Some good points made...lets have a bit of mutual respect gents.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 5, 2015)

parsifal said:


> Im surprised that it is not considered to be adequate as a fighter. Our defence establisment is expecting the F-35 to fill both roles. that was the problem with the F-111s. They were a peerless long range strike a/c, but of course werent a fighter. The F-18 super hornets we have now do both jobs, but sacrifice some capability in both areas, particularly range. The F-35 for us will primarily be a fighter, with some enhanced strike capabilities, including a little bit more range. *Still not up to the capabilities of the f-111, which i think was a mistake, but better than the inadequate strike capabilities of the super hornets that we are currently relying on.*



Would the Su-34 have been a better choice as an F-111 replacement?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> 1) 200 million dollars per aircraft. A budget buster in peacetime. Unsustainable in wartime. Political realities will not go away no matter how you try to downplay them.


 Exaggerating a bit? Where's your source for that??? The most expensive model is the F-35C. 

•F-35A: $98 million
•F-35B: $104 million
•F-35C: $116 million

https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost


syscom3 said:


> 2) 4000 pound internal payload. Wow. Impressive. A purpose built attack plane would have a heck of a lot more. Than that. But of course this contraption has to also be a fighter thus it cant be too big.



You choose to ignore my last post - 4000 pounds internally, only the B-2 can carry a larger internal payload. And with that 4000 pound payload, it has the maneuverability of an F-18, as quoted by a typhoon pilot.


syscom3 said:


> 3) If its carrying a lot of weapons externally, its no longer stealth. Then why have an immensely expensive aircraft that does what a cheaper aircraft could do?


Again you're totally wrong!!! A Higher RCS, yes but more stealthy and capable than a "cheaper" aircraft


syscom3 said:


> 4) Stealth is irrelevant against the types of battles we will most probably fight in the future. Kind of like in Vietnam. The Skyraiders did a heck of a better job in support for the grunts than the F4s.


 Baghdad, during the Gulf War?!? I guess you missed that one and what the less capable F-117 did?!?!?

Vietnam was almost 50 years ago! Give it up! It was also fought with very ignorant Rules of Engagment that probably led to half of losses by SAMs!!!


syscom3 said:


> 5) Modern air defenses are cheap compared to a squadron of F35s. And they are deadly now and will get deadlier each year. Anyone care to say that no one updates or upgrades their defensive systems? *The F35 will never penetrate a layered system without unsustainable losses. *Now of course a purpose built attack plane would have an internal bomb bay that could hold several stand off weapons. But not this plane. Only a paltry one or two.


 Then every fighter needs to stand down right now.


syscom3 said:


> 6) The Hanoi air defenses and the Arab missile belts in the Oct 73 war proved how vulnerable fighters and bombers were to layered defenses and that has not changed a bit now, nor in the future.


100% WRONG!!!! The Gulf War more than showed the issues with what you're trying to say. Eventually both SAM layered defenses were penatrated. Do some research, the NVAF actually ran out of SAMs!


syscom3 said:


> 7) Who says you need to control a drone remotely. AI is getting quite sophisticated and it wont be too long before it comes into being.


How long?!?!?


syscom3 said:


> 8 ) just because you believe a human needs to be in the loop doesnt negate the technology that makes a drone autonomous.


 So would you trust a drone driving your kid's school bus?


syscom3 said:


> 9) A drone doesnt need to use GPS that can be spoofed or jammed. Theres several types of solid state INS systems that can do the same thing. Especially when you dont need absolutely perfect positioning.


*NAME THEM*


syscom3 said:


> 10) The people pushing the "we need manned aircraft" are the communities that have the most to lose by being replaced by drones.


And they are the same ones building drones.


syscom3 said:


> 11) You say I drink the kool aid? Listen to yourselves parrot what the generals, admirals and organizations say when they have every reason to be less than truthful and have every reason to make themselves look good.


 Quite the opposite, I listen to the people who work with this stuff, do you?!?!?


syscom3 said:


> 12) I still say this is a good aircraft for the Marines. If only because they have no alternative for their unique needs.


Then you're a hypocrite!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 6, 2015)

> You say I drink the kool aid? Listen to yourselves parrot what the generals, admirals and organizations say when they have every reason to be less than truthful and have every reason to make themselves look good.




I dont think Im doing that. most of the comments i have made are from the guys we have sent to independantly evaluate progress. I admit that its been a bit of time since i caught up with those guys (about 8 years or so) and at that time there were some concerns. im told (not by generals or politicians, by guys doing our own auditing of the program....) that things are on track and the a/c is looking pretty good.

i dont have a problem with your claims about drones being the way to the future. im not convinced, because you havent really mounted an effective supporting argument. What rings hollow for me is your critique of the F-35. Why dont you cool off for a bit, thik about the issue for a couple of days and organise your thoughts and facts. id like to hear good argument, not emotional opinion. Id really like to hear your reasoning for your position....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 6, 2015)

Well, the Skyraider actually shot down one MiG-17 in Vietnam....

Skyraider Vs MiG-17

She could take a lot of beating too, hang around for a good while during rescues and carry a heavier load than weight of the aircraft itself...not many to do that, before or since, or?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 6, 2015)

parsifal said:


> I dont think Im doing that. most of the comments i have made are from the guys we have sent to independantly evaluate progress. I admit that its been a bit of time since i caught up with those guys (about 8 years or so) and at that time there were some concerns. im told (not by generals or politicians, by guys doing our own auditing of the program....) that things are on track and the a/c is looking pretty good.
> 
> i dont have a problem with your claims about drones being the way to the future. im not convinced, because you havent really mounted an effective supporting argument. What rings hollow for me is your critique of the F-35. Why dont you cool off for a bit, thik about the issue for a couple of days and organise your thoughts and facts. id like to hear good argument, not emotional opinion. Id really like to hear your reasoning for your position....



Very well said parsifal!

We could sit here and debate the effectiveness of this aircraft all day, and although I firmly support it, until it enters combat we're not going to know its true potential. Just like the V-22, the F-22 and even Boeing’s Dreamliner, the press and others have crucified the F-35 even though issues were identified, fixed or are being fixed. Were there major screw-ups on this program? Absolutely!!! Will there ever be a combat aircraft, be it manned or drone that will roll out of the factory without some kind of design issue? You’d be a fool to think not!
There are those of us who work close to this aircraft or know people who are actually on the program and to be quite honest, it totally pisses me off when I hear people who try to contradict current information from the source with dated news articles and other pieces of journalistic trash that either have no bearing on the mission of this aircraft or are just flat out wrong! 
I have no problem debating or getting a different perspective on an issue, and if I could be shown I’m wrong with regards to a certain issue, I’ll listen and learn, but when someone keeps mimicking half-truths, dated and inaccurate information, I will call them on their BS, especially when statements are made and no references are shown to back up their banter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 6, 2015)

Most news articles, even the so called industry specialists dont produce accurate reports anymore. The press has lost a lot of its independance over the last 20 years or so, and are usually serving some agenda or interest group. You dont know its happening unless you actually have some facts of your own.

As an example, we have a shock jock here in Australia. He absolutely hates wind turbines and editorialises about it all the time. I couldnt work out why until I worked out he was a fully paid up member of our Liberal Party (similar to your more right wing republicans) and this party is heavily subsidising their re-election campaignsby the coal industry, who are powerinh 80% of our energy needs. Similar things happened in the smoking/tobacco lobby back in the 60's and 70's.

I dont know how much or even if the press is markedly biased against the F-35. Id say yes, but it would be a guess. It looks like the press is biased, but the other bit of the question...why....eludes me. I dont think it is as simple as the anti military lobby. There is something bad, but i just cant put my finger to it

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 6, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> 7) Who says you need to control a drone remotely. AI is getting quite sophisticated and it wont be too long before it comes into being.


Depends on the mission. AI may well be relevant for some mission types but not for others. The problem with AI is that it takes time to "train" the algorithms and if the training is wrong, the computer will make the wrong decisions. In order to be effective, the training must provide extremely high-fidelity understanding of an adversary's capabilities, doctrine and tactics...and account for the unpredictable human factor if going up against a manned platform. Any UCAV employing these technologies is not going to be a cheap option compared to the F-35...and finding your algorithms are wrong because you start losing airframes is a bluddy expensive way of doing things. 
One other note on AI...we've been trying for years to conduct automated target identification in high-clutter environments and right now the state of the art isn't particularly great. AI is ok against low-clutter, non-complex environments but it's pretty sucky when it comes to complex environments where friendly, hostile and neutral forces are all present...and that's before we consider the problem of target identification in regions where the enemy's combat capability is carted around in pick-ups and small cars. 
To use one small example, today a lot of time is wasted typing data into chat forums and other systems to coordinate activities. Logic says we should be able to record audio and transliterate it into machine-readable text. "My iPhone does it so why can't we use that technology in the military?" Answer is that the iPhones have a very limited vocabulary and don't have to deal with acronyms and colourful vernacular that comprises the language of the military. Then there's the issue of noise on the comms networks which introduces further errors. I've spoken with bleeding edge technologists in this one field and they reckon we're at least 10 years, probably longer, from having accurate, machine-transliterated audio. That's just one technology in use today that needs massive advances before it can be applied in the operational sphere.



syscom3 said:


> 8 ) just because you believe a human needs to be in the loop doesnt negate the technology that makes a drone autonomous.


It's not a belief that a human needs to be in the loop, it's simply a fact of today's technology. There's no way UCAVs could replace the F-35 today. So the options are continue with the F-35 or scrap it and make do with existing, long-in-the-tooth manned platforms until UCAVs mature. But those existing manned platforms have way more vulnerabilities than the F-35 you criticize so extensively. Furthermore, the need for human-in-the-loop has as much to do with rules of engagement as it does with technology. Reliance on technology only gets you part of the way but current military operations demand human eyes-on before weapons are launched. I can see considerable backlash from the population at large if we were to automate killing without it involving a human decision-maker. 



syscom3 said:


> 9) A drone doesnt need to use GPS that can be spoofed or jammed. Theres several types of solid state INS systems that can do the same thing. Especially when you dont need absolutely perfect positioning.


Ok, raising the flag on this one. This is utter tosh. Even the latest INSs drift over time. If the UCAV doesn't know where it is in 3D space with reasonable precision and accuracy, what's to stop it flying into the ground during combat manoeuvring? How about even basic things like coming into land? And that's before we consider the challenges of attacking ground targets which do require precision and accuracy in 3-dimensions not only of the launch platform but also the target location.



syscom3 said:


> 11) You say I drink the kool aid? Listen to yourselves parrot what the generals, admirals and organizations say when they have every reason to be less than truthful and have every reason to make themselves look good.


 I'm not parroting what others say...I'm basing my comments on 20+years in the ops and intel environment, including the past 7 years working closely with RPA capabilities and leading software teams. Current technology simply isn't ready for UCAVs to replace the F-35 which leads me back to current alternative...keeping the current platforms in service longer but they're far less survivable than the F-35. 

Please pick a consistent argument - go with UCAVs or stick with legacy platforms - and tell us how either option will be any better than the F-35? Also, tell us how technology is going to leap the current gaps when those of us working these problems don't see a way forward.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 6, 2015)

parsifal said:


> Most news articles, even the so called industry specialists dont produce accurate reports anymore. The press has lost a lot of its independance over the last 20 years or so, and are usually serving some agenda or interest group. You dont know its happening unless you actually have some facts of your own.
> 
> As an example, we have a shock jock here in Australia. He absolutely hates wind turbines and editorialises about it all the time. I couldnt work out why until I worked out he was a fully paid up member of our Liberal Party (similar to your more right wing republicans) and this party is heavily subsidising their re-election campaignsby the coal industry, who are powerinh 80% of our energy needs. Similar things happened in the smoking/tobacco lobby back in the 60's and 70's.
> 
> I dont know how much or even if the press is markedly biased against the F-35. Id say yes, but it would be a guess. It looks like the press is biased, but the other bit of the question...why....eludes me. I dont think it is as simple as the anti military lobby. There is something bad, but i just cant put my finger to it



I think one reason why the F-35 is in the press' crosshairs is it's costs and the over-runs. I have read articles where you would think that LMCO just dictates to the pentagon what they are going to charge and it's automatically accepted. One thisng I've mentioned several times here is that some portions of the F-35 contract were cost plus which ment you charge what you spend. The Pentagon choose to put budget numbers to this and the rest is history. What compounded the bad press were design issues on the F-35B which was about a ton overweight during the inital design transition phase from the X-35 to the F-35. This is what put the program behind about a year and a half. Of course the press got a hold of the story and all 3 F-35 models were placed in the same mold.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 6, 2015)

Only time will tell how good/bad, she is....


----------



## parsifal (Apr 6, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Would the Su-34 have been a better choice as an F-111 replacement?



Don't know don't know enough about the SU 34 apart from the fact that its a very impressive a/c. It would affect commonality issues with our principal military ally, which is a biggy. Its an a/c from a country which we consider to be about as close as can be for a state to be a pariah, complete with sanctions and blood on its hands. 

Australia pretty much shied away from anything European for frontline strike or air defence after our sad experiences with the French Mirage. 

With the Americans, our concerns and priorities are really closely aligned. The chances of the US pulling the rug from us is pretty low

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 6, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> 1) 200 million dollars per aircraft. A budget buster in peacetime. Unsustainable in wartime. Political realities will not go away no matter how you try to downplay them.


Yet a combat drone costs $500 million. Or to put it another way five F35 for two drones which as we know are far less capable or survivable


> 2) 4000 pound internal payload. Wow. Impressive. A purpose built attack plane would have a heck of a lot more. Than that. But of course this contraption has to also be a fighter thus it cant be too big.


Show me another aircraft with more than 4,000lb internal payload. In this size I can only think of the Buccaneer, but if you have more options please share.


> 3) If its carrying a lot of weapons externally, its no longer stealth. Then why have an immensely expensive aircraft that does what a cheaper aircraft could do?


An obvious point and an important one when you recognise that a lot of conflicts will not need the stealth ability of the F35 but as I have said before. Should Russia 'sell' modern equipment to an ally of theirs and 'volunteers' fly them, then the F35 gives you the flexibility you will need.


> 4) Stealth is irrelevant against the types of battles we will most probably fight in the future. Kind of like in Vietnam. The Skyraiders did a heck of a better job in support for the grunts than the F4s.


But Skyraiders were replaced when losses rose.


> 5) Modern air defenses are cheap compared to a squadron of F35s. And they are deadly now and will get deadlier each year. Anyone care to say that no one updates or upgrades their defensive systems? The F35 will never penetrate a layered system without unsustainable losses. Now of course a purpose built attack plane would have an internal bomb bay that could hold several stand off weapons. But not this plane. Only a paltry one or two.


Modern air defences are not cheap. They are very expensive and only defend the area they cover. In addition they are susceptible to countermeasures both electronic and physical and hand the initiative to the attacker, which throughout history has been fatal to the defender.


> 6) The Hanoi air defenses and the Arab missile belts in the Oct 73 war proved how vulnerable fighters and bombers were to layered defenses and that has not changed a bit now, nor in the future.


Yet both were penetrated quite quickly, and both the Arab forces and Vietnamese forces were totally destroyed.


> 7) Who says you need to control a drone remotely. AI is getting quite sophisticated and it wont be too long before it comes into being.


If the target changes or moves then you need some form of intervention. AI is only in the starting blocks and for the foreseeable future human intervention is the best available. For instance there are many times when its best to attack a supply truck than a tank, and there are many occasions when its better to attack the tank. To build that level of sophistication into AI is way in the future. Its also worth remembering that drones have been 'hijacked' and taken over and any communication between a controller and a drone increases that risk.


> 8 ) just because you believe a human needs to be in the loop doesnt negate the technology that makes a drone autonomous.


 But as said this increases the vulnerability and simple jamming would be a serious risk.


> 9) A drone doesnt need to use GPS that can be spoofed or jammed. Theres several types of solid state INS systems that can do the same thing. Especially when you dont need absolutely perfect positioning.


Western forces have an aversion about collateral damage and for this to continue you need absolutely perfect positioning.


> 10) The people pushing the "we need manned aircraft" are the communities that have the most to lose by being replaced by drones.


Most nations don't want to put pilots and other aircrew at risk which is the main driver for drones. It is also why they are willing to pay the very high cost of a drone (see item 1). Its notable that those nations that don't put as high a premium on lives have spent less and developed less effective drones. This proves the exact opposite of what you say.


> 11) You say I drink the kool aid? Listen to yourselves parrot what the generals, admirals and organizations say when they have every reason to be less than truthful and have every reason to make themselves look good.


I don't believe that I have parroted anything or anyone and we don't do kool aid in the UK, Tea is more than sufficient. What I have tried to do is give statements supported with logic/documentation/historical examples to the points that you have raised. What I have found frustrating is your refusal to answer some fairly simple questions. For example:-
a) what would you use to attack enemy forces if not the F35
b) you often talked about the cost of the F35 vs the cost of a drone when the drone is so very expensive. Do you have examples of cheap effective drones?
c) Are there any specific areas where the drone may be an advantage? I can think of a few but would like your input


> 12) I still say this is a good aircraft for the Marines. If only because they have no alternative for their unique needs.


Interestingly this is an area where our positions reverse. I don't think the Marines should have aircraft with the capability of the F35, but that is my personal view of the role of the Marines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 7, 2015)

Saw this today

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Apr 7, 2015)

A good list to compare, Dave.
I may use the style in the future


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 7, 2015)

Is the F-35 _really_ worthy of the name Lightning, me thinks that yous are just running out of cool names!  

Now, say after me please....

_This is a Lightning..._






Good, good....

......and again..

_This is a Lightning..._






Very good, well done....

I want you to practice at least three times a day...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 7, 2015)

A rose by any other name is _still_ .....


----------



## rochie (Apr 7, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Is the F-35 _really_ worthy of the name Lightning, me thinks that yous are just running out of cool names!
> 
> Now, say after me please....
> 
> ...



No old bean, the top one is a P-38 only the bottom one is a true lightning !

Yes Jim I am only kidding .........!


Or am I ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 7, 2015)

you guys crack me up sometimes


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 7, 2015)

Some of us are just cracked up!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 7, 2015)

You on the crack!?  
This with being cracked, isn't as bad as it's cracked up to be....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 7, 2015)




----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 8, 2015)

Shouldn't you be posting that in the 'Mugshot' thread Joe?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Shouldn't you be posting that in the 'Mugshot' thread Joe?


I would but I'd rather post a profile view!


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 10, 2015)

Here's a question for yous....

Just how many F-35(-22) would they be able to swindle, dump, unload wink: ), on to customers, if it wasn't for NATO?
How many actually buy these, or any of these, just because of that?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 10, 2015)

We know you'd buy one, Jan...just because it's an F-35(-22)


----------



## Glider (Apr 10, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Here's a question for yous....
> 
> Just how many F-35(-22) would they be able to swindle, dump, unload wink: ), on to customers, if it wasn't for NATO?
> How many actually buy these, or any of these, just because of that?



I would think quite a few in particular in Asia. China is offering the J31 for export and while I don't consider it to be equal to the F35 it is another type that might well have the edge over the F15/F16 which is common in the area. Which means to have the edge they will need aircraft in the F35 category. Whilst I would love them to buy the Typhoon there is no doubt that the F35 is the better multi role aircraft and most of those airforces can only operate one type.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 10, 2015)

"...Just how many F-35(-22) would they be able to swindle, dump, unload ( ), on to customers, if it wasn't for NATO?
How many actually buy these, or any of these, just because of that?"

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with this post, Lucky. NATO has a history of using US-developed and member licence-built aircraft ... are you suggesting that policy has failed NATO or impaired its effectiveness in any way? Sweden being a non-NATO country I don't find any surprise in the absence of Swedish platforms in NATO inventories.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 10, 2015)

The Czech Republic and Hungary both have the Gripen in their inventories and both nations are members of NATO.

Matter of fact, quite a few NATO members have non-NATO aircraft, like Hungary for example, which has mostly Soviet era (or more recent Russian Federation) combat and support aircraft.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2015)

I am a Brit and so dont naturally evangelise for the USA however if the vast majority of the free world relies on the USA for its ultimate guarantee of military deterrence for its military coordination and leadership and pulls out of all aspects of modern design in weaponry it is a bit twee to complain that the USA is "dumping" weapn systems on you. Make your own, buy Russian/Chinese or pay the price.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 10, 2015)

"...The Czech Republic and Hungary both have the Gripen in their inventories and both nations are members of NATO."

Good for them ... fine AC .... and these countries have been members of NATO since when? When NATO was flying F-86's, F-101's etc. these countries were flying Mig's and Sukoi's were they not?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2015)

The UK is a Major contractor in the F-35, is a major participant in the Typhoon and is at present hovering around the 2% of GDP military spending considered as a minimum (even by the UK itself) but committed to renewing Trident. The present situation of Brussels and the EU posturing and provoking Putin/Russia while spending close to zero on anything to defend itself against him is on the edge of ****ing stupid. Sorry maybe too much politics.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 10, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...The Czech Republic and Hungary both have the Gripen in their inventories and both nations are members of NATO."
> 
> Good for them ... fine AC .... and these countries have been members of NATO since when? When NATO was flying F-86's, F-101's etc. these countries were flying Mig's and Sukoi's were they not?


Several former Warsaw pact nations joined NATO as soon as they were able, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, the Czech Republic, etc. in '99

Hungary has a blend of Soviet, Russian, French and of course, Swedish fighters while the Czech Republic has only imported the Gripen while using their native Avia manufactured combat aircraft otherwise. Poland on the otherhand, uses a combination of Soviet (Sukhoi and MiG) and U.S. (F-16) and Bulgaria is 100% Soviet era, ranging from the MiG-29 to the MiG-21bis.

It seems that NATO's ideology of integrating equipment across the board falls short in the realm of combat aircraft, as interchangeability between member airforces is virtually impossible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 10, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> It seems that NATO's ideology of integrating equipment across the board falls short in the realm of combat aircraft, as interchangeability between member airforces is virtually impossible.



I think that's a little harsh. I'm not saying NATO interoperability is a "done deal" but singling out countries that only recently joined and are still operating former Soviet equipment is not representative of the broad interoperability achieved by Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Italy and many others, not to mention the UK and Canada!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 10, 2015)

Don't get me wrong, I know many of the former Warsaw pact nations are having a tough time economically, so thier militaries are not going to be able to be cutting-edge.

Good example is Bulgaria, that is still operating the MiG-21 as I mentioned earlier...And technically speaking, this is a nation that holds strategic borders of Europe and you would think that NATO would step in and make sure that Bulgaria had state of the art defenses because of that.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 11, 2015)

Nations other than NATO with the F-35 on order

AUSTRALIA

Australia is slated to buy 100 F-35As, with the first jet to be delivered later this year. In April, Australia announced plans to buy 58 jets in addition to the 14 already ordered by 2018, with the total order completed 2023.

ISRAEL

Israel has ordered 19 F-35 jets and plans to order up to 75 jets in coming years. A second order could come later this year.

JAPAN
Japan announced in December 2011 that it was ordering 42 F-35 A-model jets and may order more in coming years. Japan is also building a final assembly and checkout plant for the jets.

SOUTH KOREA

South Korea has confirmed its plans to buy 40 F-35A jets to replacing its aging F-4 jets.

OTHER COUNTRIES

Singapore are among other countries that have expressed interest in the Lockheed fighter jet. Singapore is toting numbers of around 24. Ive also heard Taiwan may be interested, numbers uncertain

It is fair to say that nations able to afford this aircraft recognize its qualities in the air and a falling over themselves to buy it. The only ones that arent are those philosophically and doctrinally opposed to the west, and those unable to afford a/c with such a wide mission capability. Quality costs

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 11, 2015)

"...The only ones that arent are those philosophically and doctrinally opposed to the west ..."

Sweden? France?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 11, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...The only ones that arent are those philosophically and doctrinally opposed to the west ..."
> 
> Sweden? France?



Maybe opposed is a little strong Sweden is Neutral and likes to preserve some independence while France likes to be free to operate in its own way and keep an independent air industry.


----------



## Shinpachi (Apr 11, 2015)

JASDF examiners wanted to compare the F-35 with the Eurofighter in actual flights before their conclusion but the airframe was not available.
Yes, it was genuinely political decision to order.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Here's a question for yous....
> 
> Just how many F-35(-22) would they be able to swindle, dump, unload wink: ), on to customers, if it wasn't for NATO?
> How many actually buy these, or any of these, just because of that?





Hey here is a novel idea for you Jan...

You don't like it, build your own military hardware. No one forces anyone to buy anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 11, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hey here is a novel idea for you Jan...
> 
> You don't like it, build your own military hardware. No one forces anyone to buy anything.



Many European countries spend so much on massive pensions for Generals of non existent regiments that they expect the actual equipment required should be donated by Uncle Sam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 11, 2015)

"...Maybe opposed is a little strong Sweden is Neutral and likes to preserve some independence while France likes to be free to operate in its own way and keep an independent air industry."

In other words Allies in _smooth_ air.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 11, 2015)

"...JASDF examiners wanted to compare the F-35 with the Eurofighter in actual flights before their conclusion but the airframe was not available. Yes, it was genuinely political decision to order."

Off-sets for building military AC are alway a _political _decision, Shin. Would there have been vacant procurement slots for Japan in the Eurofighter program ...? Somehow I doubt it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 11, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...Maybe opposed is a little strong Sweden is Neutral and likes to preserve some independence while France likes to be free to operate in its own way and keep an independent air industry."
> 
> In other words Allies in _smooth_ air.



Well neutral is neutral, not an ally at any time but not an enemy either. I have a lot of respect for Swedens attitude Neutral but not defenceless, their AC may not be world beaters but they can still make good planes attractive to countries with a small budget.. French policy is understood only by the French but to be fair the make their own nuclear deterrent their own AC and ships, being in the west doesnt mean you must agree with every decision the US president makes and they pay to be detached.

Compare to Belgiums neutrality who sell the UK guns but refuse to supply ammunition when they dont like who we are in conflict with and sit in the middle of europe cosy under an umbrella provided by others.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2015)

A big part of this program as well as other military program among allies is manufacturing or post production offset.

â€‹KFX to benefit from F-35 offsets - 9/25/2014 - Flight Global

30 years ago I work on the CP-140 program. 18 CP-140s were purchased from Lockheed, in return parts of the P-3 production was placed through out Canada (Canadair, Enheat, IMP, Bristol Aerospace, fleet industries). This agreement existed until P-3 production was halted.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 11, 2015)

Gentlemen, I do hope that you did see this smiley  and this smiley  in post #345....if so, you'd understand that I did a tongue in cheek comment, all in the good spirit of banter....some might have missed it..


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 11, 2015)

I also saw the -22


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 11, 2015)

I noticed your  but I just assumed it was your Swedish diversion attack strategy, Lucky.

"...Well neutral is neutral, not an ally at any time but not an enemy either." Sell ore to the Germans and bearings to the British .... in my neck of the woods we call that business _opportunism._

My in laws, refugees from Stalin's liberated Estonia, fled their new adapted country, Sweden, for Canada once Sweden started surrendering war refugees to the USSR. Finns, Latvians and others were betrayed. Forgive me if I'm from Missouri on the subject of Sweden's smug neutrality.


----------



## Shinpachi (Apr 11, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...JASDF examiners wanted to compare the F-35 with the Eurofighter in actual flights before their conclusion but the airframe was not available. Yes, it was genuinely political decision to order."
> 
> Off-sets for building military AC are alway a _political _decision, Shin. Would there have been vacant procurement slots for Japan in the Eurofighter program ...? Somehow I doubt it.



Political decision this time may guarantee the stabler alliance with partners but not necessarily the future power superiority in the region.
Seeing from inside, though as an engineer, there was a chance for Eurofighter when its competitor only showed paper plan and mockup.
There was argument.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 11, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...Just how many F-35(-22) would they be able to swindle, dump, unload ( ), on to customers, if it wasn't for NATO?
> How many actually buy these, or any of these, just because of that?"
> 
> I am not sure what point you are trying to make with this post, Lucky. NATO has a history of using US-developed and member licence-built aircraft ... are you suggesting that policy has failed NATO or impaired its effectiveness in any way? Sweden being a non-NATO country I don't find any surprise in the absence of Swedish platforms in NATO inventories.



Lost my line of thinking here (not that difficult most of the times! ), but.....who buys them because they feel that they _have_ to, because they're members of NATO..
How many members of aforementioned club for internal admiration (just trying to lighten the mood here! ) still have a fully functional aviation industry, an industry able to build advanced fighters, _not_ as a consortium, we all know what they say about too many cooks!  



pbehn said:


> Well neutral is neutral, not an ally at any time but not an enemy either. I have a lot of respect for Swedens attitude Neutral but not defenceless, _their AC may not be world beaters_ but they can still make good planes attractive to countries with a small budget.. French policy is understood only by the French but to be fair the make their own nuclear deterrent their own AC and ships, being in the west doesnt mean you must agree with every decision the US president makes and they pay to be detached.
> 
> Compare to Belgiums neutrality who sell the UK guns but refuse to supply ammunition when they dont like who we are in conflict with and sit in the middle of europe cosy under an umbrella provided by others.



Well, we did win the Swiss deal, even if the Swiss population voted against it and we also won the Brazil contract (what was it 108 aircraft), which will possibly open more doors for the Gripen...

Most expensive doesn't always have to mean it's the best...


----------



## parsifal (Apr 11, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...The only ones that arent are those philosophically and doctrinally opposed to the west ..."
> 
> Sweden? France?



Ill answer in these terms....during the war, Sweden profited handsomely from consorting with the enemy. During the war, when the French realized they were not as important to the world as they thought, the French also got into bed with the enemy. Its a variation of Churchills saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend...sort of "the friend of my enemy is my enemy".....

I dont trust the french, sorry. Thats not coming from something Ive read in books either. During our little foray into a place called Vietnam, we wanted to deploy our brand new Mirage fighters into the combat zone, but couldnt, because the french said we couldnt. At various times the Swedes have done similar things though not as bad....they just love their "neutrality" a bit too much. Israel has had far worse dealings with these two beacons of fair play as well.

No, I dont trust nations that play games like that. Everyone does it, but these two morally bankrupt entities are particularly bad. . They can keep their junk as far as im concerned. Wouldnt matter if it could break the speed of light, I would still say no.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 11, 2015)

Because if we didn't let Germany use our trains to transport troops (in '40-'41 was it, or something) among other things, they thought that it would certainly mean an invasion, in which Germany would get _all_ the iron ore, _all_ bearings among other things, things that came in handy to the allies...which included a lot of intel, also....over 8,000 Swedish sailors fought on the allied side...
Think that you need to look into what they did for both sides, to stay neutral...
Besides, what does this have to do with the F-35?

I'm out of here...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 11, 2015)

"...if we didn't let Germany use our trains to transport troops (in '40-'41 was it, or something) among other things, they thought that it would certainly mean an invasion, in which Germany would get all the iron ore, all bearings among other things, things that came in handy..."

No sin in experiencing _fear_, my friend. We here all understand the courage is only courage when it requires overcoming fear.

I too am out of here, my friend. The F-35 and its crews will have to prove themselves soon enough.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 11, 2015)

Sweden was indeed neutral on the paper, people fail to see the thousands of volunteers that signed up for the allied cause....would like to see what other countries would do in the same situation...
I think, it feels like, people here is taking the criticism of the F-35 as personal, it certainly looks like it...
I know that the Gripen is a great aircraft, it's not the best and it's not the worst....the same goes for the F-35, it's _not_ the best, but it's _not_ worst either, far from it....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> I think, it feels like, people here is taking the criticism of the F-35 as personal, it certainly looks like it...



Sometimes I do take it personally and I'll share why...

I worked for Lockheed over 10 years and was very proud of my employment there. I got to work on and see things that I could only dream about as a kid. For the most part most of the people I had to work with and for were dedicated and hardworking and were also dedicated in giving our customers exactly what they asked for, and sometimes even more. We believed in our products. 

I know many people who worked on the X-35 and who are now still there working on the F-35. What yanks my chain is there are people and some in the media who make criticisms about this aircraft and they haven't a clue about it's origins, what it's supposed to do and *what it can do*, as a matter of fact many people out there who try to condemn this aircraft never worked on any type of aircraft or are even in the aviation business, they just parrot what they read on the internet. I see comments by people who haven't a clue what it's like to design and build complicated aircraft and do so under the scrutiny of the press and the government. I'm not saying that this project is without fault, there were many flat out "dumb" things done during the development and design phase and many promises made that didn't pan out. If one reads the latest headlines about the F-35 LMCO stands to loose about $30 million due to errors in software design. Are these errors preventable? Probably. Is this the only time they ever happened? Definitely not!

I don't mind the criticism of this aircraft when someone could accurately point out specific issues; but when the same BS about things that were brought up 8 years ago that have now been long addressed, keep being repeated over and over again, it gets a bit old. 

All this because of the Rand Report and some jealous has-been aircraft engineer (who was brilliant in his day I must add) who sold a great story to the media, and the non-aviation public who thinks that air warfare is like what they seen on Top Gun.



Lucky13 said:


> I know that the Gripen is a great aircraft, it's not the best and it's not the worst....the same goes for the F-35, it's _not_ the best, but it's _not_ worst either, far from it....



Exactly!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 11, 2015)

Ive over-stepped again. I have no wish to offend anyone, or politicise this thread, so I offer apologies and stand back from this conversation for a while. Suffice it to say I have strong views on the notion of "neutrality" or "nonalignment"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 11, 2015)

Joe, between you and me, what the f*ck does media know, at least 99,9% of media? _Honestly..._ 
Lockheed had a good one in Kelly Johnson...but then again, he _was_ Swedish (oh come on, you've got to let me have this one!)....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 11, 2015)

parsifal said:


> Ive over-stepped again. I have no wish to offend anyone, or politicise this thread, so I offer apologies and stand back from this conversation for a while. Suffice it to say I have strong views on the notion of "neutrality" or "nonalignment"



Politicians for you mate.....

Pint?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 11, 2015)

FlyboyJ many people in the media are paid to write in the "media" writing about supposed waste of government money always gets a good audience, just dont let facts interfere with a story.

Lucky 13 ew countries neutrality was respected in WW2 and most of those who wernt invaded didnt matter, I presume there was a reason why Germany didnt just march in to Sweden., I personally have never read anything negative about Swedens conduct as a neutral, as I understand it Sweden was as sympathetic as possible in a very very trying situation.

Parsival and Michaelmaltby are you saying that only people in Sweden made a profit in the second world war. Considering Sweden was sandwiched between the 3rd Reich and the Soviet Union it is remarkable tat the allies got one ball bearing or scientist out of Sweden and as I understand it Sweden allowed the Allies to buy up all their ball bearings after the Schweinfurt raids to cut off supplies and make those raids worthwhile. It is possible to reproach many for their conduct in WW2 and no one is blameless from what I have read in the blame game Sweden comes out about as good as the best.

What has this to do with the F-35? I wish the western European Nations would get their asses in gear, we in Europe have a political organisation in Belgium trying to expand its reach up to the Russian border while having no military capacity whatsoever. Belgium spends about $5Bn on its military of which 65% is salary, they are phasing out tracked vehicles in favour of wheeled vehicles for humanitarian missions. Military hardware is expensive, if all Euro nations got together and made a commitment then maybe there could be a F-35D which would suit EU nations more share in the costs and make it cheaper and better for everyone..

FAT CHANCE!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Lockheed had a good one in Kelly Johnson...but then again, he _was_ Swedish (oh come on, you've got to let me have this one!)....



Met him once - do you know he was also a Smurf?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2015)

pbehn said:


> FlyboyJ many people in the media are paid to write in the "media" writing about supposed waste of government money always gets a good audience, just dont let facts interfere with a story.



Exactly, and when the public just sucks it up while ignoring the facts -

Same thing happened to the V-22

How Safe Is the MV-22 Osprey?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 11, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Exactly, and when the public just sucks it up while ignoring the facts -
> 
> Same thing happened to the V-22
> 
> How Safe Is the MV-22 Osprey?



Well there is a simple solution to that problem make all marine transports have just one seat for the pilot. Not to make light of the grief of those who were bereaved but to measure the success of an aircraft in lives lost means you compare all SR-71s ever built with one C 130... Cheap journalism


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 11, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Sweden was indeed neutral on the paper, people fail to see the thousands of volunteers that signed up for the allied cause....would like to see what other countries would do in the same situation...



The Swiss would make an interesting thread.


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 11, 2015)

pbehn said:


> *Parsival and Michaelmaltby are you saying that only people in Sweden made a profit in the second world war.* Considering Sweden was sandwiched between the 3rd Reich and the Soviet Union it is remarkable tat the allies got one ball bearing or scientist out of Sweden and as I understand it Sweden allowed the Allies to buy up all their ball bearings after the Schweinfurt raids to cut off supplies and make those raids worthwhile. It is possible to reproach many for their conduct in WW2 and no one is blameless from what I have read in the blame game Sweden comes out about as good as the best.



I didn't interpret their posts that way at all.


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 11, 2015)

parsifal said:


> During the war, when the French realized they were not as important to the world as they thought, the French also got into bed with the enemy. Its a variation of Churchills saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend...sort of "the friend of my enemy is my enemy".....



Are you referring to Vichy?


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 12, 2015)

I can see what you're coming from Joe, I worked for SAAB for 12 years....
As they used to say about them/us, build great fighters, but lousy salesmen! Maybe that's about to change! 
As with this and media again, remember those Top 10 shows on Discovery (or whoever it was), particularly the one about the 
Top 10 fighters, in which the A-117 didn't do too well, well, duuuh......it's _not_ a ifighter you d*mb*sses, I'm surprised 
that they didn't put the Skyraider in there, while they were at it!

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 12, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Sweden was indeed neutral on the paper, people fail to see the thousands of volunteers that signed up for the allied cause....would like to see what other countries would do in the same situation...


8,700 Swedish volunteers went to the aid of Finland in their hour of need...that's over twice the number of all the other volunteers combined.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 12, 2015)

....and created the F19 (fighter wing) for that purpose as well!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2015)

I mentioned offset deals the other day, I thought this was interesting...

Lockheed Strikes S. Korean F-35 Offset Deal


----------



## Greyman (Apr 13, 2015)

Sorry if this has been covered.

My knowledge of modern systems and aircraft are quite limited. I'm wondering if one of the main reasons for the F-35 replacing the A-10 is proliferation and use of newer MANPAD systems. 

A common criticism of the program is that cheaper, tried-and-true systems like the A-10 are being phased out - and air support in future operations similar to Iraq and Afghanistan will be done with the vastly more expensive F-35.

But, as I alluded to above - will the threat of a relatively low-tech enemy with MANPADs be enough to make current inexpensive systems (Predator drones, A-10s, etc.) unworkable compared to new expensive systems such F-35.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 13, 2015)

Greyman,

Everyone focuses on the A-10 and yet it's the F-16 and F/A-18 that have provided the bulk of air-to-ground CAS-type munition delivery in recent conflicts. The A-10 simply isn't needed anymore - other aircraft can drop the same ordnance and its gun isn't much use for current operations (spreading depleted uranium across terrain that's being used by ordinary folk trying to scratch a living isn't going to win the hearts-and-minds campaign). The biggest problem with the A-10 is its lack of utility for larger-scale operations against a well-developed adversary (too easily detected, too slow to evade and, despite its legendary toughness, not sufficiently survivable - it's SAM fodder). Simply put, the cost of maintaining a specialized platform like the A-10 isn't justified.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2015)

Greyman said:


> Sorry if this has been covered.
> 
> My knowledge of modern systems and aircraft are quite limited. I'm wondering if one of the main reasons for the F-35 replacing the A-10 is proliferation and use of newer MANPAD systems.
> 
> ...



I don't think MANPAD systems are in the equation for A-10 replacement. Although there are some pretty clever MANPAD systems out there, the A-10 airframe is getting old and can only be rebuilt so many times. The USAF put all its eggs in one basket in relying on the F-35 to fulfill some of the A-10s functions and as much as I support the F-35 I think this is a mistake. The A-10 has proved itself over and over as an excellent aircraft and IMO it should either be brought back into production or have a modern replacement developed for the same "low and slow" role. In the end the USAF should use 3 manned airframes in its tactical mission and have drones to supplement the mission as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 13, 2015)

The USAF won't like me for saying this but the AH-64 has eaten into some of the operating space previously occupied by the A-10 on the very slow, very tactical end of things while the flexibility of the F-16 and F/A-18 have taken a great chunks out of the longer-range A-10 role. Don't get me wrong...I love the A-10 but I think it's time has passed. 

Flyboy, don't necessarily disagree with your statement about putting the A-10 back into production. I just don't know how viable that would be from a cost perspective given the ripple effect into planned force structures. We had similar discussions about other specialized platforms (like EF-111, Wild Weasels etc) that lacked direct, like-for-like replacements. From a pure capability perspective, it makes sense to retain the A-10 but not so much from a cost-effectiveness perspective.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 13, 2015)

The A-10 can deliver a far greater punch than just about any combat helicopter around (except perhaps, for the Mi-24VM) and has a far greater survivability margin than any rotary wing aircraft.

When the A-10 takes AA over a target, remains on station until misson accomplished and then returns to base intact with it's pilot unharmed, you have just gotten a 100% return on your investment.

Not many other aircraft (of any type) can match that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 13, 2015)

Not to mention an A-10 can't be shot down by an RPG-7 worth roughly 60$. Aircraft like the Hog, Frogfoot, and AMX will always have a place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> Not to mention an A-10 can't be shot down by an RPG-7 worth roughly 60$. Aircraft like the Hog, Frogfoot, and AMX will always have a place.



Never say never. An RPG-7 hitting the right spot can take any acft out of the sky.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2015)

For the past 20 years opponents of UK (and US) forces have not been an army but people who look the same as those surrounding them, this changes what you need to fight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> Flyboy, don't necessarily disagree with your statement about putting the A-10 back into production. I just don't know how viable that would be from a cost perspective given the ripple effect into planned force structures. We had similar discussions about other specialized platforms (like EF-111, Wild Weasels etc) that lacked direct, like-for-like replacements. * From a pure capability perspective, it makes sense to retain the A-10 but not so much from a cost-effectiveness perspective*.


In the short term you're probably correct, but eventually those airframes will have to be replaced, especially considering the A-10s mission, IMO there will always be a necessity for an aircraft like the A-10 and I would also consider putting such an aircraft under the control of the army(it's been suggested before) but that is contrary to current operational military doctrine.


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 13, 2015)

Lot easier shooting a skeet than a rocket powered pidgeon flying at 200mph. Apaches have their place too, cooperating more closely with forces due to more precise ordinance. However, helicopters are simply more vulnerable and don't have the punch that an A-10 or Frogfoot have.


----------



## Glider (Apr 13, 2015)

When the A9 (showing my age here) and A10 were being designed for the support role I always wondered why a naval version wasn't included in the scope, as it always seemed to me to be ideal for the Marines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 14, 2015)

I agree...the Army and the Marines could use the A-10 for close ground support missions, but from what I am seeing, the Army isn't interested and for it to be acceptable for USMC use, it would most likely have to be navalized.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> I agree...the Army and the Marines could use the A-10 for close ground support missions, but from what I am seeing, the Army isn't interested and for it to be acceptable for USMC use, it would most likely have to be navalized.



The Army is not interested because helicopters are better suited for what they need. Simple as that.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 14, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Army is not interested because helicopters are better suited for what they need. Simple as that.


Well, I don't think it's actually as simple as that. And bear with me for a minute here while I play Devil's advocate.

Since WWII (and to a lesser degree, Korea), the U.S. has not fought a large-scale war against a technically equal opponent. During the Gulf wars, the U.S. was against Soviet trained and Soviet/French equipped Iraqi forces, but certainly not on a level of the Soviet Union of the cold-war era.

So all the U.S. has been against in recent years, is assclowns in Afghanistan and Iraq playing cat and mouse in a low-tech hide-and-seek brawl.

We should not assume that this will be the face of warfare in the future, especially with Putin playing from Hitler's playbook and China playing the silent game over in the corner.

I give alot of credit to rotory wing aircraft, they have proven their value time and again on the battlefield but how well will the attack helos do against top of the line Russian T-90 tanks with their reactive armor, Kontact-5 ERA and Shtora countermeasures? And when Russian armor deploys, it is in a composite group that includes mobile AA batteries (like the BUK system) and is all well drilled and co-ordinated. With the T-90, comes the equally capable T-80 and upfit T-72. 

On the other end of Asia, China has some serious stuff like Norinco's Type 99 and to a lesser degree, the Type 98. These forces are not a bunch of clowns wearing sweatsuits, yelling and waving RPGs or riding in the back of Toyota pickups armed with MGs...these are some serious contenders.

For attack helos to get into the mix with Soviet style deployments (ground forces supported by an AFV mix) would be a difficult and costly proposal without heavy backup in the form of a dedicated armor hunter/killer like the A-10. Which, by the way, would rip any of the afore-mention AFVs to shreds.

The armed forces need to stop and rethink the cold war possibilities and keep real threats in mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 14, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> The A-10 can deliver a far greater punch than just about any combat helicopter around (except perhaps, for the Mi-24VM) and has a far greater survivability margin than any rotary wing aircraft.
> 
> When the A-10 takes AA over a target, remains on station until misson accomplished and then returns to base intact with it's pilot unharmed, you have just gotten a 100% return on your investment.
> 
> Not many other aircraft (of any type) can match that.



Skyraider!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, I don't think it's actually as simple as that. And bear with me for a minute here while I play Devil's advocate.
> 
> Since WWII (and to a lesser degree, Korea), the U.S. has not fought a large-scale war against a technically equal opponent. During the Gulf wars, the U.S. was against Soviet trained and Soviet/French equipped Iraqi forces, but certainly not on a level of the Soviet Union of the cold-war era.
> 
> ...



I will disagree. For the Army's role and it's mission the helo os more adaptable than a fixed wing aircraft. Each branch has it's purpose, and nothing is more suited for the Army's boots on the ground occupy land and push through force.

The branches themselves work with cohesion, and the A-10 while important is never going to land in the field anywhere and be a force multiplier for the Army Division commander.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> Greyman,
> 
> Everyone focuses on the A-10 and yet it's the F-16 and F/A-18 that have provided the bulk of air-to-ground CAS-type munition delivery in recent conflicts. The A-10 simply isn't needed anymore - other aircraft can drop the same ordnance and its gun isn't much use for current operations (spreading depleted uranium across terrain that's being used by ordinary folk trying to scratch a living isn't going to win the hearts-and-minds campaign). The biggest problem with the A-10 is its lack of utility for larger-scale operations against a well-developed adversary (too easily detected, too slow to evade and, despite its legendary toughness, not sufficiently survivable - it's SAM fodder). Simply put, the cost of maintaining a specialized platform like the A-10 isn't justified.



You have some valid points there Buff - many folks will sing the accolades of the A-10 but understand that when you are flying that machine you are putting yourself out there to be shot at. Without a doubt the "titanium bathtub" is a great selling point to the confidence and survivability of A-10 pilots, but having worked with a few of them, I think that they (and many others) would rather fly an aircraft where speed will mitigate being hit by ground fire rather than flying in an armored bathtub where you're hearing to hits on your aircraft as you fly along. I equate to a boxer who would rather bob and weave and use speed to avoid getting punched rather than being a bruiser who would just take the beating to eventually win the fight.

And then you also have the “golden BB.”


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 14, 2015)

Has Air Force lack of enthusiasm for CAS and the like been a driver of rotary wing aircraft like the AH-64?
I.E., if we can't depend on the USAF, then we better field our own air support.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 14, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And then you also have the “golden BB.”



Hey, save that for the P-51 thread


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 14, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> The biggest problem with the A-10 <SNIP> despite its legendary toughness, not sufficiently survivable - it's SAM fodder).



Could the same be said for the Apache Cobra?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Has Air Force lack of enthusiasm for CAS and the like been a driver of rotary wing aircraft like the AH-64?
> I.E., if we can't depend on the USAF, then we better field our own air support.



Our combined forces work very well together and in cohesion. That is kind of why I say the Army does not need the A-10. It needs rotary wing aircraft that are in the field on the front line. When it needs more, the A-10's are a radio call away.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2015)

I think its safe to say that the army boots on the ground are going to say they don't need the A-10 in their arsenal, the bean counters at the pentagon may say differently.


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 14, 2015)

Then how does this jibe with the Marines who have both organic rotary and fixed wing air support?


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 14, 2015)

To each man his own, including to their opinions on the A-10. I'm just going to say that the A-10 is the kind of ac which can do this: 
Bagram pilots save 60 Soldiers during convoy ambush > U.S. Air Force > Article Display


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> To each man his own, including to their opinions on the A-10. I'm just going to say that the A-10 is the kind of ac which can do this:
> Bagram pilots save 60 Soldiers during convoy ambush > U.S. Air Force > Article Display



No one is denying the A-10 is not a great acft. I personally love it. A guy I used to fly with in the Army is now an AF A-10 piot. He loves it as well.

I am just saying that every acft has its role, and each of our branches utilizes the acft they use based off of their needs and type of mission.

As for your example, I have seen personally several other types of acft do the same thing. Including rotary wing types.


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 14, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No one is denying the A-10 is not a great acft. I personally love it. A guy I used to fly with in the Army is now an AF A-10 piot. He loves it as well.
> 
> I am just saying that every acft has its role, and each of our branches utilizes the acft they use based off of their needs and type of mission.
> 
> As for your example, I have seen personally several other types of acft do the same thing. Including rotary wing types.



The A-10 is considerably less vulnerable. But beyond the point. The problem I'm having is that some people are claiming that acft like the A-10 aren't necessary anymore. Especially top-brass at the pentagon who are trying to replace the A-10 with the F-35, which I find vile on every level.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 14, 2015)

The only aircraft in the world that's even remotely "like" the A-10 is the Su-25 which, apart from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, is not operated in serious numbers by any other air force (most export locations have a single squadron or less which doesn't make a compelling case for operational efficiency - how many airframes out of 12 purchased would actually be operational at any one time? Maybe 4?). 

Although the CAS role is still entirely valid, the need for a dedicated low-n-slow attack aircraft is far less compelling...other aircraft can do that job sufficiently well to neutralize the benefits from maintaining a discrete type dedicated to getting up-close and personal (I'd rather stay as far away from the enemy as possible and neutralize him with a long-range pointy stick than get up close in a knife fight where luck may not be on my side). The only way to make the A-10 affordable is to restart production, and begin re-equipping squadrons on a much larger scale with an airframe that can only do CAS. The financial case for such a course of action simply isn't there. 

I like the A-10. It's cool. I'll never forget watching one on a live fire exercise and hearing the gun sounding like a huge zipper being drawn. Unfortunately, in a high-threat layered air defence network it simply is not going to survive. It spends way too much time being visible and can't get out of the way quick enough (and I don't mean dodging missiles...I mean its exposure between periods of terrain masking, such as when attacking targets). Necessary, needed and affordable are 3 very different things. I can believe that the A-10 is needed but not that it's either necessary or affordable (under current fiscal constraints).


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 15, 2015)

The A-10 was built during the cold war, so it was designed with a layered defense system in mind. It's ECM/countermeasures afford it a level of protection and it does have a many-times proven ability to absorb damage that would down most other aircraft.

Also, the Russian and Chinese tanks have a layered reactive armor system that will resist many types of air launched missiles, however, the GAU-8 of the A-10 is unique in the fact that it's rate of fire literally overwhelms the Kontakt system and allows a breach in the armor. 

It was originally projected that the Air Force would keep the A-10 until 2028 and quite honestly, if the U.S. can keep the B-52 in operation for 60 years, then another ten for the A-10 shouldn't be unreasonable.

It might be interesting to see the losses of the A-10 in a combat environment compared to rotary wing attack and fighters


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 15, 2015)

Some of us remember the Cold War only too well. From initial deployment of the A-10 and thru most of its life, the bulk of the air defences comprised ZSU-23/4s, SA-13s, SA-8s, SA-6s and SA-7/14 MANPADS. Today it would go up against systems with longer ranges, considerably faster reaction times and far more capable radars like the 2S6 (with SA-19), SA-11 and SA-15 (and the SA-18 MANPAD). It's a much tougher environment. 

ECM can help but faster platforms can also carry that protection...and they'd present less open shoot target time to these threat systems. Personally, I wouldn't want to go up against modern SAMs in any aircraft. The Cold War vision of A-10s swooping down to destroy enemy tank formations was always overblown. To use the GAU-8, the aircraft needs to be in a dive - you can't strafe flying horizontally - which means the aircraft has to pull up, right into the sweet spot of all these rapid-response AAA and SAM threats. It's also worth bearing in mind that you don't need to penetrate the armour of a tank to neutralize it. There are M- and F-kills (mobility and firepower), and the mobility part is always a vulnerable spot for missiles and even guns on other fighter aircraft...but I still wouldn't want to try it.

In a future war, if we want to stop a massed enemy armoured advance, the best targets are probably fuel and ammo dumps in rear areas rather than plinking individual tanks. Those fuel and ammo dumps are pretty ideal targets for a platform like the F-35.

Again, I'm not anti the A-10 but we also have to be realistic about its operational effectiveness in a modern force-on-force war.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 15, 2015)

As for combat loss statistics...the sample size is so small as to be irrelevant but here you go based on a Wikipedia listing of Desert Storm losses (this is the most representative since all aircraft were operating in the same theatre at the same time):

A-10 - 4
AV-8B - 4
F-16 - 3
A-6E - 3
F/A-18 - 2
F-15E - 2
AH-64 - 1


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 15, 2015)

Hitting fuel and ammo dumps don't help the guys in the holes that are staring down advancing enemy armor


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 15, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Hitting fuel and ammo dumps don't help the guys in the holes that are staring down advancing enemy armor



Kindda depends when you hit the fuel dumps...but I don't disagree, nor am I callously suggesting that the grunts should be left in the lurch. I'm simply pointing out that there's more than one way to skin a cat (or stop a tank). Starving them or stopping them moving (M-Kill) can be just as effective as outright destruction depending on the tactical situation. 

To be honest, about the best approach for neutralizing a massed tank formation might be a swarm of UAVs. Tanks are reasonably identifiable - made of metal, slow moving and of pretty consistent length/width ratios. Sending in a swarm of cheap armed UAVs that can detect and attack the tanks might be a better idea than sending manned aircraft against the organic air defences...but we're a few years away from that being a viable technique.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 15, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> The only aircraft in the world that's even remotely "like" the A-10 is the Su-25 which, apart from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, is not operated in serious numbers by any other air force (most export locations have a single squadron or less which doesn't make a compelling case for operational efficiency - how many airframes out of 12 purchased would actually be operational at any one time? Maybe 4?).
> 
> Although the CAS role is still entirely valid, the need for a dedicated low-n-slow attack aircraft is far less compelling...other aircraft can do that job sufficiently well to neutralize the benefits from maintaining a discrete type dedicated to getting up-close and personal (I'd rather stay as far away from the enemy as possible and neutralize him with a long-range pointy stick than get up close in a knife fight where luck may not be on my side). The only way to make the A-10 affordable is to restart production, and begin re-equipping squadrons on a much larger scale with an airframe that can only do CAS. The financial case for such a course of action simply isn't there.
> 
> I like the A-10. It's cool. I'll never forget watching one on a live fire exercise and hearing the gun sounding like a huge zipper being drawn. Unfortunately, in a high-threat layered air defence network it simply is not going to survive. It spends way too much time being visible and can't get out of the way quick enough (and I don't mean dodging missiles...I mean its exposure between periods of terrain masking, such as when attacking targets). Necessary, needed and affordable are 3 very different things. I can believe that the A-10 is needed but not that it's either necessary or affordable (under current fiscal constraints).



AMX intl. AMX and the J-22/IAR 93. The A-10 still reigns as the cheapest aircraft in the Air Force for both maintenance and flight hours. Once that cost exceeds that, of say, an F-16, then it is time to replace it. And the simple fact is that yo don't use A-10s in a layered defence environment. Leave that to the B-2 and F-16/15E. The A-10s main use is to support soldiers in a situation where rotory types and F-16s won't cut it in an asymmetrical/crippled symmetrical It's a niche role, but there is a need for it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Hitting fuel and ammo dumps don't help the guys in the holes that are staring down advancing enemy armor



And a BN of Apaches can do just fine as well agsinst that armor. It's what it's designed for. Hide, shoot, move, hide, shoot...


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 15, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> AMX intl. AMX and the J-22/IAR 93. The A-10 still reigns as the cheapest aircraft in the Air Force for both maintenance and flight hours. Once that cost exceeds that, of say, an F-16, then it is time to replace it. And the simple fact is that yo don't use A-10s in a layered defence environment. Leave that to the B-2 and F-16/15E. The A-10s main use is to support soldiers in a situation where rotory types and F-16s won't cut it in an asymmetrical/crippled symmetrical It's a niche role, but there is a need for it.



I wouldn't class AMX or J-22 as even remotely comparable to the A-10 - both are light attack aircraft more akin to advanced trainers. They have little comparable capability to the A-10 "tank killer". 

Cost per flight hour is only one metric. Air Force planners must also consider survivability and operational relevance to the tasking today and in the future. The A-10 provides less support to troops today than the F-16 and F/A-18 so it's not uniquely relevant for today's fight. You also don't specify an operational scenario where the F-16 "can't cut it" but the A-10 can. F-16s are cutting it today in the asymmetrical fight and in order to reach a "crippled symmetrical" situation, we must have done something to attrit the enemy before the A-10s go in...again, why is the A-10 so good in that scenario over other platforms?

As for your comment about layered defence, Russian Army doctrine has always associated longer-range SAMs with higher echelons of command to provide layered defence as you move up the command chain from 2S6 (8km range) thru SA-15 (15km range) to SA-11 (28km range). Apparently the Russian Army is also getting the S-400. I think we can safely say the Russian Army's air defence capability is entirely layered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 15, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And a BN of Apaches can do just fine as well agsinst that armor. It's what it's designed for. Hide, shoot, move, hide, shoot...



And they proved themselves a pretty capable SEAD asset in Desert Storm.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 15, 2015)

Got into a big argument this morning with a few friends over the F-35 and this article: With the U.S. F-35 Grounded, Putin?s New Jet Beats Us Hands-Down | The Fiscal Times

They were giving me this "told you so" attitude and I was giving them the "you're on the verge of a throat-punch if you don't stop reading RT"...

I had to make clear a few points before EVEN discussing the aircraft itself:
1) DO NOT turn to social media for news.
2) DO NOT view anything from RT (Russia Today) as anything other than satire/parody
3) DO NOT view any page linked to RT as anything other than satire/parody
4) DO NOT argue with me when your only source is #1, #2 or #3 above

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Got into a big argument this morning with a few friends over the F-35 and this article: With the U.S. F-35 Grounded, Putin?s New Jet Beats Us Hands-Down | The Fiscal Times




I posted the same article several pages back as part of the BS being put out about this aircraft.


In the mean time...

First version of F-35s will not outdo A-10 in battlefield capabilities - U.S. - Stripes

If you read this they're making comparisons with the F-38B to the A-10 as we been discussing but no mention about the US Marines not being the operators of the A-10!!! No comparison to the AV-8. Total media BS


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I posted the same article several pages back as part of the BS being put out about this aircraft.
> 
> 
> In the mean time...
> ...



Is that because they are both vertical take off? ( I get my info from the UK Sunday Sun)


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 15, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Got into a big argument this morning with a few friends over the F-35 and this article: With the U.S. F-35 Grounded, Putin?s New Jet Beats Us Hands-Down | The Fiscal Times
> 
> They were giving me this "told you so" attitude and I was giving them the "you're on the verge of a throat-punch if you don't stop reading RT"...
> 
> ...



Bacon'd for #4! Made me splurt out my lunch!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 15, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> Bacon'd for #4! Made me splurt out my lunch!


Sorry about that, next time I'll give you advance warning! 

I will say that I am not a huge fan of the F-35, but I give credit where credit's due. My opinion however, is not a solid argument against the F-35 and it truly does have promise and potential and there is a great deal of hard data to back that up.

So the bottom line is: I like a good debate, but bring facts and solid points...not some Putin-puppet fantasy BS!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 15, 2015)

I'm not a fan of the F-35B. I like the A and C variants and think they'll be very capable platforms. Clearly, the A-10 does what it does better than anything else around. The problem is its job can be done by other aircraft types. I'd never see the F-35 as a direct A-10 replacement but, alas, filthy lucre always comes into the decision and the new shiny thing will always win over the old, but still viable, proven capability. That doesn't change whether you're talking about going from Buccaneers to Tornados, F-4s to F-15s or any other combination of aircraft. Pilots get very attached to the type they fly, even when a newer, better aircraft is available.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Is that because they are both vertical take off? ( I get my info from the UK Sunday Sun)


The US Marines are replacing the AV-8 with the F-35B, the USAF is replacing the A-10 and F-16 with the F-35A


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 15, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> I wouldn't class AMX or J-22 as even remotely comparable to the A-10 - both are light attack aircraft more akin to advanced trainers. They have little comparable capability to the A-10 "tank killer".
> 
> Cost per flight hour is only one metric. Air Force planners must also consider survivability and operational relevance to the tasking today and in the future. The A-10 provides less support to troops today than the F-16 and F/A-18 so it's not uniquely relevant for today's fight. You also don't specify an operational scenario where the F-16 "can't cut it" but the A-10 can. F-16s are cutting it today in the asymmetrical fight and in order to reach a "crippled symmetrical" situation, we must have done something to attrit the enemy before the A-10s go in...again, why is the A-10 so good in that scenario over other platforms?
> 
> As for your comment about layered defence, Russian Army doctrine has always associated longer-range SAMs with higher echelons of command to provide layered defence as you move up the command chain from 2S6 (8km range) thru SA-15 (15km range) to SA-11 (28km range). Apparently the Russian Army is also getting the S-400. I think we can safely say the Russian Army's air defence capability is entirely layered.



Good thing we'll have bigger things to worry about if we're fighting Russia...
An F-16 won't cut it after it's dropped it's bombs, and when forces on the ground are rolling up against heavy opposition and can't wait for more F-16s to be scrambled/fly over, but need the punch of a fixed wing aircraft. Aircraft like the A-10 can offer longer and more comprehensive support than an F-16 can. The A-10s numbers should be cut, but not killed (until it get more expensive than the F-16) It may be a niche, but it's a niche which must be filled.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 15, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> Good thing we'll have bigger things to worry about if we're fighting Russia...



For a major force-on-force conflict, yes. However, there is the risk of a more limited conflict if Putin tries the tricks he's playing in Ukraine in other areas or if he continues escalating the Ukraine crisis. And with news breaking yesterday about Iran potentially buying S-300 SAMs, the prospect is increasing that our pilots will soon face a far more lethal threat environment than has been the case since 1991.


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 15, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> For a major force-on-force conflict, yes. However, there is the risk of a more limited conflict if Putin tries the tricks he's playing in Ukraine in other areas or if he continues escalating the Ukraine crisis. And with news breaking yesterday about Iran potentially buying S-300 SAMs, the prospect is increasing that our pilots will soon face a far more lethal threat environment than has been the case since 1991.



NATO (see the 'all for one, one for all' policy, it would require us to get into a two step war with Russia along with all of our NATO allies,which would be disastrous) doesn't have the balls to do that, and again, the A-10 isn't quite the tank killer it was designed to be. Back to my comment about it "not going into layered defensed areas", it won't. Seed my "Leave that to the 15E/16," comment, the A-10 isn't going to kill tanks anymore, it going to provide CAS for soldiers in dire need. See the rest of my earlier post.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2015)

The A-10 right now has a max airframe life of 18 - 24,000 hours. No one is not going to authroize any aircraft to fly beyond that without a major rebuild program. With that said, there are some people who were thinking about a life extension till 2040.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...5b79134aa77caaf58f8fe0b44ae0&tab=core_cview=1


----------



## beaupower32 (Apr 16, 2015)

I’d like to address CAS. There are many stories stating the F-35Bs the USMC will declare IOC with are not as capable as the A-10 when it comes to the CAS mission. While that is true today with 2B software, it won’t be true in the future when all the F-35Bs are flying with 3F software. Remember, the Marine Corps isn’t buying the F-35B to replace the A-10, they are replacing the Harrier. In a March 25 hearing before Congress, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for aviation stated:

*“The F-35B with the current software provides tremendous capability that we don't have today. I have no fusion in the airplanes I operate today. The pilots who fly it love the F-35B and they wouldn't go back to their original platforms. In many ways, that software is giving us a lot more capability that we have in our current fleet today.”*
As far as the A-10 is concerned, Dr. Gilmore, in his submitted testimony to the HASC, stated the following: 

*“Of course, the F-35 is designed to do more missions than CAS, which is the primary mission for which the A-10 was designed. Also, F-35 development is not complete. If the capabilities stated in the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) are realized, Block 3F F-35 aircraft will have the ability to carry weapons externally, for an increased payload, as well as a gun. For example, a Block 3F F-35A aircraft could carry six GBU-12 laser-guided bombs (vice two in Block 2B) along with four air-to-air missiles (two AIM-120C and two AIM-9X). Fusion of information from on-board sensors and data from off-board aircraft (both F-35 aircraft in formation via the multi-function advanced data link (MADL) and other aircraft via Link 16) is planned to be much more capable and would provide better battlespace awareness than that being fielded with Block 2B and better than the capability of an A-10.”*
All the decision makers and military leaders understand our program and the progress it’s making. It is a bit trying at times to read what makes it to the press, but if the F-35 program was easy, it wouldn’t be worth doing. Keep in mind, even with the challenges we face we’ve flown more than 18,000 sorties and 30,000 hours of safe flight. The best thing we can do for the warfighter is to fulfill our commitments to bring them the best 5th generation fighter the world has ever seen.

Turning to events out in the field, Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort held its air show over the weekend featuring the F-35B. The F-35B demonstrated its STOVL capabilities and showed the crowd of nearly 100,000 people what the future of Marine Corps aviation looks like. Eventually MCAS Beaufort will have 27 F-35Bs training USMC, U.K. and Italian pilots. This air show was a great chance for the community to get an up close look at what will be a common sight in the community for many years to come.

This week F-35 Chief Test Pilot Al Norman traveled to Tel Aviv Israel where U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Daniel Schapiro experienced the F-35 by means of the Cockpit Demonstrator. Al and Ambassador Schapiro were at Nevatim AFB where pilots will train when their first jets are delivered in December 2016. The Ambassador appreciated the demonstration and commented about the amazing capabilities that the F-35 will bring to the Israel Air Force. The partnership with Israel will help to upgrade their Air Force to the next generation. This is the ultimate strong example of the commitment the U.S. has to the future security of Israel.

Two F-35Cs from VFA-101 ‘Grim Reapers’ at Eglin AFB, FL made a cross-country flight for their first appearance at Naval Air Station Lemoore, CA, where the Navy’s first operational squadron will be based. The visit to NAS Lemoore was a great opportunity for sailors, local media and members of the surrounding community to see the carrier variant up-close and in their own backyard! Captain Dave Koss, Commander Strike Fighter Wing US Pacific Fleet, stated at events held at the base:

*"It’s a great day for Lemoore and the community to see the next generation fighter come and join an already very competent force that we have. The F-35 is going to be able to greatly enable battlespace awareness which is very important as you go out there and operate both offensively and defensively. “*
Lemoore’s mayor, Lois Wynne had a thrilling flight in the F-35 cockpit demonstrator and couldn’t wait to share her thoughts.

*“The technology is simply amazing – it’s almost too much to comprehend. We’re so lucky to have the F-35 here in Lemoore and we look forward to having it become an integral part of the local community.” * 

NAS Lemoore is scheduled to see its first airplanes arrive in early 2017. Thank you for your continued support of the F-35 as we grow this fleet and stand up many new bases in the coming years.

From one of our higher ups...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2015)

Thanks Beau for the update. It’s always great to hear this from someone who is there, hands on, in the flesh. Like many of my other friends who are on this program, if it was the dismal failure some try to make it out to be I'm sure you would have jumped ship a long time ago, settled at Northrop/ Grumman or General Atomics. I heard about the Beaufort show and am waiting to see clips of the F-35B flying. Anyone who labels this aircraft as junk, a failure or "a contraption" either has bias against the aircraft or LMCO or is just purely ignorant, especially when it’s capabilities are becoming more evident. The only thing I really am upset about with regards to the F-35 is the cost overruns and how they were allowed to perpetuate. While LMCO is not faultless, no one on the government side is willing to take responsibility and just continues to allow the press and some politicians to bash this program.

(Stepping off soapbox)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 16, 2015)

....and a _thingmajig_ then?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 16, 2015)

I'd say that it goes for the press as well....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 16, 2015)

Honestly, name me one thing that the military is involved with, that doesn't have cost over-runs?

I can guarantee you that the media would be hard-pressed to find one thing that hasn't gone over budget for the past 75 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 16, 2015)

The toilet paper was 1437% over budget last time!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2015)

And the beat goes on...


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmX6yjgKntA_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVHyCcX2gAg_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4CI8o9hVfo_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 16, 2015)

Some very smooth landings on the USS Wasp. The Harrier always kind of wobbled its way down onto the deck. Good to see the Corps pushing towards IOC for VMFA-121. Cool vids!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Honestly, name me one thing that the military is involved with, that doesn't have cost over-runs?
> 
> I can guarantee you that the media would be hard-pressed to find one thing that hasn't gone over budget for the past 75 years.



True. In terms of achievement the B 29 would probably be termed an abject failure if it didnt drop the bomb that won the war (which it wasnt actually designed for). However post war the B 29 won a bigger war and Boeing controlled the long haul market for decades. I personally have a feeling that the cost of the F 35 will reap massive benefits in new video imaging and computing technologies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 16, 2015)

pbehn said:


> True. In terms of achievement the B 29 would probably be termed an abject failure if it didnt drop the bomb that won the war (which it wasnt actually designed for). However post war the B 29 won a bigger war and Boeing controlled the long haul market for decades. I personally have a feeling that the cost of the F 35 will reap massive benefits in new video imaging and computing technologies.



That's very debatable as the B-29 was extremely effective in fire-bombing Japan and spawned many successful tanker and cargo variants (one of which is still in use today), but yes, the cream of the top acft like the Raptor, Typhoon, and (soon to be) F-35 are revolutions in software design.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2015)

pbehn said:


> True. In terms of achievement the B 29 would probably be termed an abject failure if it didnt drop the bomb that won the war (which it wasnt actually designed for). However post war the B 29 won a bigger war and Boeing controlled the long haul market for decades. *I personally have a feeling that the cost of the F 35 will reap massive benefits in new video imaging and computing technologies*.



Small munitions, automated aircraft assembly lines and graphite composites as well. From what I understand the surface coatings on the F-35 are a little more resilient than what we seen on the F-117 and B-2

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> That's very debatable as the B-29 was extremely effective in fire-bombing Japan and spawned many successful tanker and cargo variants (one of which is still in use today), but yes, the cream of the top acft like the Raptor, Typhoon, and (soon to be) F-35 are revolutions in software design.



The B29 was designed as a high altitude bomber ..many other AC could have dropped incendiaries at night and if that was the brief for the B29 it would have been a much different AC. I am aware of the tanker cargo and transport variants but in the immediate post war it was the head start in passenger craft that gave boeing its lead.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Small munitions, automated aircraft assembly lines and graphite composites as well. From what I understand the surface coatings on the F-35 are a little more resilient than what we seen on the F-117 and B-2



Technology is technology just because it is designed for an aircraft doesn't mean it only applies to aircraft. I worked at a company that made some of the inner parts of the Large Hadron Collider (the bits close to the plasma). Making internally copper coated highly alloyed stainless tubes that have zero gauss at minus 270C seems extreme and of little value but a company that can satisfy the requirement learns a lot and wins future clients.

FBJ I was generalising you are being specific, I can guarantee that before you spin off this mortal coil you will see something in every day life that started as an off shoot of the F 35 programme. It is the way life works, George Cayley (1773-1857) had all sorts of ideas related to flight his greatest idea was what everyone would recognise as a bicycle wheel.


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 16, 2015)

pbehn said:


> The B29 was designed as a high altitude bomber ..many other AC could have dropped incendiaries at night and if that was the brief for the B29 it would have been a much different AC. I am aware of the tanker cargo and transport variants but in the immediate post war it was the head start in passenger craft that gave boeing its lead.



But none had the range of the B-29 (except the B-32), and none could carry the payload (except the Lanc). And even so, what an aircraft's designed for doesn't necessarily mean it's not good in a different role. Take the F-16, it was originally a lightweight fighter designed for close in dogfights and no other purpose, and look what it is today. And Boeing got that lead because it had far and away the most experience designing large planes, eg the B-29. (The B-29 was also good enough at dropping incendiaries and night that it was again used in Korea in the same role.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 16, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> But none had the range of the B-29 (except the B-32), and none could carry the payload (except the Lanc). And even so, what an aircraft's designed for doesn't necessarily mean it's not good in a different role. Take the F-16, it was originally a lightweight fighter designed for close in dogfights and no other purpose, and look what it is today. And Boeing got that lead because it had far and away the most experience designing large planes, eg the B-29. (The B-29 was also good enough at dropping incendiaries and night that it was again used in Korea in the same role.)



SL you are missing the point I am making. It does not matter that the B 29 was designed as a high altitude bomber with conventional bombs but made its name dropping A bombs and doing night raids, the point is the investment in MAKING the engines work gave the US a lead in reliable high output piston engines to tide the world over until Jet and turbo props took over. The point I am making is that the B 29 was a great investment even though it never fulfilled its brief of dropping iron bombs accurately from high altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Technology is technology just because it is designed for an aircraft doesn't mean it only applies to aircraft. I worked at a company that made some of the inner parts of the Large Hadron Collider (the bits close to the plasma). Making internally copper coated highly alloyed stainless tubes that have zero gauss at minus 270C seems extreme and of little value but a company that can satisfy the requirement learns a lot and wins future clients.
> 
> FBJ I was generalising you are being specific, I can guarantee that before you spin off this mortal coil you will see something in every day life that started as an off shoot of the F 35 programme. It is the way life works, George Cayley (1773-1857) had all sorts of ideas related to flight his greatest idea was what everyone would recognise as a bicycle wheel.


I understood exactly where you were going, I was being specific because there are some on here who aren't as "broad minded." All one as to do is look at the Apollo program and all the technology offshoot that came from there...


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 17, 2015)

Just in case I'd show my ugly mug here again.....hang on.....d*mmit....too late for that....anyway, _nothing_ is to be taken as criticism against Lockheed etc., as you know me, I'm 30+ years or so behind you lot and every modern jet is ugly etc., etc., and the F-4 Phantom, F-8 Crusader, J35 Draken etc., are the hottest jets on landing gear....
At the same, I appreciate the discussion as I learn a lot about the F-35...
Just wanted to point that out gentlemen!

Btw, a tad off topic, a voice in the back of my noggin is annoying me, wasn't Grumman founded by a Norwegian, or am I remember it wrong somewhat?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 17, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> ....and a _thingmajig_ then?



Yeah, aka, whatchamacallit


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Just in case I'd show my ugly mug here again.....hang on.....d*mmit....too late for that....anyway, _nothing_ is to be taken as criticism against Lockheed etc., as you know me, *I'm 30+ years or so behind you *lot and every modern jet is ugly etc., etc., and the F-4 Phantom, F-8 Crusader, J35 Draken etc., are the hottest jets on landing gear....
> At the same, I appreciate the discussion as I learn a lot about the F-35...
> Just wanted to point that out gentlemen!
> 
> Btw, a tad off topic, a voice in the back of my noggin is annoying me, wasn't Grumman founded by a Norwegian, or am I remember it wrong somewhat?



No worries mate, just as long as you're not wearing a polyester leisure suit!

Leroy Grumman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Torch (Apr 17, 2015)

SECNAV: F-35C should be Navy's last manned strike jet


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2015)

Torch said:


> SECNAV: F-35C should be Navy's last manned strike jet



I saw that - I take it with a grain of salt, the guy was a "black shoe." I'm sure there's folks in the USAF who welcome that


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 17, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No worries mate, just as long as you're not wearing a polyester leisure suit!
> 
> Leroy Grumman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Cheers J! I wonder where I got the Norway thing from... 



Torch said:


> SECNAV: F-35C should be Navy's last manned strike jet



Noticed that today as well...



FLYBOYJ said:


> I saw that - I take it with a grain of salt, the guy was a "black shoe." I'm sure there's folks in the USAF who welcome that



_Black shoe?!_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> _Black shoe?!_



'Surface' sailors, they serve on ships and wear "black shoes." 

Brown Shoe - aviation naval officers and senior enlisted members, due to the dark brown footwear worn in uniform. Brown Shoes may serve on ships too depending on what type of aircraft they work on, MUCH COOLER PEOPLE!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2015)

This was taken last year.. I guess the F-35 already "met" the Typhoon.


----------



## beaupower32 (Apr 17, 2015)

Yep, taken last year. Flight test to see how well the two types linked up. Very successful from what I was told.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 17, 2015)

I'm excited for the -35 to make it's first appearance in Red Flag in three years.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> I'm excited for the -35 to make it's first appearance in Red Flag in three years.



Which exercise? 

Nellis Air Force Base - Flying Operations


----------



## Torch (Apr 17, 2015)

Thats a nice pic, not sure about the looks of it, kind of like a Wildcat among Mustangs but from some front angles it looks pretty cool. Love to know the story about that flight. Are those Spanish Typhies?..


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 17, 2015)

Torch said:


> Thats a nice pic, not sure about the looks of it, kind of like a Wildcat among Mustangs but from some front angles it looks pretty cool. Love to know the story about that flight. Are those Spanish Typhies?..



Nope, those appear to be RAF. If you squint you can see the low-vis RAF roundel and the red and blue on the tail


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This was taken last year.. I guess the F-35 already "met" the Typhoon.



The Typhoons sneaked up on the F-35 and told the guy to go home before he gets hurt.

I will take my coat now.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2015)

Well...while the Typhoons were picking on the F-35, the F-22 snuck up on the Typhoons and snapped this great photo!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Well...while the Typhoons were picking on the F-35, the F-22 snuck up on the Typhoons and snapped this great photo!



My source says it was from the BBMF lanc, note the Typhoons AoA keeping the lanc in formation. The F22 was despatched with a burst of deadly .303 LOL


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2015)

Well, actually, if Karl were telling the story, the photo was taken from an EE Lightning

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2015)

The photo was taken from an Iranian built drone based on the RQ-170


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2015)

Why would the Iranians send up a drone when they have the uber-awesome Qaher-313 world beater?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Why would the Iranians send up a drone when they have the uber-awesome Qaher-313 world beater?



Now THAT's a "contraption."


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Now THAT's a "contraption."


Don't hate on it Joe...not many first rate combat A/C out there that comes with a Kenwood AM/FM cassette deck!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Now THAT's a "contraption."



I love the car stereo installed on the console.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 17, 2015)

Torch said:


> Thats a nice pic, not sure about the looks of it, kind of like a Wildcat among Mustangs but from some front angles it looks pretty cool. Love to know the story about that flight. Are those Spanish Typhies?..



All those shapes and angles, makes it look.....I don't know, fat..
Of the F-22 and the F-35, I'd say that the F-22 was the better looking bird..
Actually had to Google the F-22, couldn't remember what she looked like!  
Have to say, I'm surprised that they didn't gave them canards, as they seem to have been popular in later aircraft designs...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Have to say, I'm surprised that they didn't gave them canards, as they seem to have been popular in later aircraft designs...


So is thrust vectoring..  


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7157QMW9abM_


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> ...Have to say, I'm surprised that they *didn't gave them canards*, as they seem to have been popular in later aircraft designs...


Let's see...
Viggen, Draken, Gripen - what the heck is up with you guys and those dang canards?


----------



## rochie (Apr 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, actually, if Karl were telling the story, the photo was taken from an EE Lightning



Not sure if an EE Frightning could go that slow !


----------



## Glider (Apr 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Let's see...
> Viggen, Draken, Gripen - what the heck is up with you guys and those dang canards?



Maybe they work?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Let's see...
> Viggen, Draken, Gripen - what the heck is up with you guys and those dang canards?



Draken with canards?

I read that some big wig in the US would never consider an A/C with canards....dont know why though.


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 18, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Draken with canards?
> 
> I read that some big wig in the US would never consider an A/C with canards....dont know why though.



*XB-70 sobs in the corner, stopping only to take shots and cry about being cancelled*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Draken with canards?
> 
> I read that some big wig in the US would never consider an A/C with canards....dont know why though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 18, 2015)

Torch said:


> SECNAV: F-35C should be Navy's last manned strike jet



People have been predicting the end of manned jets since the late 1940s. Problem with unmanned aircraft what happens if someone manages to get into the data link with the office or manages to take out the sat nav system with a dirty airburst nuke. Your expensive unmanned aircraft turns into a hole in the ground. The plane with a bag of meat at the controls keeps on flying.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> People have been predicting the end of manned jets since the late 1940s. Problem with unmanned aircraft what happens if someone manages to get into the data link with the office or manages to take out the sat nav system with a dirty airburst nuke. Your expensive unmanned aircraft turns into a hole in the ground. *The plane with a bag of meat at the controls keeps on flying.*


I would imagine the UAV has the same amount of shielding as a manned aircraft to resist EFI/EMP...otherwise the meatbag would be a stain in that afore-mentioned hole...


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> I would imagine the UAV has the same amount of shielding as a manned aircraft to resist EFI/EMP...otherwise the meatbag would be a stain in that afore-mentioned hole...



I dont mean the plane would be affected (it would be but not critically so) but take out the satellite signals with a series of dirty bombs that dumps an aerosol of Heavy Metal junk in the Ionosphere and oops no comms with your UAV and no GPS for the autopilot to use and bye bye several hundred million in currency. A meatbag operated plane can still fly after such an event, unless the meatbag was unfortunate enough to be looking at a nuke when it went off in which case he wont be seeing much for a long time.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Draken with canards?


Yep, the L4 proposal was to have canards ahead of the intakes to enhance maneuverability


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Yep, the L4 proposal was to have canards ahead of the intakes to enhance maneuverability




So it was a dead duck? Any more canard/duck jokes before I put my coat on?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


>



Touche FBJ but arnt they purely to sort out the airflow?

from wiki 

The length of the aircraft presented a flexing problem due to air turbulence at low altitude. To alleviate this, Rockwell included small triangular fin control surfaces or vanes near the nose on the B-1. The B-1's Structural Mode Control System rotates the vanes automatically to counteract turbulence and smooth out the ride.[70]

I believe the Tu 144 had moustache canards to make up for deficiencies in low speed handling (maybe that was pro concord propaganda though)


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 18, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Touche FBJ but arnt they purely to sort out the airflow?
> 
> from wiki
> 
> ...



If you want to be extremely literal, there was one U.S. canard warplane which entered service (other than the mustache canards)
The F-21 aggressor:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2015)

Meanwhile in 2050, we're still trying to save the A-10

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Meanwhile in 2050, we're still trying to save the A-10



A shocking lack of stealth tech. on the 2050 At At


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> If you want to be extremely literal, there was one U.S. canard warplane which entered service (other than the mustache canards)
> The F-21 aggressor:



I believe that is the exception that proves the rule. Apart from the Wright Flier is there a US designed AC with canards from the start not to solve some problem?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Touche FBJ but arnt they purely to sort out the airflow?
> 
> from wiki
> 
> ...



They're still Canards "a small forewing or foreplane is placed ahead of the main wing of a fixed-wing aircraft."


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> If you want to be extremely literal, there was one U.S. canard warplane which entered service (other than the mustache canards)
> The F-21 aggressor:


The F-21 was not a U.S. design, it is the Israeli IAI Kfir that was on loan to the USN.

U.S. designs (modern - as canards were a standard of pioneering aircraft) that incorporated canards would be the XP-55, L-133, XB-70, A-12 (SR-71) original design replaced by chines, F-14 (canards to extend at mainwing full sweep), YF4E, F-15B ACTIVE, F/A-22N (proposed to extend at landing speeds when gear deployed)...

So canards are not unknown or ignored by the U.S. especially since the Wright flyers used canards.


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 18, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I believe that is the exception that proves the rule. Apart from the Wright Flier is there a US designed AC with canards from the start not to solve some problem?



Military I assume. (Because if you don't mean military, than there are about 24-ish. But other than the X-10, F-15 STOL/MTD, the XP-55 Ass-ender, the XB-70, and the X-31 prototypes/demonstators, no.


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> The F-21 was not a U.S. design, it is the Israeli IAI Kfir that was on loan to the USN.
> 
> U.S. designs (modern - as canards were a standard of pioneering aircraft) that incorporated canards would be the XP-55, L-133, XB-70, A-12 (SR-71) original design replaced by chines, F-14 (canards to extend at mainwing full sweep), YF4E, F-15B ACTIVE, F/A-22N (proposed to extend at landing speeds when gear deployed)...
> 
> So canards are not unknown or ignored by the U.S. especially since the Wright flyers used canards.



That's the "if you want to be extremely literal"


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 18, 2015)

oops


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2015)

That is literal: it is not a U.S. design, the Israelis drew the basis of the Kfir from the Mirage 5, powered by a license-built J79...


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They're still Canards "a small forewing or foreplane is placed ahead of the main wing of a fixed-wing aircraft."



FBJ that is technically true but I was referring to AC where the canard is a fundamental part of the original design not to solve a problem discovered after. It may have been anglo french propaganda but I understood that the Tu144 needed canards because the basic design was at fault, certainly concorde didnt have them.

Now stop DUCKING and weaving and dont use the forward sDRAKES on the B-1B to FOWL up the argument EIDER thought better of you, I will just have a GANDER on wiki for more info.


Pushing the limit on duck jokes now lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> That is literal: it is not a U.S. design, the Israelis drew the basis of the Kfir from the Mirage 5, powered by a license-built J79...



The statement which spawned this discussion was "I read somewhere that a military bigwig would never accept a canard a/c." By leasing the Khafir from this Israelis and given to squadrons, it has therefore been accepted into service. There was no statement about it being an *American* acft.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2015)

The Navy (and Marines) operated the Kfir for almost 4 years and returned the aircraft...that's as far as that went.

So technically speaking, they weren't accepted into service. 

And I am not sure who the "military bigwig" was that made that statement. I do know that it was said that a Northrup engineer was once asked where he thought the best location was for canard placement, and his reply was "on the other guy's aircraft".


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2015)

ScreamingLighting said:


> The statement which spawned this discussion was "I read somewhere that a military bigwig would never accept a canard a/c." By leasing the Khafir from this Israelis and given to squadrons, it has therefore been accepted into service. There was no statement about it being an *American* acft.



Oh please. The US took 25 F 21s specifically to train US Navy pilots in US planes against possible enemies. That is no more saying the US adopted a canard winged AC than saying the US operates Hawker Hunters as a present day front line aircraft.

I suppose the time the statement I read was made was before computerised fly by wire came about. I was only curious as to why the Typhoon Raphael and Grippen had canards but US planes arnt. I accept the B1B and the F21 are technically US canard but that want the point I was making.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> And I am not sure who the "military bigwig" was that made that statement. I do know that it was said that a Northrup engineer was once asked where he thought the best location was for canard placement, and his reply was "*on the other guy's aircraft*".



It was the thinking behind that statement I was trying to find out about.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2015)

I'm sure Joe or one of the other guys are far more qualified to answer that than I am, but the ideaology behind the canard, was to offset the lack of a tailplane structure typically found with a deltawing design. The U.S. has traditionally used designs that have tailplanes and only on occasion are canards considered in a design only to augment flight handling under certain circumstances for certain types instead of being part of the main design.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> I'm sure Joe or one of the other guys are far more qualified to answer that than I am, but the ideaology behind the canard, was to offset the lack of a tailplane structure typically found with a deltawing design. The U.S. has traditionally used designs that have tailplanes and only on occasion are canards considered in a design only to augment flight handling under certain circumstances for certain types instead of being part of the main design.



I think you nailed it. In the case of the B-1B, the canards also relieved buffeting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 18, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> The Navy (and Marines) operated the Kfir for almost 4 years and returned the aircraft...that's as far as that went.
> 
> So technically speaking, they weren't accepted into service.
> 
> And I am not sure who the "military bigwig" was that made that statement. I do know that it was said that a Northrup engineer was once asked where he thought the best location was for canard placement, and his reply was "on the other guy's aircraft".


And the FAA leased their Corsairs from the States, they fought, and were destroyed off Australia because the U.K. lacked the means necessary to pay for them. If leasing doesn't count as entering service, then technically those Corsairs were never accepted into service. But as pbehn put it, it's beyond the point.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2015)

Well ok, just for you, we'll say that the F-21 was the only modern American fighter with canards. 

(Never mind that their number was only 25 and not leased but on loan from the Israeli government for evaluation purposes only)


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> That is literal: it is not a U.S. design, the Israelis drew the basis of the Kfir from the Mirage 5, powered by a license-built J79...



I've always thought that the Kfir was a copy of the Mirage III....


----------



## Glider (Apr 19, 2015)

Taking a bit of a chance here, but if the X test aircraft are considered to be part of the USAF, then I give you the X29 which I always thought was a rather good looking aircraft.


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 23, 2015)

Would F/A-35 be a more appropriate designation?
Why was it not?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Would F/A-35 be a more appropriate designation?
> Why was it not?



You're going to have to ask someone deep inside the Pentagon that questions - probably something to do with weapons appropriations and language.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ScreamingLighting (Apr 23, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Would F/A-35 be a more appropriate designation?
> Why was it not?



The F-18 would get really pissed, get hammered, and badmouth its (ex)girlfriend and lose the majority of its money, property, and self-esteem.
The F-35 did it out of mercy.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 24, 2015)

maybe cause some split personality issues?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 24, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> maybe cause some split personality issues?



It's called "schizo." 

In the mean time...

Biden pledges delivery of F-35 stealth jets to Israel | TheHill


----------



## razor1uk (Apr 24, 2015)

I do hope the 35 project goes the way like the F105 did, protracted birth into becoming a completely awe-some system. ..except even with underwing pylons, the 35 can never carry that bombload..
Oh no, I can understand the reasons to tie a rock around your feet for 'exercise purposes', but come on the Israeli's are going for it too ..definatly some crazies there then.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 24, 2015)

razor1uk said:


> I do hope the 35 project goes the way like the F105 did, protracted birth into becoming a completely awe-some system. ..except even with underwing pylons, the 35 can never carry that bombload..
> Oh no, I can understand the reasons to tie a rock around your feet for 'exercise purposes', but come on the Israeli's are going for it too ..definatly some crazies there then.



The F-35 when configured with underwing stores can carry 18,000 pounds of bombs, the F-105 can carry 12,000 pounds but was able to carry 8,000 pounds internally where the F-35 can carry between 2-3000 pounds depending who you talk to. The F-105 was tested with up to 15,000 pounds of ordanance but normally operated in Vietnam with 5000 pounds of bombs plus any missiles. IIRC when the F-105 was fitted with the centerline bomb rack it was not able to cruise and had to contunually use AB to stay airborne.

Although it seems the -105 had a spectacular career, I am told it was a maintenance nightmare. When I first got my A&P license I went to school with Vietnam Vets who worked -105s. They did noy have alot of good things to say about the old bird.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 30, 2015)

Bling ... and how to wear it ..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2015)

Saw that on MSN when logging today, what was it £70.000.000 a pop? 
Anyway, AMRAAM if I remember correctly was Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile, I guess that the ASRAAM is the _short_ range version...
But, what h*ll is JSOW, JASSM, JDAM etc.? 

....and that's one odd looking wing tank!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 30, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Saw that on MSN when logging today, what was it £70.000.000 a pop?



_"The most recently contracted unit costs for Low Rate Initial Production lot 7 (not including the engine) are:


•F-35A: $98 million
•F-35B: $104 million
•F-35C: $116 million


An F-35A purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will be $85 million, which is the equivalent of $75 million in today’s dollars. 

The U.S. Government and F-35 industrial team continue to collaborate to further reduce F-35 costs for future production lots. Since the F-35 program Technical Baseline Review in 2011, the team has studied and successfully implemented numerous affordability measures to drive costs out of the program."_ 

https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost

Although this information is coming from LMCO I believe it to be pretty accurate as the Pentagon and the press would have a field day with any mis-representation of F-35 costs.


----------



## beaupower32 (Apr 30, 2015)

View attachment 291164
View attachment 291165
View attachment 291166
View attachment 291167
View attachment 291168
View attachment 291169
View attachment 291170
View attachment 291171
View attachment 291172
View attachment 291173
View attachment 291174


My plane AF-03 dropping flares. These were just public released yesterday. Enjoy.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Apr 30, 2015)

Thank you, those are great !


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 30, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> But, what h*ll is JSOW, JASSM, JDAM etc.?



JSOW - Joint Stand Off Weapon (air-launched cruise missile)

JASSM - Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (another air-launched cruise missile)

JDAM - Joint Direct Attack Munition (conversion kit to change dumb bombs into smart bombs)


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 30, 2015)

Is it true that technology obtained from Area 51 is being incorporated into the F-35?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 30, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Is it true that technology obtained from Area 51 is being incorporated into the F-35?



Are you talking about alien flying saucer technology or Nazi flying bell technology? 

Technology for the F-35 came from engineers in Palmdale, Fort Worth, and the UK (RR and BAE) along with some other pretty smart but smaller suppliers through out the US and UK. Area 51 was a great place for the final assembly of the U-2, A-12/ SR-71 and F-117A. It was also a great place to operate "acquired" soviet aircraft. I bet you could meet some interesting people and buy some neat souvenirs at the fence line.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 30, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Is it true that technology obtained from Area 51 is being incorporated into the F-35?


Roswell is where all the captured alien technology is hidden, Antarctica is where the Nazis have their secret base and store stuff like their Vril (Vr1, Vr2) and Haunebu (Do-STRA, Erstform) and other "wunderwaffe" technology.

Big difference...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## beaupower32 (May 4, 2015)

View attachment 291555
View attachment 291556


Me and the crew. I'm in the Blue and Yellow shirt. We were bigger at one point, but many people here are leaving and going to Luke. Good crew otherwise. Great plane also, hardly ever comes back with problems.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
8 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 4, 2015)

Its one of those aircraft that are smaller than I expect.

Good luck to you all


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 9, 2015)

This photo courtesy of Syscom illustrates the truth about aircraft evolution ... both technological .. and battlefield tactical. Each of these legacy fighters went through vigorous evaluation (and development) in combat before being declared a winner ... why the F-35 would be the exception to that historical trend confounds me ... .

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 9, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> This photo courtesy of Syscom illustrates the truth about aircraft evolution ... both technological .. and battlefield tactical. *Each of these legacy fighters went through vigorous evaluation (and development) in combat *before being declared a winner ... why the F-35 would be the exception to that historical trend confounds me ... .



The X-35 was evaluated and flown against the X-32 and in a little over a year the X-35 was declared the winner, which led to the F-35 program. Both aircraft were heavily evaluated during design, construction and flight testing. Even as the first hundred F-35 are delivered, it's still being tested, one of the reasons the aircraft costs so much. At the end of the day this aircraft is going to be the most tested (possibly over tested) combat plane ever built.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 9, 2015)

It's tiny!


----------



## GrauGeist (May 9, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> It's tiny!


What were you expecting, a MiG-25?


----------



## Lucky13 (May 9, 2015)

Su-24!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2015)

It seems small...

Some comparisons of other strike aircraft with an internal bomb bay

F-35
Wingspan: 35'
Length: 51'

F-105
Wingspan: 35'
Length: 64'

Blackburn Buccaneer
Wingspan: 44'
Length: 63'

F-117A
Wingspan: 43'
Length: 65'


----------



## Lucky13 (May 10, 2015)

No bl**dy wonder it's stealth, it's not bigger than a gnat!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> No bl**dy wonder it's stealth, it's not bigger than a gnat!



Exaggerating a bit mate? 


Gnat


Length: 28 ft 8 in (8.74 m)
Wingspan: 22 ft 1 in (6.73 m)


----------



## beaupower32 (May 11, 2015)

Looks small, but its bigger than you think.


----------



## pbehn (May 11, 2015)

beaupower32 said:


> Looks small, but its bigger than you think.



Then it should be re named the Tardis.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 11, 2015)

beaupower32 said:


> Looks small, but its bigger than you think.



How to sum up the male ego in one easy sentence!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 11, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> How to sum up the male ego in one easy sentence!



Or crush it:



Lucky13 said:


> It's tiny!


----------



## Lucky13 (May 11, 2015)

Or....aaaaawwwww, it's so cute!


----------



## buffnut453 (May 11, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Or....aaaaawwwww, it's so cute!



Which are words that would never be applied to the X-32B competitor...not even by its mother!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## beaupower32 (May 11, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> Which are words that would never be applied to the X-32B competitor...not even by its mother!
> 
> View attachment 292153



I can't believe that this was even seriously considered.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 11, 2015)

All that I could come up with, was....what the f*ck!?


----------



## pbehn (May 11, 2015)

Thats the happiest research plane I ever saw.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2015)

When the X-35 first arrived at EDW I was told it was referred to a "Minnie-Me."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2015)

Picture 1114 « The 13 Ugliest Airplanes


----------



## Glider (May 11, 2015)

I saw the mock up at Farnborough before the final decision was made and instantly knew the Boing didn't stand a chance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (May 11, 2015)

Glider said:


> I saw the mock up at Farnborough before the final decision was made and instantly knew the Boing didn't stand a chance.



Yeah...the old adage "If it looks right, it flies right". I'm sure the X-32 was a wonderful aircraft but combat effectiveness diminishes markedly if the pilot has to wear a paper bag over his/her head just to avoid the embarrassment of being seen in such a....well, let's just say it's a plane with a really nice personality!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (May 11, 2015)

It must of had a French designer

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## razor1uk (May 12, 2015)

It does seem that the realisation of the 35 becoming a service reality is quickening and getting closer to being acceptable, even if you ignore the 'polar opposites' of reporting by so called journalist of/from Russia or Murdoch related BS.

Calling the Boeing X plane Minni Mi, is disrespectful to Belgium and the actor (even if the bird in question is fugly enough to quell any pilot or partial porno stars 'eagerness') and to Austin Powers; Austin Powers is not to be confussed with..

A; anthing Montego, Meastro or Metro related (Brit cars).
B; some unafiliated Texas political, religeous or (jokingly?) more to likely to be a Texan dating group for rich supremasists.
C; the $6 M man, or his normal brother (I am to young to remember the characters full name, just that its similar sounding).

But then again, when was the last time Being built a manned military aircraft that was smaller than a Mitchell B-25 ...perhaps the Peashooter?; Boeing have largely since WW2 only made big aircraft, and done that well, I'm sure if the fugly Boeing X-plane was made longer and a bit wider, her looks would smoothen out and become more peasant to the aerodynamical eye.
As it was, even that protoytpe has such bad design looks (hence aerodynamics) and other issues, they had to 'chop' (unbolt) parts off it to try and get it too fly in V(TOL) mode, and then with severe hot gas re-ingestion.
In my mind, the only good thing about that fugly Boeing was that it did keep a 3 poster style engine vs. the 35's single poster with fan ..does the 35 have controllable 'puffer ducts' for directional control/stability when in Vertical mode?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2015)

razor1uk said:


> Calling the Boeing X plane Minni Mi, is disrespectful to Belgium and the actor (even if the bird in question is fugly enough to quell any pilot or partial porno stars 'eagerness') and to Austin Powers; Austin Powers is not to be confussed with..
> 
> A; anthing Montego, Meastro or Metro related (Brit cars).
> B; some unafiliated Texas political, religeous or (jokingly?) more to likely to be a Texan dating group for rich supremasists.
> C; the $6 M man, or his normal brother (I am to young to remember the characters full name, just that its similar sounding).



Actually it was the X-35 aka "minnie-me." I guess there were folks comparing it to the F-22


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 13, 2015)

[Cpl. Unique Roberts, USMC]

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (May 27, 2015)

Marine F-35B conducts first operational testing at sea

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 27, 2015)

Nice article but I do despair at some of the new words invented by people who are paid huge sums of money but add nothing to anything. 

Example
_The multi-role aircraft, which sports electronic warfare, ISR and kinetic attack capabilities_

Who the hell invented the word *Kinetic attack capabilities* and what were they paid. I want their job


----------



## GrauGeist (May 27, 2015)

Sadly enough, you'll see the retronym of "Kinetic Warfare" pop up more often these days.

Basiclly, by the pure defenition of "Kinetic Warfare", any warplane that has ever existed has had "Kinetic Attack Capabilities"...


----------



## buffnut453 (May 27, 2015)

Not sure I agree. The phrase kinetic attack was coined to differentiate from other (yep, you guessed it...non-kinetic) forms of attack. For example, offensive jamming and cyber are both attack mechanisms but do not involve the use of traditional explosive ordnance. Kinetic attack may seem like useless "new speak" but it does have meaning when you're coordinating a joint targeting campaign that must, by definition, factor in all aspects of attack.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 28, 2015)

Is this gonna be, another one them there words, that's so popular today, used for anything and everything.....kintetic and non kinetic bacon?  
Much like with shampoo and whatnot bathroom products, that has the lastest in 'blah blah' and 'whatyacallit' _technology?_

I think it's just some people, who has too much time on their hands and too big a paycheck, much like those that invent new political correctness stuff, in other words....people that can't hold down a _real_ graft!


----------



## razor1uk (May 28, 2015)

It seems another genration of peoples along with the advent of home PC's and the internet state allowed phishing etc, are-going-to/might be trying to get rid of guns from aircraft again in the future by using the 'kinetic' tag - and 'directed energy' weapons have yet to be perfected enough to be used in a replacement manner that are smaller than a converted 747 - although by now they might have made enough tech' R&D to get it into a smaller 767 by now, but thats still not enough to be light combat vehicle or man portablity yet apart from using ruby or green lasers to try and flash/disturb/distract/blind sensors.

I did once accidentally manage to drill a short 'hole' in my little finger once with a 1KW Lumonics YAG laser, that I was inccorectly supporting the parts being cut from the stainless sheet, but the focal range with helium gas shield (not a turbulent mixture of gases moisture particlates that is atmo') was from the lense to the part about 75mm - the hole in my finger was out of focus and only about 0.75mm across and 1mm deep being say from 76mm focal (the distance to the final focusing lense).



buffnut453 said:


> Hope your careless use of lasers didn't damage the dilithium crystals!



Nope it was my lil' finger, not my 'crystals' it got lol, the little 'white' hard scab, with a hair width sized hole through its centre, naturally dissapeared/fell off/out after a few months. That 'event/accident' was so minor it didn't even go in the companies accident book, and it happened in late 2000/early 2001, I can't even remember which lil' finger it was, nor find any noticable skin shading or suggested damage to my finger print(s) to work out if it was the left or right one - looks closely at them both, ...thinks it might have been my left as I'm left handed.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 28, 2015)

Hope your careless use of lasers didn't damage the dilithium crystals!


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2015)

it seems to be flying

Video: UK and US military test F-35B Lightning II jets at sea - Telegraph


----------



## razor1uk (May 29, 2015)

I like the way in that small clipet of non-info, and that in the pictural comment, that they call it a fast jet (so not a fighter, bomber, attacker, strike or recon or R&D prod' phase jet then - I'm being pedantic), naturally nowerdays all jets are fast; faster than turboprops, certainly most of the time at least; perhaps things are going slower than usual at the moment?, testing on carriers will naturally include some slow speeds during *VL* portion of STOVL test so...


----------



## Glider (May 29, 2015)

razor1uk said:


> I like the way in that small clipet of non-info, and that in the pictural comment, that they call it a fast jet (so not a fighter, bomber, attacker, strike or recon or R&D prod' phase jet then - I'm being pedantic), naturally nowerdays all jets are fast; faster than turboprops, certainly most of the time at least; perhaps things are going slower than usual at the moment?, testing on carriers will naturally include some slow speeds during *VL* portion of STOVL test so...


Personally what I got out of the short (non- info clip?) was how confident, solid and positive the F35 is when landing on a carrier. Anyone who has seen a traditional Harrier landing on a carrier will immediately see the difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jun 8, 2015)

What last years engine fire looked like.http://theaviationist.com/2015/06/06/f-35-engine-fire-images/

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2015)

I just got back from a trip to California. One of my LMCO buddies told me that the Marine sea trials went very well. He heard through the grapvine one aircraft had a minor maintence issue that was quickly fixed.

Marine F-35 pilots conduct 'dogfights' during sea trials

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jul 1, 2015)

And the discussions continue..Pentagon says damning report of F-35 troubles ‘doesn’t tell the entire story’ - The Washington Post,,,,,,,,,,,,,http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/01/f-35s-role-in-green-flag/


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2015)

Once again more BS. The aircraft is a strike aircraft, if you fight VR you've wasted 90 million dollars. No one explains this or that fact that this test was done to place the F-35 at an absolute disadvantage. Do the same test BVR in IMC condition and see what happens.


----------



## Torch (Jul 1, 2015)

That original f16 vs F35 was against basically a plane Jane F35 without it's full potential incorporated, Interesting discussion going on over on the SigForum, amazing how many people literally hate the F35,so much of it based on false hoods.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Once again more BS. The aircraft is a strike aircraft, if you fight VR you've wasted 90 million dollars. No one explains this or that fact that this test was done to place the F-35 at an absolute disadvantage. Do the same test BVR in IMC condition and see what happens.



Can someone explain what is "visual range"? If an enemy is headed in your direction at mach 2 what does it mean?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2015)

I've been seeing this regurgitated all over FB lately and have gotten into more than a few heated discussions.

I challenged those people to name me ONE piece of deceloped hardware that didn't get into at least a cost over-run, was behind projected delivery/service date or became embroiled in a congressional debate (mostly between bickering asshats who were either defending or attacking personal interests).

Everyone still "ohhs and ahhs" at the F-16. There is a PRIME example of congressional poop-storm, costly delays, public outcry (the same old line: we still have top of the line stuff...we don't need the F-16) and so on.

And then, in this article, I see this:
"And to add insult to injury, the JSF flier discovered he couldn’t even comfortably move his head inside the radar-evading jet’s cramped cockpit. “The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.” *That allowed the F-16 to sneak up on him*."

Sooo...after all these years of combat aircraft getting cutting edge electronics, the F-35 has reverted to WWII combat tactics instead of having the most sophisticated electronics suite on earth to tell him exactly where the F-16 is?

What a load of bullsh!t.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 2, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> That allowed the F-16 to sneak up on him.



I imagine that was just the reporter not fully grasping what he was reading. I interpreted that as the F-35 pilot losing sight of the F-16 during the actual scrap.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Can someone explain what is "visual range"? If an enemy is headed in your direction at mach 2 what does it mean?



you can see them, that simple


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 2, 2015)

Greyman said:


> I imagine that was just the reporter not fully grasping what he was reading. I interpreted that as the F-35 pilot losing sight of the F-16 during the actual scrap.


Sure, in a close-quarter engagement, even an F-18 or MiG-29 (or any aircraft, for that matter) will have blind spots such as low 12, low 6 and virtually any position down and away.

While readin that article, I also got the impression that the F-16 pilot had difficulty spotting the F-35 initially.

However, if you've allowed an aggressor to get in that close, in spite of all your tools available, you're not doing your job right...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 3, 2015)

Interesting read (english translation at bottom)
Â«DogfightÂ» og F-35 (Dogfighting and the F-35) |


*EDIT:* this one is also interesting. 
F-16 Vs. F-35 In A Dogfight: JPO, Air Force Weigh In On Who’s Best Â« Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

This bit make me think, heh ...

_"I’ve said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not 'fighters'—they are 'sensor-shooters' optimized for different threat regimes, and can perform the roles of "F," "B," "A," "RC," "E," "EA," and AWACS aircraft of the past."_


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2015)

In defence of the F-35: Why future air combat will be different - Telegraph


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> you can see them, that simple



An A380 is in visual range of an F35 long before vice versa. My question was is there a distance that in military terms is regarded as "beyond visual range". Spotting an airliner with 4 contrails can be done for as far as the horizon reaches. Spotting a plane headed towards you with no conrail or heavy exhaust is much much more difficult.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 3, 2015)

Due to weather conditions visual range is also something that can change minute to minute, especially when we're talking about the speeds of modern jets.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 3, 2015)

pbehn said:


> ...Spotting a plane headed towards you with no conrail or heavy exhaust is much much more difficult.


The handy little display and bright, shiny indicator lights will tell you what it is and where it is long before the human eye can discern the dark dot. And the subsequent AAM launch will keep it that way...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2015)

pbehn said:


> An A380 is in visual range of an F35 long before vice versa. My question was is there a distance that in military terms is regarded as "beyond visual range". Spotting an airliner with 4 contrails can be done for as far as the horizon reaches. Spotting a plane headed towards you with no conrail or heavy exhaust is much much more difficult.


 It's being able to spot the aircraft be it 1 mile or 10. There is no reason to try to start a dogfight 'visual' when you could track and kill an enemy 100 miles away


----------



## Glider (Jul 5, 2015)

A personal view, but to me the biggest danger to the F35 in combat isn't the enemy but Politian's. Everyone agrees that the big advantage the F35 has is its ability to identify and target the enemy before it is identified by the enemy. 
The danger is that the rules of engagement as defined by our illustrious leaders, will not allow BVR combat

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 5, 2015)

Would the F-16 incident be this then....?

F-35 fighter makers leap to its defence after it loses dogfight to 1970s jet


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 6, 2015)

Glider said:


> The danger is that the rules of engagement as defined by our illustrious leaders, will not allow BVR combat



Given the improvements in operational data sharing (eg between AWACS and fighters as well as fighter-to-fighter) and massive leaps in radar technology since the LBJ era, coupled with the flaws inherent in a visual engagement (the Blackhawk shootdowns over Northern Iraq anyone?), I think the likelihood of ROE limiting engagements to the visual domain as being highly unlikely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 6, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> Given the improvements in operational data sharing (eg between AWACS and fighters as well as fighter-to-fighter) and massive leaps in radar technology since the LBJ era, coupled with the flaws inherent in a visual engagement (the Blackhawk shootdowns over Northern Iraq anyone?), I think the likelihood of ROE limiting engagements to the visual domain as being highly unlikely.



I certainly could be wrong but I don't believe that BVR combat wasn't/isn't allowed over Iraq or Syria.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 6, 2015)

BVR combat certainly was allowed over Iraq during the Gulf War. After the Gulf War, there wasn't an air-to-air threat.

We also need to consider that with modern sensors BVR is a very, VERY long way away. According to one blog, the SniperXR pod, predecessor to the F-35's EOTS, can provide visual ID at 40+nm. That's pretty damned good...and no need to get into a close-in knife fight. Again, it's the sensor fusion capability of the F-35 that truly makes it remarkable. The stealth piece really is there to stop it getting taken out at long range or to provide greater surprise for specific ground attack ops.


----------



## Torch (Jul 8, 2015)

Another good read.Behind That F-35 Air Combat Report | Ares

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jul 9, 2015)

Australia Abandons Proposal To Order F35B | Defense content from Aviation Week

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 20, 2015)



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jul 22, 2015)

U.S. Marines Complete F-35B Readiness Inspection | Defense content from Aviation Week

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 2, 2015)

Looks like they're all ready to go...

Marines Make Fighter History, Declare F-35B Combat Capable | Defense News: Aviation International News

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Aug 7, 2015)

http://theaviationist.com/2015/08/07/itaf-kc-767-first-international-f35-aar/

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Aug 13, 2015)

And the ups and downs continues, got to be one of the most controversial planes ever...http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/08/11/report-f35-inferior-to-older-us-foreign-fighters.html.......think the French are biased a tad towards the Rafael?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2015)

If Bill French is an authority on modern jet aircraft then Jeffery Dahmer is a chef.

Bill French - National Security Network

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 13, 2015)

I would put very little stock in what Bill French says, especially if his "think tank" of experts assume that China has the MiG-29, which they don't. The Su-27 exported to China in the early 90's and was a special export version (Su-27SK/UBK) and the Su-30 (Su-30MMK) which the Shenyan J-11 was developed from and either is a far cry from the Su-27 in current use by Russia.

And once again, the "leaked report" of the F-16 versus F-35 gets tossed into the article, but (once again) fails to mention that the F-35 in that "leaked report" was AF-2, a pre-production, trials and test F-35 airframe, devoid of advanced electronics, weapons suite or the component helmet. So yes, the F-16 cerainly had the advantage in that instance.

So all that article does, is proves how lopsided journalism can be as well as show just how big of a tool Bill is. It also goes a long way in demonstrating how little his "think tank" actually knows...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 13, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If Bill French is an authority on modern jet aircraft then Jeffery Dahmer is a chef.
> 
> Bill French - National Security Network



LMAO at that comment

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 16, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If Bill French is an authority on modern jet aircraft then Jeffery Dahmer is a chef.



...are you trying to tell me, that he _wasn't!?_


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 16, 2015)

Greyman said:


> View attachment 297058



Wonder what will happen when the door is stuck in the closed position, will they fire anyway, or...?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 16, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Wonder what will happen when the door is stuck in the closed position, will they fire anyway, or...?



Probably a master caution light will illuminate telling the pilot the door will not open. At the same time this will probably open a circuit not allowing the gun to fire...


----------



## Greyman (Aug 17, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Probably a master caution light will illuminate telling the pilot the door will not open. At the same time this will probably open a circuit not allowing the gun to fire...



No probably about it, haven't you been reading all of these Defense Blogs? Upon gun port malfunction the aircraft will surely self destruct.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 17, 2015)

Thye ammunition might also not arm at that range???? Just blow a hole through the gun port...

For ships they had this problem as far back as the 16th century. As far as I know there is no record of any ship lost because it had to blow out its port covers......


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2015)

parsifal said:


> Thye ammunition might also not arm at that range???? Just blow a hole through the gun port...
> 
> For ships they had this problem as far back as the 16th century. As far as I know there is no record of any ship lost because it had to blow out its port covers......


But facts (and common sense) ruin a good story!

As long as these websites can toss out negatives about the F-35, they'll be able milk the visitor traffic for all the ad exposure and hit counts they can get.

A large share of these websites just cut-n-paste from other sites (often times verbatim without credit) and actually have no clue as to what an F-35 is...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 17, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> A large share of these websites just cut-n-paste from other sites (often times verbatim without credit) and actually have no clue as to what an F-35 is...



And still quote the 2008 Rand report!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And still quote the 2008 Rand report!


while presenting it as breaking news!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 26, 2015)

So, has the group reached a consensus?
Is the F-35 a winner or a loser?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 26, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> So, has the group reached a consensus?
> Is the F-35 a winner or a loser?



It was a winner on it's first flight


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 26, 2015)

Just imagine the amount of bacon, one can buy for one bird!




Just saying....


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 26, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Just imagine the amount of bacon, one can buy for one bird!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Prior to 7.12.1941, were "they" saying the same about the P-38 and P-47?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Aug 29, 2015)

To Prove Its CAS Capabilities, F-35 To Face Off Against A-10


----------



## parsifal (Aug 31, 2015)

If we don't have a major war, or, if we have a war and we don't lose, its a winner


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 31, 2015)

Torch said:


> To Prove Its CAS Capabilities, F-35 To Face Off Against A-10



Got to love some of the quotes in that article. For example:
_
The single-mission A-10 is perfectly suited for the CAS mission in non-contested airspace, for instance in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia..."Can [the F-35] do close air support? Sure," Aboulafia said. "But there's nothing like an A-10 in a world where nothing shoots back."_

I thought the whole point of the A-10 was to be survivable when people are shooting back. Now it's being lauded as a great platform in uncontested airspace? 

Things that make you go "Hmmm?"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> Got to love some of the quotes in that article. For example:
> _
> The single-mission A-10 is perfectly suited for the CAS mission in non-contested airspace, for instance in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia..."Can [the F-35] do close air support? Sure," Aboulafia said. "But there's nothing like an A-10 in a world where nothing shoots back."_
> 
> ...



It's funny - years ago there was a flyoff between the A-7 and the A-10. LTV was offering an enhanced version of the A-7 for the CAS role. One of the selling points of the A-10 was its ability to take ground fire and keep flying. One of the proponents of the A-7 was saying he'd rather fly in an aircraft that's fast enough so it won't take ground fire at all. If one understands all the moving parts of an aircraft, the fluids and electrical wiring that makes the thing work, it's obvious you 'd rather not have bullets hitting your aircraft period, no matter how much armor is under, inside or around you!


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 31, 2015)

Nothing new under the sun, eh?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 31, 2015)

In the first Gulf War, the A-10 flew well over 8,000 sorties for the loss of 7 aircraft in an environment that could be considered actively contested airspace - 4 aircraft were downed by SAMs and 3 were written off after returning to base damaged beyond repair. This doesn't include the dozens of A-10 aircraft that suffered damage to a degree that would have downed any other aircraft(except for, perhaps, a P-47), and returned safely to be repaired and put back into service.

So I'm not sure where Richard Aboulafia is going with his statement...


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 31, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> So I'm not sure where Richard Aboulafia is going with his statement...



Me neither...very strange. It seems as soon as the term "F-35" is included in an internet article, everyone suddenly jumps through the looking glass into a parallel universe where talking bollox is par for the course (or maybe it's just me!).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 31, 2015)

A good little read:

Gen. Horner



> ... the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.


----------



## Glider (Sep 1, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> In the first Gulf War, the A-10 flew well over 8,000 sorties for the loss of 7 aircraft in an environment that could be considered actively contested airspace - 4 aircraft were downed by SAMs and 3 were written off after returning to base damaged beyond repair. This doesn't include the dozens of A-10 aircraft that suffered damage to a degree that would have downed any other aircraft(except for, perhaps, a P-47), and returned safely to be repaired and put back into service.
> 
> So I'm not sure where Richard Aboulafia is going with his statement...



I wouldn't have described the areas the A10 operated in as contested as there wasn't any danger of fighters intercepting them. Also the majority of the AA weapon systems would have been under local control as the majority of the long range radars that close to the front line would have been knocked out.

If enemy fighters had been a threat you would have seen a marked reduction in the A10 activity or a marked increase in the losses


----------



## Greyman (Sep 3, 2015)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJhTDzeMYkI_

'_The first phase of F-35 gun testing started June 9, when initial shots were fired from the ground at the base’s gun harmonizing range. Over the next few months, the amount of munitions fired gradually increased until the 181 rounds were fired August 14._'


----------



## Token (Sep 4, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> I thought the whole point of the A-10 was to be survivable when people are shooting back. Now it's being lauded as a great platform in uncontested airspace?



Combat airspace comes in three basic flavors, permissive airspace, contested airspace, and denied-access airspace. The combat airspace that the A-10 has performed in for the past 20+ years has been mostly permissive and occasionally contested. It has faced no electronic warfare, no real communications jamming, no opposing aircraft, and occasionally moderate levels of antiaircraft (surface guns and missiles). Of course it could only be called moderate if you are not the one being shot at, if it is you in the seat any level is heavy   I add that in part because I do not want to make light of the activities of the A-10 community, those men and women have my utmost respect for the job they do and the aircraft has performed admirably. I have often interacted with the community and I do not mean to downplay their activities in the least.

Aircraft operating in contested airspace face three threats, aircraft (fighters), anti-aircraft (surface guns and missiles), and electronic (jamming). The only one of these three threats the A-10 has dealt with since 1991 has been the anti-aircraft aspect. While Iraq did indeed have one of the largest integrated air defense networks at one time, the A-10 did not, in general, have to deal with that. Other assets have been, rightly, tasked with shattering the IADS and any airborne threats. This results in the A-10’s having mostly had to deal with generally uncoordinated individual unit level defenses, sometimes well equipped, and other times piecemeal.

The A-10 was originally designed to survive in the contested airspace over the forward edge of the battlespace during a Cold War modeled engagement. It was expected to face high levels of anti-aircraft fire from guns and missile. ZPU, ZSU, and MANPADs being supplied and used by front line, well equipped, symmetrical fighting forces. It was expected to face significant electronic warfare activities, including comm and radar jamming and deception. It could be argued that since 1991 the A-10 has faced a few days of such activity, others would argue it has never faced the level of opposition it was envisioned to encounter in a battle in Europe.

The F-35 will be more survivable than the A-10 in many ways. While it certainly will not be mechanically more robust, in an integrated and strongly contested or denied-access environment it will have advantages over the A-10. In a strongly contested or even denied-access combat environment the F-35 will carry out missions, including CAS, that the A-10 could have no hope of completing.

T!


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 4, 2015)

Glider said:


> I wouldn't have described the areas the A10 operated in as contested as there wasn't any danger of fighters intercepting them. Also the majority of the AA weapon systems would have been under local control as the majority of the long range radars that close to the front line would have been knocked out.
> 
> If enemy fighters had been a threat you would have seen a marked reduction in the A10 activity or a marked increase in the losses


However, like any ground attack aircraft, it requires air superiority to conduct it's missions un-molested.

This has been the case since the Hs123, Ju87, SBD, IL-2, A-36, A-1 and so on...

Even the F-35, operating in a ground attack mode, will be at risk from a hostile bounce if it doesn't have top-cover. This is a basic rule of aerial warfare - if you're down low, your 6 is waving a big red flag at the bad guys above.

In the opening weeks of Desert Storm, the A-10 did operate in a heavy AA environment that did containan enemy aircraft, both fixed and rotory. None the less, the A-10 was operating in areas secured by with fighter assets and once the threat of enemy aircraft was eliminated (the Iraqi airforce ceased to exist within 72 hours), the A-10 gradually started to operate without direct cover.

It should be pointed out, though, that between 2 February and 27 February 1991, 6 A-10s were downed by Iraqi SAM hits. So while the Iraqi airforce didn't really have much of an impact (an Iraqi MiG-25 downed a F-18 on 17 January), the 23mm and SAM defenses remained a very real and dangerous threat.


----------



## Token (Sep 5, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> However, like any ground attack aircraft, it requires air superiority to conduct it's missions un-molested.
> 
> This has been the case since the Hs123, Ju87, SBD, IL-2, A-36, A-1 and so on...



Different horses for different courses. Warfare is not one aircraft doing a job extremely well, but rather a team working towards the goal. Aircraft doing CAS have to be protected from enemy fighters that might prey on them. Air superiority may not absolutely be required, but at least some measure of control of the airspace and an ability to warn the CAS aircraft of potential defensive fighters has to exist. The A-10 has been lucky enough to have never been used operationally in an environment where fighters might interfere with its tasking. Sure, in Desert Storm and in Iraqi Freedom there were a few days when enemy air were active, but by and large they never came close to most CAS aircraft. Even at its worst the airspace in Iraq was much more secure than was the planned operational environment in a European fight.

Certainly, in symmetrical warfare the A-10 would have to operate with the threat of enemy air present much of the time. Fighters would have to try and keep the enemy off the strikers, but the situation would be much more fluid.



GrauGeist said:


> Even the F-35, operating in a ground attack mode, will be at risk from a hostile bounce if it doesn't have top-cover. This is a basic rule of aerial warfare - if you're down low, your 6 is waving a big red flag at the bad guys above.



And this is where the lines blur a bit. The F-35 will be providing both cover and doing CAS, although typically differently configured aircraft, of course. Still, even in CAS configuration the F-35 retains some ability to defend itself from airborne threats, something many past CAS specific aircraft did not have.

Of course, this is not really new. F-18's (and other platforms) have been doing this for some time. The strike package can consist of similar / like aircraft configured for both CAS and also for FastCAP, FORCAP, CAP/Strike, and Strike/CAP.



GrauGeist said:


> In the opening weeks of Desert Storm, the A-10 did operate in a heavy AA environment that did containan enemy aircraft, both fixed and rotory. None the less, the A-10 was operating in areas secured by with fighter assets and once the threat of enemy aircraft was eliminated (the Iraqi airforce ceased to exist within 72 hours), the A-10 gradually started to operate without direct cover.
> 
> It should be pointed out, though, that between 2 February and 27 February 1991, 6 A-10s were downed by Iraqi SAM hits. So while the Iraqi airforce didn't really have much of an impact (an Iraqi MiG-25 downed a F-18 on 17 January), the 23mm and SAM defenses remained a very real and dangerous threat.



As I said in my other post, the Iraqi air defense network was one of the densest in the World at the time. In the first 24 hours of the fight the C2 aspect of that network went down the drain. and all of those defending resources became stand alone nodes, still deadly but much less affective.

6 ... 4 .... whatever the count was (If I remember right 2 of the 6 aircraft made it back to KKMC, although they were then written off). All 6 of those were hit by IR guided SAMs. Several other A-10s not in that count of 6 shoot downs were also hit and damaged by IR SAMs. This caused a rethink of some important aspects of combat, and a rather detailed report that showed that the vast majority of US losses since the end of Vietnam were either to Mk 1 Mod 0 eyeball guided weapons or to IR weapons. Caused quite a stir for a while, and also caused some scrutiny of how defensive systems were tested.

T!


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 5, 2015)

Token said:


> Different horses for different courses. Warfare is not one aircraft doing a job extremely well, but rather a team working towards the goal. Aircraft doing CAS have to be protected from enemy fighters that might prey on them. Air superiority may not absolutely be required, but at least some measure of control of the airspace and an ability to warn the CAS aircraft of potential defensive fighters has to exist. The A-10 has been lucky enough to have never been used operationally in an environment where fighters might interfere with its tasking. Sure, in Desert Storm and in Iraqi Freedom there were a few days when enemy air were active, but by and large they never came close to most CAS aircraft. Even at its worst the airspace in Iraq was much more secure than was the planned operational environment in a European fight.


Like I said, if you don't own the sky, you're ass is in a sling...

All the aircraft I mentioned excelled in ground attack but if the big blue above was not secured, they were dead meat.

The same goes for ANY aircraft that is down low...I don't care if it's a Fokker DR.1 or an F-35. An enemy that has altitude, has the advantage.

Even the P-47s scouring the French countryside were at risk by a bounce from Fw190A-8s...no matter how badass you are, climbing up to engage puts you at a disadvantage.

The A-10 was obviously designed to operate in an east-west (cold war) style environment and is heavily armored and possesses a full ECM suite, but will still rely heavily on top-cover for survival. ANY dedicated ground attack aircraft will need this, as I had mentioned - doesn't matter if it's WWI or WWIII.

As far as losses for Desert Storm:
February 2 – A-10A (SN 80-0248) Ground fire: Igla-1 (SA-16) SAM - Cpt. R. Storr captured.
February 5 - A-10A (SN 78-0722) AAA ground fire: SA-13 SAM - Lt. R. Sweet captured.
February 15 – A-10A (SN 79-0130) Hit by ground fire: SA-13 SAM - Cpt. S. Phyllis KIA.
February 19 – OA-10A (SN 76-0543) Downed by Strela-1 (SA-9) SAM - Lt Col. J. Fox POW.
February 22 – A-10A (SN 79-0181) Struck by SAM - Cpt Biley returned to KKMC FOL1. Airframe stricken.
February 27 – OA-10A (Serial Number : 77-0197) Struck by SAM - Lt. P. Olson returned to KKMC FOL. Crashed on landing, killing pilot.

Aside from the A-10s listed, there were 18 other U.S. aircraft downed by Surface to Air defenses in the same span of time (17 January to 27 February) not including other coalition losses. Had the Iraqi airforce followed Soviet training/doctrine and utilized it's Soviet and French air assets as trained, the U.S./coalition losses could have been much greater.


----------



## Greyman (Sep 5, 2015)

I've read in a couple of places that two A-10s were lost on the 15th, any data there?


----------



## Token (Sep 5, 2015)

Greyman said:


> I've read in a couple of places that two A-10s were lost on the 15th, any data there?




There has been some erroneous reporting on the Internet (say it ain't so...).

GrauGeist's list shows 78-0722 being shot down on Feb 5, and 79-0130 being shot down on Feb 15. This is repeated in many sources, both online and in print. However these two aircraft were shot down the same day, Feb 15.

There is also confusion online as to which aircraft was associated with which pilot. My recollection was that 79-0130, and not 78-0722, was piloted by Lt. Sweet. His aircraft was hit by the SAM and he ejected. Cpt Phillis was in 78-0722 and defending Lt Sweet on the ground when -0722 was hit by a SAM and Cpt Phillis killed.

T!


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 5, 2015)

Did any A-10's return on one engine?


----------



## Token (Sep 5, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Like I said, if you don't own the sky, you're ass is in a sling...



Yeah, we are saying the same thing, just using different descriptors.



GrauGeist said:


> The A-10 was obviously designed to operate in an east-west (cold war) style environment and is heavily armored and possesses a full ECM suite, but will still rely heavily on top-cover for survival.



Of interest specifically to the A-10 losses. All of the A-10 losses you list were either confirmed or believed to be IR SAMs. You mention the aircraft having a full ECM suite. It had a fair RF countermeasures suite, but it had NO automated IRCM and no IR MWS (Missile Warning System). It's total defense with regard to IR SAMs relied on automated, timed, flare dispenses during a run (meaning it just kicked out flares at certain intervals during a run, regardless of threat presence) or the pilot had to detect the launch (either visually or be warned by someone else who saw it visually) and manually initiate defenses.

It was not until after the start of Iraqi Freedom that an emergency program was initiated to outfit the A-10 with an IRMWS. The program took 200 days to go from concept to testing, and the results were an AN/AAR-47 based solution that was available in kit form to retrofit all A-10's in the inventory.



GrauGeist said:


> Aside from the A-10s listed, there were 18 other U.S. aircraft downed by Surface to Air defenses in the same span of time (17 January to 27 February) not including other coalition losses. Had the Iraqi airforce followed Soviet training/doctrine and utilized it's Soviet and French air assets as trained, the U.S./coalition losses could have been much greater.



Early strikes on the C2 nodes insured that even if the Iraqi's had wanted to follow doctrine it was not going to succeed. This doctrine was something that the US was ready to face, and the less than perfectly executed Iraqi implementation of it simplified the task.

T!


----------



## Token (Sep 5, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Did any A-10's return on one engine?



Going to do something I don't like to do here, rely on hear-say without documentation to back it up.

I don't have any hard facts on if any did or did not return on one engine. However I have talked with folks who were there about a few instances when this did happen.

One of the Battle Creek A-10's, ( internet search would suggest 80-0258 ), was hit by a MANPAD and the starboard engine badly damaged. I understand the engine was still turning but making very little power after the hit.

81-0967 supposedly took similar damage in Kosovo, but I have heard no details. I have seen the pictures.

I was told that an unidentified A-10 completely lost the port nacelle to a SAM hit, but I have never found pictures or data to back it up.

T!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2015)

I work with several former A-10 drivers and many of them have spoken about losing an engine either due to ground fire or mechanical failure while deployed in Iraq/ Afghanistan. From what I understand the aircraft flies well on one engine.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 5, 2015)

Much obliged gentlemen!


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 6, 2015)

Token said:


> Of interest specifically to the A-10 losses. All of the A-10 losses you list were either confirmed or believed to be IR SAMs. You mention the aircraft having a full ECM suite. It had a fair RF countermeasures suite, but it had NO automated IRCM and no IR MWS (Missile Warning System). It's total defense with regard to IR SAMs relied on automated, timed, flare dispenses during a run (meaning it just kicked out flares at certain intervals during a run, regardless of threat presence) or the pilot had to detect the launch (either visually or be warned by someone else who saw it visually) and manually initiate defenses.
> 
> It was not until after the start of Iraqi Freedom that an emergency program was initiated to outfit the A-10 with an IRMWS. The program took 200 days to go from concept to testing, and the results were an AN/AAR-47 based solution that was available in kit form to retrofit all A-10's in the inventory.T!



So, after supplying the Mujahideen in the Soviet–Afghan War with Stingers, the US wasn't prepared for this type of weapon to be used against the A-10?!
Ug.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> So, after supplying the Mujahideen in the Soviet–Afghan War with Stingers, the US wasn't prepared for this type of weapon to be used against the A-10?!
> Ug.



Hindsight is 20-20. How could one predict an ally in 1988 would turn agaiinst us in 2001?


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 6, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hindsight is 20-20. How could one predict an ally in 1988 would turn agaiinst us in 2001?



It looks like issues were already occurring and anticipated:
In 1988, the last Stingers were supplied after increasing reports of fighters selling them to Iran.
In 1990, Operation MIAS (Missing in Action Stingers) was launched.
In 1993, the CIA approached Congress noting that they required an additional $55 million to buy back the weapons, noting that a failure to secure the missiles could result in attacks against American civil aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Soviet_War_in_Afghanistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_MIAS


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> It looks like issues were already occurring and anticipated:
> In 1988, the last Stingers were supplied after increasing reports of fighters selling them to Iran.
> In 1990, Operation MIAS (Missing in Action Stingers) was launched.
> In 1993, the CIA approached Congress noting that they required an additional $55 million to buy back the weapons, noting that a failure to secure the missiles could result in attacks against American civil aircraft.
> ...



All overshadowed with the fact that the US had a faction fighting against and killing Soviets which at the time took priority in foreign policy.


----------



## Token (Sep 7, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I work with several former A-10 drivers and many of them have spoken about losing an engine either due to ground fire or mechanical failure while deployed in Iraq/ Afghanistan. From what I understand the aircraft flies well on one engine.



I have heard the same thing from former and current A-10 folks, however I was trying to quote specifics.

T!


----------



## Token (Sep 7, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> So, after supplying the Mujahideen in the Soviet–Afghan War with Stingers, the US wasn't prepared for this type of weapon to be used against the A-10?!



When the A-10 was proposed, when the project was funded and procurement started, and until well after the flight of the YA-10 prototypes, the Russian MANPADS threat was the SA-7 and the vehicle mounted IR threat was the SA-9. The turbofans of the A-10 would have been very difficult to track with the SA-7 or 9, the engagement range would have been very short, a small fraction of the weapons maximum range of ~3.7 - 4.2 km, and it would only have been able to engage from behind the aircraft.

In short, the threat to the A-10 from the SA-7 was very, very, small. The planned technique of timed flare releases in high threat areas was more than adequate. There was no need include a system to detect and defeat a virtual non-threat.

In 1974 the Russians came out with a new system, the SA-14 (the SA-9 replacement, the SA-13, came out in 1976). They now had a much higher probability of tracking the engines of the A-10 in all aspects, not just tail shots. However, it was still relatively easily defeated by tactics as planned for the SA-7.

It was not until 1981, well after the A-10 had been in production and only a couple years before the last A-10 was produced, that the Russians introduced the SA-16. And the SA-18 in 1983.

Basically the threat matured after the aircraft was designed and already in production.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Hindsight is 20-20. How could one predict an ally in 1988 would turn agaiinst us in 2001?



There is no indication that a US supplied Stinger (as part of Operation Cyclone) has ever been used against US forces. There have been a few suspected Stinger shots and in general no one can say for sure where those weapons came from (see an exception at the bottom of my post here). But the vast majority of the MANPADS shots on US forces have been non-US missiles. Looking at the videos that are released I can't ever recall seeing a Stinger in use. "Stinger" has kind of become the catch-all media phrase for a MANPADS, however the videos I see with yells of "Allahu akbar" in the background all seem to show non-Stinger types, regardless of what the talking heads and banner captions may say.

Some, I would say many, sources state that the Stingers supplied as part of Operation Cyclone were old stock, how old has never been confirmed. The missiles themselves have a limited shelf life, but they don't all turn into pumpkins on their check dates. By 2001 they were all probably well past that shelf life but most were probably still usable. More importantly, the BCU's, Battery Coolant Units, have a much shorter life, and they would have been well beyond that life. Indications are that the BCU also has a higher failure rate and is much more likely to actually fail within a relatively short time after that shelf life is reached.

All of that means that while a very few old Stingers, vs other types of MANPADS, may have been fired on US or Coalition forces, it is very, very, unlikely that any were from units supplied by the US to fight the Russians. 

On a more sobering note, and unrelated to Stingers provided to fight the Russians in the 80's, other Stingers have, indeed, been fired at US forces.

On July 25, 2012, a US CH-47 was fired on and struck by a MANPADS. The debris revealed that it was a Stinger. A serial number indicated it was of recent manufacture, and may have been supplied by the US to the Qataris in 2011.

How the Taliban got their hands on modern US missiles | New York Post

This image is indeed of Stingers, and at least one source claims these are ISIS combatants:
http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/stinger1.jpg



T!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 7, 2015)

RE: A-10
So if the A-10 had been deployed in a "Red Storm Rising" scenario (pre 1991), I wonder how it would have fared in an environment with SA-16's and SA-18's operated by Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces.

RE: Stingers
Sobering indeed.
Maybe if we had sold, no, given, F-22's to the Qataris they wouldn't have committed such a dasterdarly act


----------



## parsifal (Sep 8, 2015)

I gotta say that im doubtful that stingers are the last word in man portable SAMs. Whilst not man portable, some of the later Russian SAMs have very high kill probabilities....up to about 90% for some of the newer versions of the SA300 and SA400 systems, are claimed to be superior to Patriot or even American Standard systems. Very arguable, but not impossible that they (the Russians) are not making idle boasts. 

Against newer up to date and fully integrated defence networks, an aircraft like the A-10 has to be considered as having low survivability. Where the defence network can be downgraded by pre-emptive strikes, usually by tomahawk strikes or some form of pre-emptive strikes, and the air umbrella is not left out on limb to fend for itself, aircraft like the A-10 have some level of survivability. but they can no longer be considered first line in terms of survivability


----------



## Torch (Sep 8, 2015)

http://theaviationist.com/2015/09/07/first-international-f-35-makes-first-flight/

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Sep 8, 2015)

parsifal said:


> I gotta say that im doubtful that stingers are the last word in man portable SAMs. Whilst not man portable, some of the later Russian SAMs have very high kill probabilities....up to about 90% for some of the newer versions of the SA300 and SA400 systems, are claimed to be superior to Patriot or even American Standard systems. Very arguable, but not impossible that they (the Russians) are not making idle boasts.



Stinger is a family of US missiles, the family has been improved over time. The original Stinger might be old hat by now, but there is no reason to think the current generation is not extremely capable. Performance is, of course, not well advertised, but I would be willing to bet the latest Stinger RMP Block 1 upgrades can compete with any MANPADS operationally deployed in the World.

There is a lot of hype out there on the S300 and S400 systems, how much is real and how much is fantasy is of course hard to tell….and a person who knows the real answer can’t post about it here  There is no doubt that these systems are World class. There is little or no doubt that these, and the Chinese versions of them, are potentially the biggest threat to enemy aviation forces in the arsenal of anyone so equipped. But they are a different world from MANPADS, different application, and threats to different platforms. For example, one would seldom think of the S400 as a threat to helicopters. Although I am sure it is perfectly capable of hitting one, the system should never really have line-of-site to one in a combat situation. By the same token, a MANPADS is no threat to a B-52.



parsifal said:


> Against newer up to date and fully integrated defence networks, an aircraft like the A-10 has to be considered as having low survivability. Where the defence network can be downgraded by pre-emptive strikes, usually by tomahawk strikes or some form of pre-emptive strikes, and the air umbrella is not left out on limb to fend for itself, aircraft like the A-10 have some level of survivability. but they can no longer be considered first line in terms of survivability



The A-10 has had a fair RF self protection suite for some time. The ALQ-213 it uses is also in use on the F-16’s and the C-130J’s. But then the A-10 was never, nor is it today, intended to work in the environment you describe.

The A-10 was meant to work on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) and more specifically to engage targets around the Forward Line of Enemy Troops (FLET). What it would have faced, in addition to visually aimed guns (both small arms and ZPU / SPAAG) and IR missiles, would have been ZSU-23-4, SA-8, and possibly SA-6. These are highly mobile systems that would keep up with, or slightly behind, the FLET. As time went on the Russian built systems improved, and the more current threats would probably be along the lines of 2S6, Pantsir S-1, upgraded SA-8, SA-15, and possibly SA-11/17.

While undoubtedly integration is still part of the equation, in this situation we are not talking about a tightly controlled IADS. This is potentially a much more fluid, dynamic, environment. The A-10 would be low, fast (although typically one does not think of the A-10 as fast), and hard to hit. Unless you are fighting on a billiard table there would be direct and indirect masking and the engagement windows for RF systems would be very short.

Don’t take the following as a slam on the F-35, I do think it will end up being a good weapons system.

Of course, it can be argued that this kind of thing is what the F-35 is built for….more or less. Its stealth advantage should increase its survivability in this RF intensive battle space, but what happens to stealth when you start hanging external stores on the aircraft, as would be done in a CAS role? For all we know the aircraft slick might have the RCS of a bumble bee, but with pylons and 12000+ lbs of external stores how reduced will the signature be?

How much more survivable over the FLET will the F-35 be than the A-10? I bet not much, if at all. However, in every other environment it faces I bet it will be much more survivable, and the battle the A-10 was designed to fight is less likely all the time.

T!


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 8, 2015)

It seems to me that one of the items overlooked is that the A-10 would be operating as part of a component system. The A-10 has had the luxury of operating virtually stand-alone in recent deployments, but in the environment it was designed for, there would be layered assets working in conjunction with the A-10 (AH rotaries, fighters, AWACs, etc).

At the time the A-10 was on the drawing board, the Army was working up the M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley and M3 Sergeant York along this same concept (M3 cancelled, components restructured to covered it's absence). Layered above were the AH-64 Longbow and OH-58D Kiowa, etc.

Recent conflicts have changed the way the components are deployed, but by and large, the hardware we have today was designed and intended for a bigass showdown with the Soviet Union, not chasing Toyota trucks across a desert crewed by people wearing Adidas gym clothes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 8, 2015)

I will probably get laughed out of this place, but what the hell. I recall about 25 years ago observing several simulation exercises at the LWC (Land Warfare Centre) involving some US military brass, and another nationality, which included some battle problems near Fulda gap and a couple of other likely points of advance in a fictional WP invasion of NW Europe. We were just observing, and I couldn't tell you all of the assumptions that were plugged into the simulations. but I do recall that the force structures were based on historical, or likely deployments using what we referred to as reforger strategies. A big part of the V Corps response to Soviet advances in the gap was a reliance on several wings of A-10s as well as Cobra gunships to try and peg back the marked soviet advantages in armour. These were responses bases on historically accurate planning at the time. 

The A-10s were devastating against the Soviet spearheads but once their defences were established around these spearheads, the A-10 wings always copped it in the neck eventually. im not a tech guy, just a grunt whose observed tactical planning here and there. a-10s were always an asset but you had to be careful with them.

I might say that years later I got really nerdy and got involved in the commercially developed sim (a map exercise, not a computer based sim......still a game but more accurate than the playstation versions kicking around these days). Cant draw too much from this, but the commercial sim always produces the same or similar outcomes to the military map exercises. 

The players have changed, the threats have changed since then. I daresay the technology has changed. My opinion, based on not a lot, is that aircraft like the A-10 are approaching obsolescence in many situations, but the question for me is once the F-35 is in service, will the balance be restored back to manned assets?

Over Iraq and Syria, the current conflict, this is all superfluous. The IS rabble don't have any capability we need to worry about, and in that environment assets like the A-10 make perfect sense. but what if we have to fight a competent enemy?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Sep 9, 2015)

parsifal said:


> I recall about 25 years ago observing several simulation exercises at the LWC (Land Warfare Centre) involving some US military brass, and another nationality, which included some battle problems near Fulda gap and a couple of other likely points of advance in a fictional WP invasion of NW Europe. We were just observing, and I couldn't tell you all of the assumptions that were plugged into the simulations. but I do recall that the force structures were based on historical, or likely deployments using what we referred to as reforger strategies. A big part of the V Corps response to Soviet advances in the gap was a reliance on several wings of A-10s as well as Cobra gunships to try and peg back the marked soviet advantages in armour. These were responses bases on historically accurate planning at the time.



Reforger was an exercise that many civilians had no real concept about. They heard the term, they knew vaguely that it had to do with the Russians, and they saw on the news that about once a year it was practiced. Of course, the basics of it were well known in the open source and anyone with an interest could find out almost anything they wanted.

But in general it was not realized by the public that in the event of Reforger activation the forces already in Europe were a speed bump, there to slow Warsaw Pact forces until Reforger could marry the troops from the US with their prepositioned assets in Europe. And to do this a large portion of the civilian commercial aviation fleet would have to be commandeered by agreement under the CRAF.

Even though Reforger is no longer an anticipated need the CRAF still exists, and over 500 commercial aircraft can be called into service as needed.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 13, 2015)

Like the A-10, how well would the F-35 fly on.....no, wait....silly me, it's only got one engine!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 13, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Like the A-10, how well would the F-35 fly on.....no, wait....silly me, it's only got one engine!



It wont. And the taxpayer will pay the price for the naval version of this contraption.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> It wont. And the taxpayer will pay the price for the naval version of this contraption.


And can you back up this statement with current unbiased FACT? Tax payers pay? For what? The contract over runs MUST be approved by the DoD, the F-35 is now a firm fixed price contract. There were some great discussion here that INTELLIGENTLY spoke of the pros and cons of the A-10 vs the F-35, so as I previously told you put up or shut up!!!

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 17, 2015)

I'm still a wee tad concerned with the.....hidden weapons, missiles and the gun, back in the day with proper fighters and real NASCAR (  ), it was either the gun jamming or missile malfunctioning, here it's more....here the gun _can_ jam _or_ the door throwing a tantrum and not work, the same goes for them there missiles, either they malfunction _or_ the doors gives you the finger...or do they have a backup systems?

All these thingmajigs seem to be rich man's concoctions, too many factors that can give you a firm kick in the mummy daddy batteries when needed...

(What else can I do to throw spanner in the works? )


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 17, 2015)

Lets see. F4 Phantom, two engines. Good for long over water flights in case one engine gets damaged. A6; ditto. Two engines. F14. Ditto. Two engines. F18, two engines. Good. A7, well one engine, but its a low cost light design so we can live with it.

F35 .... Hmmmm, only one engine. Why is that? Because we are being forced to by an Air Force airframe and it only has one engine. But what happens if the engine fails on the catapult launch? Its a 200 million dollar loss.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 17, 2015)

I think there are plenty of aircraft with a single engine that have comparable reliability to twin engined types. one that comes to mind is the harrier or AV-8.

A comparison under similar service conditions, for a one and two engined type is difficult to come up with . Id be interested to hear of examples....


----------



## Glider (Sep 17, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> F35 .... Hmmmm, only one engine. Why is that? Because we are being forced to by an Air Force airframe and it only has one engine. But what happens if the engine fails on the catapult launch? Its a 200 million dollar loss.



If any twin engine fighter loses an engine on the catapult launch, its going into the sea, Navy, Air force, Marines or Boy Scouts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 17, 2015)

I really wonder if that is as big of an issue today, 1 vs 2 engines for the Navy/Marines.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 17, 2015)

Hmmm...single-engined Navy aircraft. Well, there was the F9F Panther and Cougar, A-4 Skyhawk, A-7 Corsair II and F-8 Crusader just for starters...and that's aside from every Navy carrier aircraft of the piston era prior to the one-off Tigercat (not to mention the ubiquitous Spad).


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 17, 2015)

Glider said:


> If any twin engine fighter loses an engine on the catapult launch, its going into the sea, Navy, Air force, Marines or Boy Scouts.


The Ford Falcon they catapaulted off a U.S. carrier was single engined as well as the Citroen catapaulted from a RN carrier


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 17, 2015)




----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 17, 2015)

The Boy Scouts have jets?


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 17, 2015)

They do these days...heavy artillery, too!


----------



## parsifal (Sep 17, 2015)

but this is one of those statistical minefields that we are bound to have endless arguments over. Take the a-4 as an example. In USN service aboard their big attack carriers this little hotrod had a pretty good safety record even in wartime. I don't have the statistics, but im relying on anecdotes from 35 years ago. They did well in terms of deck landing safety records all through conflicts like the Vietnam era.

On our little baby clapped out excuse of a carrier we had a terrible record with them. A-4s were at the high end of the service envelope for a piece of junk like the Melbourne. The RAN knew from at least 1968 that the flight deck was too small and the power of the catapult too weak to properly handle an a/c like the Skyhawk, but we kidded ourselves into believing that if we strengthened the flight deck, hotted up the catapult we could make do. In fact the deck ended up like a sheet of corrugated iron and the catapult for the last 8 years of its use was so clapped out we had to restrict payloads and close our eyes and think of England every time we went on flying ops. rough weather flying was always cancelled. US pilots on exchange, even the rotary wing jocks were never permitted to land on the old girl. The A-4 birds paid a heavy price for these shortcomings......out of the 21 in RAN service, no less than 11 were lost in deck accidents over a 17 year period. 

The lesson I think from this is that safety and accident rates aren't dominated by the number of engines. there4 are any number of variables that will affect attrition rates, which I think would be magnified in any number of ways under wartime conditions .......

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 18, 2015)

......and all include bacon!


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 18, 2015)

vikingBerserker said:


> I really wonder if that is as big of an issue today, 1 vs 2 engines for the Navy/Marines.



Similiar to ETOPS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> Hmmm...single-engined Navy aircraft. Well, there was the F9F Panther and Cougar, A-4 Skyhawk, A-7 Corsair II and F-8 Crusader just for starters...and that's aside from every Navy carrier aircraft of the piston era prior to the one-off Tigercat (not to mention the ubiquitous Spad).



Since the intoduction of the F4 in the 1960's, only one carrier aircraft were introduced into the fleet with one engine. The A7. The A7 soldiered on until the twin engined Hornet was available in quantity. The F8 was a 50's design that was gone soon enough once the twin engined F4 was available.

What was deployed in the 40's and 50's is irrelevant.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 18, 2015)

Oh come on Syscom, you can do better than that! The F-4 was also a 50s design, for pity's sake...it was just 2 years younger than the F-8. Additionally, the A-4 was only 3 years ahead of the F-4. 

I'd also suggest opening your aperture beyond the USN. The F-8 was in service until 2000 in the French Navy. Other late-intro single-engine naval aircraft include the Sea Harrier FRS1/FA2, Harrier AV8A/B, Etendard IV-M and Super Etendard (I'm also tempted to add the Yak-38 because its 2 engines did not afford any more resilience if one engine failed).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 18, 2015)

Don't forget the A3D, which was introduced in 1958 and served until 1991 (some units even served in the Gulf War) 

Quite a few 1950's (even WWII designs: A-1 served over twenty years, for example, itself replaced by the A-6 which was designed late 1950's) served well beyond the 60's and 70's


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 19, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> Oh come on Syscom, you can do better than that! The F-4 was also a 50s design, for pity's sake...it was just 2 years younger than the F-8. Additionally, the A-4 was only 3 years ahead of the F-4.
> 
> I'd also suggest opening your aperture beyond the USN. The F-8 was in service until 2000 in the French Navy. Other late-intro single-engine naval aircraft include the Sea Harrier FRS1/FA2, Harrier AV8A/B, Etendard IV-M and Super Etendard (I'm also tempted to add the Yak-38 because its 2 engines did not afford any more resilience if one engine failed).



We are talking about the USN. Not the Russians. Not the USMC. Not the French. Not the British. *Except for the A7* All USN airframes since the mid 60's have been twin engines. Whatever airframes you are throwing into the mix, it's irrelevant to the USN of the middle 60's when two engines became a contract requirement. The F8 was rapidly removed from service as F4's and then F14's became available.

And I forgot to mention the A3. Two engines more by design requirements than by contractual requirement.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 19, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> And I forgot to mention the A3. Two engines more by design requirements than by contractual requirement.


The A3 was a beast...the largest USN carrier-borne aircraft at the time and actually started out as a bomber but it's mission was changed to an attack role (and later it was a jack of all trades)


----------



## Glider (Sep 19, 2015)

People tend to forget the trainers used by the USN such as the T45 and even the first version of the T2 Buckeye although that was replaced by a twin engine version

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 19, 2015)

Anyhoo.....I'm sure that the F-35, is a half decent fighter on the paper....


----------



## parsifal (Sep 19, 2015)

Im still trying to work out why its irrelevant to look at the experiences of other nations. Last time i checed the F-35 was an international a/c designed to meet international needs. If we are prepared to look at foreign a/c, we would be able to examine a/c like the Mirage III as to accident rates

Some information that I have regarding accident rates.

About 114 RAAF Mirages served 5 sqns 1963 to 1988. They suffered about 1 loss per year overall, but as the fleet began to age, the loss rate began to climb to around two per year.
You can see the accident rate via this link

ADF Serials - Mirage III

The best print version for the RAAF Mirages that I know of is here

http://www.radschool.org.au/Books/the_raaf_mirage_story_opt.pdf

Not a specific accident related account, but gives a good service history just the same....


In the period 1965-73 the a/c with the highest accident rate per capita was the F4 phantom.

In 1965-73 the US lost to ACCIDENTS only in S E Asia

F-4 Phantom 162 aircraft
F-105 63
F-100 45


1975-93 the USAF had 204 F-16A "Class A" Accidents

The main reasons for losses were, according to a study by the USAF Formation position, phase of flight and primary cause of the mishap indicate that maneuvering, cruise and low-level phases account for the majority of the mishaps (71%), 

air-to-air engagements associated with a higher proportion of pilot error (71%) than was air-to-ground (49%). 

Engine failure was the number one cause of mishaps (35%), 

collision with the ground the next most frequent (24%). 

Pilot error was determined as causative in 55% of all the mishaps. 

Pilot error was often associated with other non-pilot related causes. Channelized attention, loss of situational awareness, and spatial disorientation accounted for approximately 30% of the total pilot error causes found. Pilot demographics, flight hour/sortie profiles, and aircrew injuries are also listed. 

Fatalities occurred in 27% of the mishaps, with 97% of those involving pilot errors.

The Indian AF is currently writing off a plane a month

Nowhere does the USAF study attribute a higher or better safety record to number of engines


according to Wikipedia :-

F-104 Starfighter Some operators lost a large proportion of their aircraft through accidents, although the accident rate varied widely depending on the user and operating conditions; the Luftwaffe lost about 30% of aircraft in accidents over its operating career, and Canada lost over 50% of its F-104s.

The Spanish Air Force, however, lost none.

The Class A mishap rate (write off) of the F-104 in USAF service was 26.7 accidents per 100,000 flight hours as of June 1977,(30.63 through the end of 2007]), the highest accident rate of any USAF Century Series fighter. By comparison, the rate of the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger was 14.2/100,000 (13.69 through 2007), and the mishap rate for the North American F-100 Super Sabre was 16.25 accidents per 100,000 flight hours.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 19, 2015)

Is it true that F-117's are being removed from Type 1000 storage to replace F-111's in the RAAF?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 19, 2015)

This account of RCAF CF-104 operations and losses is insightful .... the more hours you fly the higher the loss numbers .... it's the _price _of the F-35 that is throwing folks off their comfort zone, IMHO, Parifal

The 104 Story

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 20, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Is it true that F-117's are being removed from Type 1000 storage to replace F-111's in the RAAF?



I havent heard anything like that. As far as im aware we are buying a lot of F-35s, but want that singloe type to fill the roles current done by our Hornets, Super Hornets and F-111s.

I have serious doubts about it being able to fill all those roles. Biggest problems for us is range


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 20, 2015)

Can they not enlarge it, like they have done with Gripen and the Super Hornet, I _think_ that they got a 50% increase in range out of the Gripen, I don't how much they improved on the later Hornets....

Rumours has it (which is why don't believe it until I see it) that SAAB is busy in the area here, testing Gripens with arrestor hooks(?) and other carrier based equipment....


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 21, 2015)

I thought they had already done what when the Indian Navy was looking at it?


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 21, 2015)

True....
You never know what them SAAB guys are up to!
Always fun to visit when back home....


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 21, 2015)

The F-35 has now become an election issue in Canada ... the Liberals want to walk away. Elections are no time for this kind of grandstanding.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 21, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> The F-35 has now become an election issue in Canada ... the Liberals want to walk away. Elections are no time for this kind of grandstanding.



you can say that again. Elections and defence policy....generally a race to the bottom as quickly as the atmosphere can take you

We don't have the F-35 as an election issue for now, but our recently departed PM was given a royal kicking because he suggested our new LPHs should consider usage of the f-35B (which we are not buying). the air force dominated defence establishment immediately turned on the idea, saying or claiming the LPHs would need a couple of gazillion dollars spent on them to strengthen the flight deck to take the stress of STOVL ops. Perfect impeccable logic until Dave Baddams (recently retired RN S/L Harrier jock and a classmate of mine0 pointed out convincingly that the Spanish versions of the same ship operate the same ship with AV-8s with no problem. all of sudden the spurious claims about costs disappeared from every govt publication on the issue, but the damage was already done. no F-35Bs for the RAN

This is not the latest ruling...the RAAF finished up closing ranks and fighting the concept to the bitter end, but it is a useful discussion

F-35 strike fighters for the Canberra-class? | Australian Naval Institute

Australia and F-35Bs: Examining an Option for the Australian Defense Force | SLDInfo

this the article that reports the scrapping of the plan. most of the arguments are totally spurious from a technical and financial pov

Plans for F-35B Fighters on HMAS Canberra quietly scrapped

Another article by an RN vet which really puts questions around the LHD technical limits that were used to can this proposal

LHD and STOVL: an engineerâ€™s view

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Since the intoduction of the F4 in the 1960's, only one carrier aircraft were introduced into the fleet with one engine. The A7. The A7 soldiered on until the twin engined Hornet was available in quantity. The F8 was a 50's design that was gone soon enough once the twin engined F4 was available.
> 
> What was deployed in the 40's and 50's is irrelevant.



And your rationale is from the 60's and 70's. You have NO clue about the reliability studies of the F-35's (and other) engines and the advancement made in reliability technology. It's obvious since you're still making comments parroting the 2008 Rand report.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2015)

parsifal said:


> Im still trying to work out why its irrelevant to look at the experiences of other nations. Last time i checed the F-35 was an international a/c designed to meet international needs. If we are prepared to look at foreign a/c, we would be able to examine a/c like the Mirage III as to accident rates
> 
> Some information that I have regarding accident rates.
> 
> ...



Excellent information! I'd wish other people would be as detailed about their information and not rely on media half truths and comic book logic.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Is it true that F-117's are being removed from Type 1000 storage to replace F-111's in the RAAF?



NO


----------



## parsifal (Sep 21, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Excellent information! I'd wish other people would be as detailed about their information and not rely on media half truths and comic book logic.



thanks

The point im trying to illustrate isn't that I have a detailed answer to the attrition problem, more that losses are allover the shop and engine numbers just doesn't seem to be a decisive factor either way. The f104 story is particularly revealing. Some operators suffered diabolical loss rates, others suffered really low rates. You cannot explain away loss rates with glib one liners like one engine = higher loss rates. its a really hard question to answer....


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 22, 2015)

X

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 22, 2015)

"... Some operators suffered diabolical loss rates, others suffered really low rates...."

Spanish - low hours
Germans - low hours
RCAF - high hours flying low level ground strikes

It will be the same with allied use/deployment of the F-35 ..... it's the cost that has people numbed .... but I have confidence in the platform. Just wish Canada would acquire some F-18 Super Hornets as the RAAF has wisely done


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 22, 2015)

Luftwaffe lost 298 Starfighters....

German Starfighter crashes


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 22, 2015)

They deployed almost 4X the number of the type than the RCAF did ....

Starfighter with Luftwaffe


----------



## Greyman (Sep 22, 2015)

> There was nothing intrinsically dangerous about the Starfighter, since the Royal Norwegian Air Force operating identical F-104Gs suffered only six losses in 56,000 flying hours, and the Spanish Air Force lost not a single one of its Starfighters to accidents.



I wonder if the high accident rate in Germany had something to do with the culture during and immediately post war.

NOT FLYING BY THE BOOK: SLOW ADOPTION OF CHECKLISTS AND PROCEDURES IN WW2 AVIATION. | Art and Science in Technology - Roger Bohn's Blog

Interesting paper on the subject. PDF in the link.

Page 81 for info on Germany.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 22, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> X



A thumbs down on a post I deleted? LOL ....

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 22, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And your rationale is from the 60's and 70's. You have NO clue about the reliability studies of the F-35's (and other) engines and the advancement made in reliability technology. It's obvious since you're still making comments parroting the 2008 Rand report.



If an engine is running, its always at the risk of failure. No matter how well designed and maintained. For the Navy, two engines are always better than none.


----------



## Glider (Sep 22, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> If an engine is running, its always at the risk of failure. No matter how well designed and maintained. For the Navy, two engines are always better than none.



I disagree. Two engines add extra weight, they add complexity, most twin engine carrier aircraft would not be allowed to land on a carrier with one engine the crew would be told to eject. What are the benefits in the modern era when a single engine produces the power that's needed and reliability is so much improved? There limited at best, most twin fighters were designed because a singe engine didn't produce the power required.

While your are considering things why discount the experience of other nations who operated carrier aircraft. They all had the same operating considerations.

I should also add that they require an increase in the spares as there are twice as many engines to be supported and in the Grey Funnel Line, space is an absolute limiting factor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> If an engine is running, its always at the risk of failure. No matter how well designed and maintained. For the Navy, two engines are always better than none.



So why not three engines? How about four? There have been double engine failures in numerous aircraft and the fact is the current generation of high performance turbine engines have reliability models better than earlier turbine engines paired together, but you just don't get that. These are airforce statistics but more than prove this point.

Air Force Safety Center - Engine Statistics


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> A thumbs down on a post I deleted? LOL ....



Yep, because you're once again being very ignorant and have yet to provide a rational argument to back up your point. With that said, put up or shut up but don't test my patience.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 22, 2015)

Glider said:


> I disagree. Two engines add extra weight, they add complexity, most twin engine carrier aircraft would not be allowed to land on a carrier with one engine the crew would be told to eject. What are the benefits in the modern era when a single engine produces the power that's needed and reliability is so much improved? There limited at best, most twin fighters were designed because a singe engine didn't produce the power required.
> 
> While your are considering things why discount the experience of other nations who operated carrier aircraft. They all had the same operating considerations.
> 
> I should also add that they require an increase in the spares as there are twice as many engines to be supported and in the Grey Funnel Line, space is an absolute limiting factor.



couldn't agree more especially if you have a deckload of aircraft already and control issues arise. you just would not risk it. 

Maybe having 2 engines does provide a marginal safety benefit, but its not the critical deciding factor for safety. Better engines are probably a safer bet, and in that regard youd have to say the jury is out on the F-35b.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 22, 2015)

Isn't all this why 2-engine airliners are now permitted for long range and overwater flights?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Isn't all this why 2-engine airliners are now permitted for long range and overwater flights?



YES! But I know what some imbecile may say about you bringing up airliners!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 22, 2015)

xx


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 22, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Isn't all this why 2-engine airliners are now permitted for long range and overwater flights?



This is about high powered naval fighters. Not civil airliners.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 22, 2015)

parsifal said:


> couldn't agree more especially if you have a deckload of aircraft already and control issues arise. you just would not risk it.
> 
> Maybe having 2 engines does provide a marginal safety benefit, but its not the critical deciding factor for safety. Better engines are probably a safer bet, and in that regard youd have to say the jury is out on the F-35b.



50 years of twin engined carrier fighters and attack jets says you are wrong.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> This is about high powered naval fighters. Not civil airliners.



[email protected]

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 22, 2015)

Not to throw a candle on a fire but ...

Regarding the single / twin losses, I am under the impression that the F-105 had one of the highest loss rates (not losses) in the war. I think the best measure of losses is loss RATE. I could be wrong.

I know we lost 445 USAF F-4’s in Viet Nam and 338 in combat, but the important number would be missions, and I don’t have that at this time. The Navy lost 138 with 75 in combat. That adds up to 476 losses … but I don’t have the mission counts at this time.

We lost 47 F-105’s with 37 being in combat. Again, this is NOT the loss rate, it is losses.

True modern turbines have much better reliability, but they are NOT more damage resistant in combat than pistons are. If you shoot and HIT a turbine, it will more likely malfunction quicker than a piston will.

I have no axe to grind here, but I DO think the Navy wants twin engine aircraft just from what they have ordered in recent (50 years) history. The Navy had the F-35 shoved down it’s throat and the brass didn’t fall on their respective swords and commit Hari Kari, they bought the aircraft when directed to do so. Like most major weapon systems, the F-35 (I am NOT a fan) will likely turn into a decent aircraft with a decent service record … we’ll see. What I’m not sure of is whether it will make a good COMBAT aircraft. Again, as a citizen I surely hope so as it will be in front line service. I think that if left to their own choice, the Navy would have bought a twin.

Time will tell us whether or not the powers-that-be made a good choice. At least the F-35 has better avionics by LONG SHOT than any legacy aircraft. The intent, as far as I can tell, is to never get into visual-range close combat, but to handle it BVR and take them out with vastly superior sensors and standoff weapons. It’s a good game plan as long as politics doesn’t render the BVR stuff unworkable. If that happens, we are in serious trouble with the F-35. It needs to be able to handle combat from the side of its strengths, not from the traditional older side of “fly alongside and identify the enemy.” Hopefully the “brass” and the President will take that into account before strangling the aircraft with old-style restrictions.

Perhaps that can lead to a very successful F-35 service life ... I'm hoping so anyway since we're gonna' be flying it.



Hey Joe,

Hope Reno was good. I am in the middle of getting a job and couldn't attend. Hope you had a great time! Sorry you didn't get to see a good duel between Voodoo and Strega, but one year out of seven for Stevo to have engine issues ins't bad considering the power levels they put out. Maybe next time! If Stevo had to lose, I can't think of a better, nicer guy than Hoot to win. Glad to see the Bear back running healthy, too. Maybe you could give us a "Reno Summary Post" since YOU were there and on a team? Just from your viewpoint?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 22, 2015)

I went and had a straw poll look at tyhe causes for the 11 A4s over that 18 year period (actually the losses stretched over 22 year period, because 1 of the losses was whilst the aircraft were serving with the Kiwi AF). All this stuff is available from the ADF serials website. None of the 11 losses on the carrier were related to engine failures on return. There was one flame out on catapult launch, and a whole bunch of catapult failures on the old girl, but not one loss due to an engine failure as such. 

Not much to go on, but really, this just adds weight to the notion that losses are more due to circumstances than technological faults. In the case of our A-4s, there was nothing wrong with our a/c. The problem was the dodgy catapult and stresses arising from operating from an inadequate platform. 

If we'd had a two engine a/c aboard, it wouldnt have made much difference to the loss rate.


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 22, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> This is about high powered naval fighters. Not civil airliners.


Yeah, but what do they have in common?

Massively increased reliability of engines...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 23, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> 50 years of twin engined carrier fighters and attack jets says you are wrong.




Maybe. it would be foolish to dismiss the USN experience, given that the USN has more carrier experience than everybody else combined in that period. but the question isn't that the USN has operated twin engine a/c in that period, its why they operated twin engine a/c, and was it related to safety and reliability or some other reason? 

There isn't a lot of opposition to the F-35a as a land based platform, and our brass is completely untroubled by its single engine configuration. weve had high performance single engine jets before, and not a great deal of difference safety wise between that configuration and a twin engine configuration. if you've got information that suggests differently, love to hear from you.

The USN and as I understand it the RN now, with the f-35C, the full blown carrier version are not phased by the safety aspects of the type. ive never really looked at the C subtype, but I just note its got a fair bit of acceptance by the people that matter.

of the three subtypes, its the B that's the most problematic, but AFAIK, no-one is too phased about the safety aspects of this type. its having trouble meeting range and payload specs as I understand it, but the company keeps giving assurance they can solve those issues, and ive got nothing in front of me not to believe that. 

So, whilst there is indeed 50 years of twin engine useage with the USN to give a broad credence to your claims, we don't have any real details as to why they have gone down the pathway of a twin engine configuration so faithfully. Do you have any information, any reports or the like to say why this approach was made? Would like to know.....


----------



## GregP (Sep 23, 2015)

The main people who have a grave issue with single-engine carrier airplanes are pilots who are in an airborne single-einge aircraft that has an engine problem. I think we all know turbines are very reliable in peacetime operation.

I do NOT think they have good battle damage resistance compared with piston engines, but are otherise so much more reliable that it more than makes up for the difference. I doubt you'd find many aviators who would willingly swap a turbine for a piston to do the same job, particularly helicopter pilots.

I also think the Navy leaders whould rather have twins if given a free choice, They mostly aren't given that these last 50 years, particularly the last 20 - 25 years. It's a sad commentary that the last people the politicians ask about what aircraft to buy are the pilots who will fly them.

That being said, single or twin these days won't make a big difference in peacetime operations. My own opposition to the F-35 comes from the cost and the lack of ability to defend itself in a dogfight. And I was around when that was being touted as a primary attribute. Later it started to take on less and less importance and I KNEW what that meant ... exactly what we now know. It can't defend itself against a close-in 4th-gen opponent with or without internal stores.

Assuming the F-35's are allowed to operate as designed ... BVR, it won't make a huge difference. If they are hamstrung by outmoded rules of engagement, then we will have a lot of losses in combat situations. Perhaps we will be smart for a change. If so, the F-35 has a really good chance of never having a combat loss to an enemy A/C. That still leaves AAA and surface to air missiles to contend with and the F-35 is a bit stealthy, but not when really close, as it will be to a gunner or a surface-to-air missile. Again, I hope we are smarter than to just fly into ground traps. If we ARE smart, the F-35 may be a very good one.

If it isn't, we maybe should examine the employment methodology and change it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 23, 2015)

I keep seeing the subject of dogfighting popping up in the discussion and I have to wonder, when was the last time two modern opposing fighters actually engaged in a 20th century style furball?

With the modern systems and stand-off capabilities, enabling a kill beyond or at max-visual, why is the issue of a dog-fighter looming so large in the judgement of the F-35? Isn't it possible that the F-35 may detect hostiles inbound long before they get into range and the pilots react accordingly?

I really suspect that the threadworn commentary of the F-35 versus F-16 keeps tilting public sentiment. That encounter was so skewed and one-sided, it shouldn't have even been put into print and yet, it was and the news just ate it up. The reality of it all, is that the F-16 ONLY had the upper hand on the F-35 in that encounter, because the F-35 in question was actually the test and trials airframe: AF-2. It did not have the advanced electronics, it did not have the flight upgrades of the later production airframes and it did not have the pilot's enhanced helmet system onboard. So yes, the F-16 got the better of it, because AF-2 is not, nor will it ever be, combat capable. We cannot set the bar of the F-35's absolute performance by the performance of a prototype.

This would be like judging all P-51 production aircraft by the performance of the NA-73X.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 23, 2015)

Dogfighting skills are important, but far less so than is often assumed. If dogfighting skills and close in fighting capability were important, then the numerous clashes between Phantoms and the more agile MiG 17, 19 and 21s during the 1960s-80s would have resulted in very different outcomes.

F-35 is a bunch of compromises like any other aircraft design, and we have a long record of knowing that close in fighting whilst nice to have is far less important to stand off capability and what you might label air superiority qualities....and those qualities in the modern sense have more to do with non traditional aspects like radar signitures, ECM capability, lock on capability, stuff that I know of, but very little about, if you get my drift. 

One example of dogfighting in the real modern world:

"The fact that the Israeli military held the lead in air-to-air combat during the Yom Kippur War was proven spectacularly when a force of 20 MiG-17s and an escort of eight, more modern MiG-21s launched a bombing raid on Ofira Air Base on October 6, 1973. They were engaged by a pair of startled Israeli F-4 Phantom pilots, who had jumped into their aircraft just in time to take off from their runway before it was destroyed. Despite the heavy odds against them, the Phantoms trounced the more agile MiGs in a close-range battle, shooting down a total of seven planes with no losses. Although it certainly wasn’t the first time that Phantoms defeated MiGs in a dogfight, it may have been the occasion when the odds were most stacked against them but they still pulled through"....and for its time, the phantom had no reputation as a close in dogfighter....


----------



## GregP (Sep 23, 2015)

The fight over Iraq generated dogfights between jets and the F-15's and other Allied jets did very well. Every single time someone asks that exact same question ... when was the last dogfight ... the result comes out the same. If you don't design for the dogfight, you LOSE it next time around.

It has been happening that exact same way since WWII ended. The first-gen subsonic jets weren't going to have anyone sneak up behind them so they mostly had poor rear visibility. Then we encountered the MiG-15 in Korea. The first-gen Mach 2 planes were NEVER going to have anyone sneak up behind them, so they had no rear visibility and no guns. Then we found out in Viet Nam that the MiG-17 and MiG-21 were not only NOT obsolete, but were fast being reappraised as potent dogfighters. Result? The F-4E FINALLY got a gun and some greatly improved aerodynamics when the horizontal tail got slats for maneuverability reasons and to avoid "The Thing" when it departed controlled flight if you pulled too hard. We lost more than few to high-speed stalls at low altitude over Viet Nam.

The we got the F-15 and F-16 and things got better. Now we get the F-35 that really should not BE in a close-in dogfight. If we manage to avoid a dogfight, it may do OK. If we get into them, it won't.

I have no idea why we can't learn the lesson for good and produce primary fighters that have a gun, great rearward visibility, and can turn, climb, and accelerate with the best ever made. Go ahead and add the missiles and avionics but at LEAST give us a good fighter airframe to work with. I'd rather send in more good fighters with fewer bombs on them than fewer bomb trucks that can't fight when they need to. Alternately, send in the drones to bomb and fight fighters with FIGHTERS. I wouldn't trust a drone in a dogfight because it has never yet been demonstrated they can identify friendlies within a snap shot in a dogfight. We are too busy trying to make them attack well and can't seem to concentrate on making them into good fighters with discrimination abilities that make friendly manned aircraft safe. I couldn't care less if the drones shoot each other down, but would blow them all up with no regrets if they kill a friendly pilot. I KNOW they will sooner or later. The only reason it hasn't happened to date is we haven't made drone fighters and deployed them yet. We're mighty quick to say we have it figured out and then the machines go and verify the software in service. When there is a glitch, it usually hurts someone.

Ask the guys in F-22's when the oxygen quit. Ask the passengers on the airbus over the Altlantic when the computers couldn't figure out the plane was descending at an alarming rate ... from 35.000+ plus feet! Surely that's enough time when the CPU can proccess megaflops in a second. The crew didn't figure it out either, but the computers SHOULD have if they were programmed corectly. Obviously they weren't programmed correctly to account for loss of a few simple, basic instruments. To me, that seems criminal.

But the turbine in an F-35 should not be a cause for concern. Not sure the autpilot is good to go after 3 months at a tropical jungle aistrip, but the turbine should be running just fine when it hits a mountain due to fungus on the autopilot circuit board. So carrier operations should not really be an issue with the F-35. Cost and potential one-on-one dogfights will be of much more concern along with what happens when the fuel remaining in the tanks heats up enough causing the computers to shut down, causing the otherwise-reliable turbine to stop being quite so reliable. If that happens, the other reliable turbine wouldn't be of much help as it would be running on the same hot fuel. The real answer is not to use the fuel as a heat sink ... just as the real answer in cars was not to put the fuel pump INSIDE the gas tank with the auto fuel as the coolant! They found that out more than 25 years ago, but the information never got to the F-35 designers.

Go figure. We can't seem to learn lessons and pass them on to the next generation of designers. Maybe the old craft system of apprenticeship wasn't so bad after all. At least the primary lessons weren't lost to the next generation of craft apprentices like they seem to be to engineers sometimes.

Talk to the automotive engineers at Volkswagon about that one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 23, 2015)

> I have no idea why we can't learn the lesson for good and produce primary fighters that have a gun, great rearward visibility, and can turn, climb, and accelerate with the best ever made. Go ahead and add the missiles and avionics but at LEAST give us a good fighter airframe to work with. I'd rather send in more good fighters with fewer bombs on them than fewer bomb trucks that can't fight when they need to. Alternately, send in the drones to bomb and fight fighters with FIGHTERS. I wouldn't trust a drone in a dogfight because it has never yet been demonstrated they can identify friendlies within a snap shot in a dogfight. We are too busy trying to make them attack well and can't seem to concentrate on making them into good fighters with discrimination abilities that make friendly manned aircraft safe. I couldn't care less if the drones shoot each other down, but would blow them all up with no regrets if they kill a friendly pilot. I KNOW they will sooner or later. The only reason it hasn't happened to date is we haven't made drone fighters and deployed them yet. We're mighty quick to say we have it figured out and then the machines go and verify the software in service. When there is a glitch, it usually hurts someone


.

This probably highlights the differences in doctrine. The forces Im familiar with have virtually no interest in the mission profile you've described. We are relying on our air defence assets to shoot down enemy aircraft....our air defence destroyers mostly, our CIWs to bring down the ordinance, including the drones. Our aircraft will be primarily about offensive capability....the ability to get in, deliver the precision strike, take pout the target and then get out of trouble. the era of the climactic air battle with fighters engaging fighters is great stuff, but represents a failed strategy if it develops. if an opponent is airborne, with his fighters escorting his bombers to attack your assets, you might as well throw your hands up in surrender. if he is attacking stuff that you are not defending, it better be because you don't need to. if you do need to defend it, and he is attacking it with that sort of force structure, you've basically lost anyway.

that's why offensive capability is so important. you want your guys to be the pointy end of a system that has outsmarted your opponent, crept up on him without him even knowing it and delivering a precision strike to take out his assets as required.

Wars seldom allow for each side to ride out and line up on their shining white chargers as they face off on each other on opposing hillsides. air warfare is all about trying to get the jump on an opponent, finding an edge and exploiting it. Defensive is about fixed defences, surface to air missile, passive defences, ECM, detection, having your assets airborne and out of harms way whilst the shooting is going on.

its been like that for at least 40 years whats more. im the first to admit that things don't always work as planned, but you don't design your hardware with failure in mind. 

I can remember back during one of the numerous exercises we had with the Americans....Kitty hawk I think it was. We had a mixed force of F-111s, F-4s and A-4s taking on a CAG of F-14s and F-4s. We also had several Oxley class subs to play with. It was assumed that we had harpoon capability (which we didn't). The Americans came charging across the ocean twice for the same exercise. first time, Melbourne put the hammers down and ran like crazy, to bring the Kitty hawk into Harpoon range. cheeky sub skipper sent a message to the 'blue' fleet, with the blessing of the onboard referee......"oops." It was judged the Kitty Hawk had had its superstructure remodelled with 6 harpoons apparently. so we re-set the exercise and did it again. this time feints were made by the f-111s and f-4s with stand off weaponary so as to draw the CAP away and also pull the air defence assets to one side of the fleet. Ive seen the footage of our A-4s coming in at wavetop height with just bombs only and deliver another attack in the simulation, this time from the other direction. low tech, high skill, and deadly according to the refs. 

if an opponent has been allowed the opportunity to get over your vital assets without getting shot down, you are in a world of pain, or at least is likely to. That's why the hardware is part of your armoury of ideas, and should be designed primarily to give you the best chance of success in that environment. 

im not talking from the standpoint of US tactics and procedures here, they may well be different. but our techniques are ideally served by the way the f-35 is configured....provided it can deliver what it claims.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 23, 2015)

Regarding losses of twin engined aircraft in Vietnam, I'm sure that quite a few were due to many other technical mishaps besides engine failures, but then again....how many crews saved their *rses _becuase_ of the twin engine configuration, is there a way to find out how many landed on one engine, which in case of a single engine aircraft would have been a total loss, instead for something that could be fixed...
I think that it would be a waste of money to dump something that can be fixed on an aircraft carrier, which I'm sure can perform some serious repairs, to fly again another day....but then again, when hasn't the DOD (in any country) wasted money.... 
Another thing that I think interesting (or funny) is how people fixate(?), _stirrar sig blind på_ as we say in Sweden, is this with stealth, it's asking for trouble putting doors over your weapons, as I said earlier, before....you had the guns could jam and the missiles malfunctioning, with these doors you only add more things for them there gremlins to play with....plus, those that can't afford to build _or_ buy today's modern sneaky fighters, do anything in their powers to contradict(?) this disadvantage by building such weapon systems that can see in one way or another this shadowy bugger....and then we're back to WWI/WWII again with dogfights and guns!

But then again, what do I know, besides that I enjoy this discussion.....beer anyone?


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 23, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> I keep seeing the subject of dogfighting popping up in the discussion and I have to wonder, when was the last time two modern opposing fighters actually engaged in a 20th century style furball?
> 
> With the modern systems and stand-off capabilities, enabling a kill beyond or at max-visual, why is the issue of a dog-fighter looming so large in the judgement of the F-35? Isn't it possible that the F-35 may detect hostiles inbound long before they get into range and the pilots react accordingly?
> 
> ...



Could be because that the F-35 is _not_ perfect, no fighter is (well, maybe the F-15... ) and they might at some point experience somekind of malfunction, in a rumble with something similar to the F-16 (Gripen?) or something built east of Berlin  where this might happen....and the odds are more even, instead for 10/1 in the F-35's favour it could be 5/7....
Then again, with all these money, the media will swallow anything....

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the media would swallow that they're designing F-35 for lefthanded and righthanded pilots as well!


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 23, 2015)

Can't help but think what Robin Olds said in 'Dogfights' about this with politicians etc., desk pilots designing fighters and regarding this with missiles only, no guns, he just said....what do they know, or something similar....and he should know, well...he did!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2015)

Great intelligent discussion guys, at least some of you could back your opinions with facts!

A few thing - remember when you look at USAF losses in Vietnam you have to consider the idiotic ROE's which probably resulted in at least half of the looses incurred. The only good recorded VR furball fight I could recall was between Cesar Rodriguez and Captain Jameel Sayhood where Rodriguez basically drove Sayhood into the ground. 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAjoSWraCyc_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hey Joe,
> 
> Hope Reno was good. I am in the middle of getting a job and couldn't attend. Hope you had a great time! Sorry you didn't get to see a good duel between Voodoo and Strega, but one year out of seven for Stevo to have engine issues ins't bad considering the power levels they put out. Maybe next time! If Stevo had to lose, I can't think of a better, nicer guy than Hoot to win. Glad to see the Bear back running healthy, too. Maybe you could give us a "Reno Summary Post" since YOU were there and on a team? Just from your viewpoint?



Greg - Although I was super busy I did get a chance to see the duels Between Rare Bear, Strega and Voodoo. All around it was a great event, no one got hurt and all the races were pretty exciting, even the T-6s were fun to watch. I'll post more about this on the thread I started a few weeks ago, I don't want to hijack this thread.


----------



## GregP (Sep 23, 2015)

Parsifal,

I think we've been here before. All I can say is I'm glad you aren't running our Military. Your ideas probably work for yours since you're still around to talk about it. We have to prepare for capabilities, not intentions. Intentions can change in a short time. If your enemy has the capability to attack you with bombers and fighters, then you have to be prepared for it or you will lose when it comes. You have to able to credibly honor the threat.

But there is no real argument here. I just don't think the way you do. If we all thought the same it would be a dull world, huh?

Stealth is a fleeting asset. When someone finds a way to detect your stealthy airplane, then it must fall back on airframe performance. Unfortunately the F-35 doesn't have much there. But it DOES have probably the best sensors on the planet and a very good computer system, so it can take action before the defense closes to visual range. If you send in a bunch of them, they can converge from many directions all coordinated together and attack about anything quite efectively.

Of course, when they fire missiles, you know where they came from and if you have fast maneuverable fighters, you may be able to catch and shoot down an unarmed F-35 as he tries to egress, so the missiles the F-35 carries should be good ones with decent range. Maybe we need stealthy air-to-air missiles so the defenders get the minimum warning.

Whatever else, the USA must be prepared to defined against the biggest military threat on the planet. Whether that is Russia or China, I can't say, but what if they joined forces? Maybe the biggest curent threat is North Korea. What do we do if they suddenly break the armistice and resume the Korean War?

So we have different things to think about as countries. While I am not an F-35 fan, I can see scenarios in which it is VERY effective. But I can also see scenarios in which it gets slaughtered. The difference could easily come from the rules of engagement (ROE), which hsitorically in the last 35 years have NOT favored the capabilities of the US military assets involved. Mostly they favor the enemy's right to not be attacked. That's what I'm worried about ... the ROE when the F-35 is our primary attack asset. The ROE are set by politicians and they generally don't seem to have much regard for our own military lives.

I'm a big believer in the old "carry a Big Stick" philosophy for non-war operations. Annouce your intentions and tell the world in advance what you are going to do and where. Then tell them if you see any opposition in front of you ... you will shoot first and possibly send apologies later. That way, the ROE are simple. The only military opposition is not friendly.

It's not that way in a declared war, but it can be in an operation to achieve some objective without war. If you need secrecy, then so be it, but make the ROE so your own forces are protected, not the enemy's forces, and so your own forces operate using their strengths.

Most people don't seem to realize that the military are the LAST people in the world who want to go fight because it's THEM doing it. The Military wants the politicians to succeed in making agreements. When reasonability fails, then the military needs to be allowed to plan their moves without political interference after the politicians have set the objectives. The civilian leaders should tell them what the objectives are when the miliitary is needed, stand back, and watch it happen. But is usually doesn't quite work out that way. The civilians seem to need to get in the way with stupid conditions and ROE. Military science has evloved considerably in the last 50 years, but most politicians have never studied the first course in it, much less have any idea how to achieve a military objective, particularly without loss.



Hey Joe,

I think the Navy wants twins ... but I never said they were right, I think it just what the top Navy brass *wants *because it's what they grew up with. Personally, I have no issue with single engine Naval aircraft as fighters, attack planes, or trainers.

As far as the F-35 goes, I know it's here and going into service whether or not it should, so I want it to succeed. That's the best scenario I can see come down the pike. Not shackling it with stupid ROE is part of the way it CAN succeed. I hope we can SEE that and DO it up in the positions that make the rules.

I've seen that F-14 incident many times and have always wondered what happened. My surmise is a burst fuel line ... maybe in the afterburner section or a broken fuel pump housing or possibly an oil-related fire, maybe hydraulic oil, perhaps even the hydraulic line to the turkey feathers. What's yours?

Whatever it was, it happend fast and sprayed a considerable quantity of flamable liquid in the wrong place. I doubt that has anything to do with twin engine- design, but it DID happen to a twin. I've seen singles with much the same failure, usually after battle damage. I saw an F-105 go in when his engine quit on the turn to final in Viet Nam coming into Da Nang. The pilot ejected, but had rolled too far toward inverted and he didn't make it. The F-105 just dropped when the engine quit.


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 23, 2015)

parsifal said:


> .I can remember back during one of the numerous exercises we had with the Americans....Kitty hawk I think it was. We had a mixed force of F-111s, F-4s and A-4s taking on a CAG of F-14s and F-4s. We also had several Oxley class subs to play with. It was assumed that we had harpoon capability (which we didn't). The Americans came charging across the ocean twice for the same exercise. first time, Melbourne put the hammers down and ran like crazy, to bring the Kitty hawk into Harpoon range. cheeky sub skipper sent a message to the 'blue' fleet, with the blessing of the onboard referee......"oops." It was judged the Kitty Hawk had had its superstructure remodelled with 6 harpoons apparently. so we re-set the exercise and did it again. this time feints were made by the f-111s and f-4s with stand off weaponary so as to draw the CAP away and also pull the air defence assets to one side of the fleet. *Ive seen the footage of our A-4s coming in at wavetop height with just bombs only and deliver another attack in the simulation, this time from the other direction. low tech, high skill, and deadly according to the refs.*



Sounds like the Argentinian use of A-4's in the Falklands War.


----------



## Glider (Sep 23, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> 50 years of twin engined carrier fighters and attack jets says you are wrong.



I don't know how many years I admit but the A7, F8, A4 and Harrier operations let alone F9 Panther, F9 Cougar and F86 naval fighters probably top your totals covering the first naval jet aircraft to the present day. Then if you throw in the Seahawk, various French naval aircraft fighters would prove to most people that single engine naval operations are quite feasible. 

You make statements but without evidence and don't address any questions with facts, just more statements. The above list shows that the single engine naval fighter has a place in the front line as does the twin engine fighter. To insist otherwise is simply absurd.

Anyone with any knowledge of aviation would agree that training aircraft have a very tough life. They cycle more landings that any other type, the pilots are not fully trained, they tend to have more hard lands as a result and the engines are operated less smoothly than with fully trained pilots, but what do the USN use, yes you've guessed it, a single engine aircraft.

These are facts and are without question accurate. now if you can supply facts, not statements then we can have a debate.

Feel free to prove our facts wrong, the ball is firmly in your court

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 23, 2015)

Glider said:


> I don't know how many years I admit but the A7, F8, A4 and Harrier operations let alone F9 Panther, F9 Cougar and F86 naval fighters probably top your totals covering the first naval jet aircraft to the present day. Then if you throw in the Seahawk, various French naval aircraft fighters would prove to most people that single engine naval operations are quite feasible.
> 
> You make statements but without evidence and don't address any questions with facts, just more statements. The above list shows that the single engine naval fighter has a place in the front line as does the twin engine fighter. To insist otherwise is simply absurd.
> 
> ...



Let me simplify it.

For naval aircraft, fighters and attack:
Two engines gives you more thrust to safely launch from a catapult.
Two engines lets you carry more payload when launched from a catapult.
Two engines gives you the ability to get back to home or a safe place if the other engine starts acting up.

Losing a single engine means you're going down. And inevitably it will be over the ocean in bad weather, high waves and in cold water. Not good for the pilot. And lots of twin engined naval aircraft have returned back to their carrier on one engine. 

Since the F4 entered the fleet in the early 60's, all fighter and attack designs have been twin engines. And as I noted multiple times, the A7 was designed from the onset as for light attack and low cost.

All of the single engined aircraft you mentioned; they were all cheap and disposable. Products of a different age. I will not include the Harrier in the mix because it has a unique mission. And the F35 is probably a good fit for the marines, if solely because of what its requirements are.

And trainers are just that. Trainers.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 23, 2015)

Is there _any_ way, to figure out, of those single engined lost in operations, due to _any and whatever_ reason, would have made their way home and landed safely (somewhat) to be repaired and fight another day, had they had a second engine?

Just curious, nothing else....

Great thread, not much for modern jets, but I'm all for learning, which you're never to old for!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Is there _any_ way, to figure out, of those single engined lost in combat, due to _any and whatever_ reason, would have made their way home and landed safely (somewhat) to be repaired and fight another day, had they had a second engine?
> 
> Just curious, nothing else....
> 
> Great thread, not much for modern jets, but I'm all for learning, which you're never to old for!


http://asmameeting.org/asma2013_mp/pdfs/asma2013_present_469.pdf

BTW, for the year shown, there was NOT one Class A mishap involving a fighter suffering an engine failure over water.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 23, 2015)

Back in WWII we had combat losses and operational losses. Combat is self explanatory except if we had a fighter get hit and survive to start home, and if he then exited combat but couldn't make it home, it was classed as an operational loss since it wasn't in combat. But the loss was as a result of damage sustained in combat.

So "operation al losses" for the USA include: 1) running out of fuel or oil, 2) carburetor icing around the carrier (see F4U for that one), 3) losses from damage sustained in combat taht wasn't mortal at the time the damage was received, 4) losses due to running out of oxygen while too high, 5) losses due to the pilot having a medical problem from either a combat wound AFTER combat was over or some other medical emergency, 6) losses due to mechanical or electrical failure, 7)losses due the pilot simply getting lost ... and probably some others, 8 ) losses from getting into weather and flying into the ground or mountains, 9) losses from overstressing the airframe in a pullout or perhaps in a thunderstorm, 10) losses from accidents on the ground or in the air, 11) losses due to friendly mis-handling of ordnance, 12) losses incurred from simply repositioning assets, 13) losses on essential but non-combat missions, like recon where no enemy was sighted, etc.

So the problem is finding out what the reason for the loss was and that information seems very hard to track down, at least for me to date.

If anyone has a good list from ANY war, but especially WWII and wants to share it, please DO. Doesn't matter which side or nationality ...


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 23, 2015)

Much obliged Joe!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Let me simplify it.
> 
> For naval aircraft, fighters and attack:
> Two engines gives you more thrust to safely launch from a catapult.
> ...



A simpleton explanation.

Two engines DON'T mean you'll have the same performance parameters because a combat aircraft built with two engines will have to be larger, carry more fuel and more than likely have higher stall speeds because of this. In designs like the F-14/15/16 if you "shell" one engine, there's a good possibility you're going to partially or fully take out the other engine. There could also be asymmetrical control issues that could have you depart flight especially during landing. The F-18 that crashed in Virginia a few years ago had a double engine failure.



syscom3 said:


> Losing a single engine means you're going down. And inevitably it will be over the ocean in bad weather, high waves and in cold water. Not good for the pilot. And lots of twin engined naval aircraft have returned back to their carrier on one engine.


 the same MAY happen in a larger and more costly twin engine aircraft




syscom3 said:


> Since the F4 entered the fleet in the early 60's, all fighter and attack designs have been twin engines. And as I noted multiple times, the A7 was designed from the onset as for light attack and low cost.


 And the US Navy used them extensively. They had one of the best operational records during the Vietnam war.


syscom3 said:


> All of the single engined aircraft you mentioned; they were all cheap and disposable.


By who's definition, yours? 


syscom3 said:


> Products of a different age. I will not include the Harrier in the mix because it has a unique mission. And the F35 is probably a good fit for the marines, if solely because of what its requirements are.


 How convenient!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2015)

WELL KICK MY ASS! I just came across this little piece, it's soooo good here's the text copied. The bold text is my input. Lucky, don't get too excited with the last paragraph! 

Best Fighter for Canada: Mythbuster: Single engine safety

There was a decent crown at the air show today. It was a beautiful August Saturday, with just the slightest wisps of clouds high up. 

"Time to start the show." Captain Buster said to himself as he throttled his trusty CF-18 Hornet demonstrator up and off the tarmac. Buster had a privilege of following The Snowbirds that day, so he knew he had his work cut out for him. "No problem." he thought, those 50-year-old CT-114s may have their precision, but the ol' Hornet had raw power on its side. 

Captain Buster imagined he could hear the crowd's "Ooohhs!" and "Aahhhs!" over the roar of this after burning GE404 turbofans. Even after 30 years of service, the Hornet was still an impressive plane. Its high thrust and high angle-of-attack performance allowed it to perform maneuvers that seemed to contradict the laws of physics. "Not bad for an old girl..." thought Buster with a smile. "Even that duck seems impressed. Looks like its trying to get a closer look..."

That smile quickly turned clenched teeth when Captain Buster heard a "THUNK" quickly followed by alarm klaxons going off and lights flickering all over his cockpit. His controls violently started to shake as his CF-18 shuddered and then started losing altitude in a lazy roll. A quick scan of the gauges confirmed Buster's suspicions: That duck just wrecked one of his engines.

"MAYDAY! MAYDAY! MAYDAY!"

Thinking fast, Captain Buster immediately throttled up his one remaining engine while applying a slight amour of opposite rudder to compensate. With white knuckles and sweaty palms he managed to get his aircraft straight and level again. Gingerly, he slowed the aircraft down, extended his landing gear, and approached the runway. Landing a CF-18 on a single engine was not easy, and the pressure was made worse by the fact that a large crowd was uncomfortable close.

Sweating enough to saturate his flight suit, Captain Buster managed to put his wheels down on the tarmac and slowly bring his wounded fighter to a stop. His CF-18's jet roar was replaced with the sounds of approaching sirens as a fire crew raced to his smoking aircraft and started dousing it with foam. 

Looking at the crowd, Captain Buster noticed that every single one of them was clapping their hands. Captain Buster shook his head and waved. "Good thing I still had that second engine." he thought. "This could have gone a whole lot worse for me AND them."

Two engines are safer than one. Better to have a backup. That extra engine could make the difference between life or death, especially over Canada's unforgiving wilderness. Better to limp home on one engine, allowing both the aircraft and pilot to fly another day, than to have a pilot ditch their aircraft hundreds of miles away from civilization.

Many believe that the lack of a second engine should automatically disqualify fighters like the F-35 and Gripen as Canada's CF-18 replacement. It simply is not worth the risk.

History would seem to back up this statement. Canada's last foray into the world of single-engined fighters, the CF-104 Starfighter, had a bit of a reputation. During its 25 year stint in the RCAF, the CF-104 had 110 major mishaps, resulting in 37 pilot fatalities. Clearly, it would seem that single engine aircraft are dangerous.

That is... Until one takes a closer look at both the numbers and the context surrounding the CF-104's dismal safety record.

The CF-104 Starfighter was used by the RCAF as a low-level strike and reconnaissance aircraft. This was completely at odds with the F-104's intended role as a high altitude interceptor. Its distinctive razor thin wings and needle-like shape made it an impressive performer in this role. These same features made it extremely unforgiving in other aspects, however. The F-104 became unflyable at high-angles of attack and it had a rather high stall speed.

Despite this, it was decided that RCAF CF-104s would be stripped of any air-to-air missiles, and even their 20mm cannon in earlier models. Instead, Canadian Starfighters would carry bombs, rockets, and even American supplied nuclear weapons. In hindsight, this decision to take a high-altitude interceptor, load it with heavy bombs, then force it fly at treetop level seems... Regrettable.

Believe it or not, the CF-104 actually had a superior safety record to its predecessor, the CF-86 Sabre (also a single-engine fighter). This despite the fact that the Sabre was flown at altitude.

*Of the 110 major mishaps that occurred with the CF-104 Starfighter, only 14 were caused due to engine failures. The rest were caused by foreign object damage (FOD), pilot error, and the like. *

The USAF had an aircraft that fulfilled a near identical role to the CF-104: The single-engined F-105 Thunderchief. Like the CF-104, it was armed with heavy bombs and flown at low level. Yet it had a much better safety record thanks to its more robust design an benign handling characteristics. Unfortunately, most F-105 losses were due to combat losses over Vietnam. 

When Canada selected its CF-104 replacement, it selected the F/A-18 Hornet over the cheaper F-16 Fighting Falcon. Prevailing wisdom would suggest this was because the F/A-18 had two smaller GE F404 engines instead of the F-16's single, but larger P&W F100.

This is not the case however.

At the time, the F-16A was still considered a day fighter, tasked only with the air-superiority role. Earlier models lacked sufficient strike capability or even BVR weapons weapons like the AIM-7 Sparrow. It would not become the multirole fighter we know of today until the introduction of the F-16C in 1984.

The F/A-18 had all of these features from the start. Not only that, but it came with a more substantial offset package. General Dynamics (the F-16's manufacturer at the time) was already committed to the F-16's European partners.

Over the years, both aircraft have undertaken similar roles. Both aircraft have near-identical safety records as well. The F-16 actually has a lower accident rate than the F/A-18 when you consider that the Viper outnumbers the Hornet more than three to one. Early F-16 controversy was centered more on "wire chafing" causing its fly-by-wire controls to short out. Current F-16 problems tend to be more related to aging airframes and overworked maintenance personnel, rather than any engine defect.

It is reasonable to assume that the F/A-18 would have a spottier safety record than the F-16, regardless of engines. After all, the majority of F/A-18s operate from USN supercarriers, not pristine airfields. They also use different engines. Comparing their safety records to each other may not be fair.

Perhaps it would be more helpful to compare two similar aircraft, using identical engines, used for similar missions, by the same air force. Conveniently, there is an example of just that.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2015)

The F-100 Super Sabre and the F-100 Voodoo (A and C variants) were powered by the Pratt Whitney J57 turbojet engine. Both aircraft were used as fighter bombers in the USAF, flying similar missions. 

Similarly, the F-101 Delta Dart interceptor was also powered by a single P&W J57 turbojet. I performed a similar mission to the interceptor version of the Voodoo, the F-101B.

What is telling is that the incident rate of both single-engine aircraft, the F-100 and the F-102, were near identical to the twin-engine F-101 when flown on similar missions. Keep in mind that these are all 50s era aircraft using technology far more primitive than that of today's jet engines.


While modern jet engines do look nearly identical to their older counterparts, they are in a different league when it comes to refinement, efficiency, and durability. Advances to metallurgy allows for more durable components. Computer aided design and manufacturing (CADCAM) allows for tighter tolerances and less manufacturing defects. Improved diagnostic systems allow the pilots and ground crew to locate issues before they become problems and, in many cases, before the aircraft even leaves the ground. 

Modern aircraft engines are thoroughly tested to ensure continued operation throughout the harshest conditions. This includes water ingestion, hail, ice, and the occasional large bird. As you can see from the videos above, some damage may occur, but not enough to result in catastrophic failure. 

*So why do so many fighter aircraft have two engines? 

Packaging and power.

You will notice that most two engine fighters are larger, multi-mission types that need to carry heavier loads yet still need lots of performance. The F-15C and F-14 need two large engines in order to carry copious amounts of internal fuel for an intercept mission. The F-111 and A-6 need two engines to carry copious amount of bombs. Even the F-18 needs its two engines because it is a heavier fighter (1.5 tonnes more) than the F-16, yet requires a slower stall speed. *

*If you need a single engine to make more power, you simply need to make it bigger. Currently, the most powerful turbofan engine placed in a fighter is the F-35's P&W F135. At 43,000lbs of thrust (with afterburner), the F-35 makes more power than the both CF-18 engines put together. It is just slightly less than that of the Super Hornet's twin GE-F414s.* While a single engine design does maker for less maintenance issues and such, it can cause a new set of issues. For example, the F-35C's engine is simply too big to fit inside the USN's C-2 Greyhound transport aircraft. This makes aircraft carrier deliveries a bit tricky. Luckily, the Super Hornet's smaller engine fits just fine.

Twin-engine aircraft are built as twin-engined aircraft. Both turbines work together to propel the aircraft as a single propulsion system. *One engine does not work as a "spare" to the other. A catastrophic failure in one would result in a near-instantaneous sudden loss of power and an extremely ill-handling airplane. The malfunctioning engine would act as "dead weight", contributing to extra drag while adding power to the opposite engine to compensate would result in the aircraft rotating on its yaw axis. *

On top of all this, there is the underlying cause of the engine malfunction to worry about. A fire or structural failure could easily spread to the remaining engine. As could a loss in fuel pressure. In some cases, the loss of one engine is simply a precursor to the second engine following suit. 

My little fictional story at the start of this post was very loosely based on real life events. While practicing for an air show in Lethbridge, Alberta, Captain Brian Bews' CF-18 demonstrator suffered from a starboard engine failure due to a stuck fuel piston. This kept the right engine from throttling up alongside the port (left) side engine when maximum afterburner was selected.

* “The large thrust imbalance between the left and the right engines caused the aircraft to depart controlled flight and the aircraft was unrecoverable within the altitude available.”*

Despite Captain Bews' best efforts, he could not regain control of the aircraft. Given the nature of the problem, there is little guarantee he could have even if the altitude was higher. 

Are twin-engined aircraft safer? Maybe... But not significantly so.

*The single-engined Saab Gripen (which uses a variant of the F404 used in the CF-18 ) has enjoyed a near flawless safety record. Out of a mere 11 major incidents, none were engine related. This, despite the fact that Sweden operates the Gripen in severe conditions with one Gripen airbase located in the arctic circle. They even perform arctic patrols with them and everything.*

Too bad Canada would never buy a European-sourced aircraft for the RCAF. Would they?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 23, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The F-100 Super Sabre and the *F-100 Voodoo* (A and C variants) were powered by the Pratt Whitney J57 turbojet engine. Both aircraft were used as fighter bombers in the USAF, flying similar missions.
> 
> Similarly, the *F-101 Delta Dart* interceptor......



Say what now....did I miss something?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 23, 2015)

The Gripen NG or upcoming E/F is using the F414G engine, same as the Super Hornet, which Volvo Flygmotor helped to develop....if I remember correctly.
Seem to be good engine....


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 23, 2015)

Two engines - twice the trouble...


----------



## parsifal (Sep 23, 2015)

Id say we have joes attention now....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2015)

gumbyk said:


> Two engines - twice the trouble...



Yep, and only a maintainer could really appreciate that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Say what now....did I miss something?



A slight typo, he must have been drinking a Molson when he wrote that!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 23, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep, and only a maintainer could really appreciate that.


Or an owner/operator who has to foot the bills...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 24, 2015)

Nah Lucky, he just types as well as I do ... you KNOW he meant F-102 ...


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 24, 2015)

....just....you know, that famous chain!


----------



## Glider (Sep 24, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Let me simplify it.
> 
> For naval aircraft, fighters and attack:
> Two engines gives you more thrust to safely launch from a catapult.
> ...



Let me take it one step at a time:-
_Two engines gives you more thrust to safely launch from a catapult._
Wrong - The aircraft needs two engines because the size of the aircraft needs two engines. 
_Two engines lets you carry more payload when launched from a catapult_
Correct - Because the design was dictated by the requirements which include payload
_Two engines gives you the ability to get back to home or a safe place if the other engine starts acting _up
Correct - a major factor when engines were not as reliable

_Since the F4 entered the fleet in the early 60's, all fighter and attack designs have been twin engines. And as I noted multiple times, the A7 was designed from the onset as for light attack and low cost_
The first part is clearly wrong as the second part proves. All aircraft are designed to the lowest cost possible to meet the need, the requirement didn't need two engines so the aircraft didn't get two engines.

_All of the single engined aircraft you mentioned; they were all cheap and disposable. Products of a different age_. 
Totally wrong. No carrier aircraft is disposable and I would argue that no aircraft of any type is disposable. The investment in the aircraft crew and support staff is huge. At sea there are no spares, no easy replacements as you could be the other side of the world. 
You cannot and have not tried to argue that the aircraft mentioned are not combat worthy as they have proved themselves in combat and aren proven carrier aircraft, all you try to do is dismiss the evidence as it isn't convenient or fit your belief. This is supported in your own words by the next bit.

_I will not include the Harrier in the mix because it has a unique mission. And the F35 is probably a good fit for the marines, if solely because of what its requirements are_.

Can I ask what was the unique mission of the FRS Harriers, the dedicated fighter type that made you exclude it. The Harrier, the aircraft that operated so far from home in the South Atlantic Seas. The one that always did well in Red Flag exercises against the F15 which was the fighter everyone measured themselves against. Also the Harrier the one operated by the US and the UK, not forgetting India and Spain. Why exclude it.

And now your final bit
_And trainers are just that. Trainers_
Correct Trainers are just that, trainers. And they do have a much harder life than operational aircraft and the USN do use a single engine trainer, which is a little inconvenient for you and your argument so I would like your views as to why that aircraft was chosen when there were so many twin engine trainers to chose from?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 24, 2015)

Id very much like to see some statistics that shows a clear trend of twins being safer or better than an SE a/c. I would hardly call an aircraft like the SAAB 39 Gripen a product of a different age neither is it cheap and disposable. Its cheap(er) than the F-35 and whether it is less effective is a matter of debate. It certainly is comparable to superior to the F-18, probably would now outdo both the F-14 and F-15, and perhaps a maximum of 10 years younger at most in terms of design and development. 

One that probably might fit the bill is the new HAL Tejas, but it is what it is because the Indians are working from a fairly low technology base, not because single engined a/c are "cheap and disposable". At $30 million a copy, you can have 4 of these babies for every one F-35, but the Indians settled on the single engine configuration because they wanted a lightweight fighter agile and could extract more than enough power out of one engine. For them this new aircraft is anything but low tech. Designed to replace their ageing MiG 21s is cutting edge for an emerging technological power like India

I certainly would not like to deal with an Indian AF battle problem where they will probably have 3 or 4 times the force size that we have and aircraft like the Tejas, and try and P*ss into the wind by saying their a/c are cheap and disposable......reportedly one reason they have opted for a single engine configuration along with a unique composite material for the airframe is related to minimising the radar signature. Similar reasons for the F-35 configuration i might add, though I doubt they have done it as effectively, by all accounts its still a hard a/c to track and lock on to.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 24, 2015)

Gripens new screen....well, the E/F..







AEL Sistemas Deliver WAD And HUD For Gripen NG

21 Sep 2015in

AEL Sistemas (AEL) has now delivered the first wide area display (WAD) and the head-up display (HUD), which will be integrated in the Gripen NG for Brazil, reports Defesanet.

Saab had announced in February this year that it had selected AEL Sistemas (AEL) as a new supplier for the Gripen NG in Brazil.

The WAD for Brazil’s Gripen NG aircraft is a single intelligent and full-redundant multi-purpose display system, full-colour, large-screen (19 x 8 in) with continuous image presentation and the state-of-the-art touch-screen controls capability. It is the primary source of all flight and mission information in the cockpit. The HUD, on the other hand, provides essential flight and mission information to the pilot when looking ‘heads up’ out of the cockpit. With HUD, the pilot does not need to look down into the cockpit to read instruments which makes it easier to focus on the mission.

"This is a very important step in the development of Gripen NG for Brazil. It shows a very efficient cooperation between AEL and Saab and is a successful step in the industrial cooperation between Brazilian industry and Saab in the Gripen NG program", says Mikael Franzén, Program Director for Gripen Brazil.

To demonstrate and validate the new equipment, an extensive flight test campaign will be conducted in Linköping, Sweden.

Edit: The above screen is for the Brazilian Gripen variant, the screen below is the 'normal' E/F version...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 24, 2015)

Is the '35, using the same Link 16 orwhatyacallit system as the Gripen?

Also saw this on the SAAB page...

_Saab had recognized the importance of a linked flow of secure electronic combat data long back in fact. Saab’s J 35 Draken was equipped with one of the world’s first operational datalink systems. The practice continued with the addition of more powerful datalink capabilities to Draken and Viggen and of course Gripen now._


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2015)

Glider said:


> _Two engines gives you the ability to get back to home or a safe place if the other engine starts acting _up
> Correct - *a major factor when engines were not as reliable*



That sums it up right there


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 24, 2015)

I don't know but, would engines of today be, 50% more reliable than those 25+ years ago? Maybe as electronics gets more and more advanced they'll pass engine failure as the reason for a crash?

Gripen NG performance, facts and figures This is a pdf from SAAB....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2015)

I'd say it probably more then 50% depending on the engine and application


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 24, 2015)

Joe, you know better than me and I thought I went overboard typing '50%'....  

I know that this article is about two years old and I'm not too sure if it's been posted here, Gripen for Canada, Why the Saab Gripen NG is right for Canada....but I took time to read all the answer and found it interesting....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 24, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> I don't know but, would engines of today be, 50% more reliable than those 25+ years ago?



Dunno about 25 years ago but get much more than 30 and I think engines are hugely more reliable today than they were. Just look at automotive engines. Remember having to "run in" a new engine? Not to mention some of the maintenance horrors from the 1970s and into the early 1980s. Getting north of 120,000 miles was considered good going back then whereas today's engines are barely getting into their stride at that point. 

I know we can't directly extrapolate from auto engines to aviation but there are a number of technology "families" - computer-based management and monitoring systems, better metallurgy, more reliable actuators etc. - that have applicability to both environments. I'm with Joe on this one...I think modern engines are vastly more reliable compared to 25+ years ago (and that improvement becomes more marked the further back in time one looks).


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 24, 2015)

Can't help but think about that Volvo P1800 in New York or where it was, was is it now 2,000,000+ miles,.with the same engine etc.,?

Edit: Just checked, Irv Gordon's '66 Volvo P1800 reached 3,000,000 miles two years ago....


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 24, 2015)

There's always an exception...but how many other P1800s are there still on the road?


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 24, 2015)

I'd say that there's quite a few, the same as with other old Volvo's, Amazon, PV, Duett, the 140 series...we say here, that those more often than not, survive their owners!


----------



## parsifal (Sep 25, 2015)

we are off topic, but new cars are more reliable than old ones because of improvements in technology. computer controlled ignitions for example are superior to the old rotor and points system, delivering far more accurate ignition timing.

But in terms of build quality and general durability old cars are much better. An old car was designed to last 20-30 years, so long as you dont mind fixing it all the time, and put up with inferior performance. They also hold their resale value much better. My old Austin Healy Sprite I used as my daily drive for 
14 years, spent around $5000 on it, paid $4000 for it, and sold it for over $16000 at the end. 

New cars are designed with what is called 'engineered obsolescence". They are designed to last 5-7 years and then everything about them just falls apart and off them. An old (new) car is a liability

Maybe planes are designed the same???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2015)

parsifal said:


> we are off topic, but new cars are more reliable than old ones because of improvements in technology. computer controlled ignitions for example are superior to the old rotor and points system, delivering far more accurate ignition timing.
> 
> But in terms of build quality and general durability old cars are much better. An old car was designed to last 20-30 years, so long as you dont mind fixing it all the time, and put up with inferior performance. They also hold their resale value much better. My old Austin Healy Sprite I used as my daily drive for
> 14 years, spent around $5000 on it, paid $4000 for it, and sold it for over $16000 at the end.
> ...



Usually a time life cycle is part of the design spec


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 25, 2015)

How much of what they have now, missiles etc., is too big for the -35's weapons bay?
Gripen have some 'hot stuff' in its armament, what does -35 in comparison?
Also, is it _really_ 'only' a Mach 1,6 bird? Gripen is Mach 2 something with supercruise at Mach 1,3 or thereabouts....isn't that a tad slow for such a bird?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> How much of what they have now, missiles etc., is too big for the -35's weapons bay?
> Gripen have some 'hot stuff' in its armament, what does -35 in comparison?
> Also, is it _really_ 'only' a Mach 1,6 bird? Gripen is Mach 2 something with supercruise at Mach 1,3 or thereabouts....isn't that a tad slow for such a bird?



First, there are some munitions that won't fit in the F-35B in the planned loadout, later mods will take care of that. As far as weapons, it depends what model of the F-35 you're talking about.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkADougHayward.pdf

The F-35 could carry 18,000 pounds of bombs in internal and external stores (depending on model) From what have read on the Gripen, there's nothing definitive on it's bomb load (because its primary role is an air to air fighter?) but loadouts don't come close to 18,000 pounds.

As far as speed - compare both birds at lower altitude because that's where it's really going to make a difference. BTW the F-117 was subsonic...


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 26, 2015)

High reliability modern jet engine. Hey, they don't fail. Do they?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> High reliability modern jet engine. Hey, they don't fail. Do they?




Do you even have a hair on your @ss or a molecule in your brain to explain WHY they fail or don't fail? How many jet engines have you worked on behind your desk or at your recliner to honestly show us that you really know what you're talking about? I could post a photo of a downs syndrome brain and try to compare it to some of your posts but I would rather show some meaningful facts for comparison, so if you cant do the same I suggest you just STFU and ether be educated or go away!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 26, 2015)

The engine failed or not? Good thing it was still on the ground.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 26, 2015)

Lookie here. Another modern high tech engine failure. I thought engine failures were a thing of the past.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2015)

You showed two engine failures - provide statistical comparisons of the aircraft type, engine type and hours flown. If you don't I will ban you.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 26, 2015)

F-18 crashes involving engine failures:
7 February 1987 - USMC - F/A‑18A - VMFA‑122
21 September 1987 - CAF - CF-18
16 November 1987 - USMC - F/A‑18A - FVMFA‑531
10 May 1988 - USN - F/A‑18A - VFA‑125
22 June 1989 - USN - F/A‑18A - VFA‑151
31 March 1990 - USN - F-18A - VFA‑136
24 January 1991 - USN - F-18C
29 May 1992 - USMC - F/A-18D - VMFA[AW]-121
22 June 1993 - USMC - F/A‑18A - MAG 42, Det. A, 4th MAW
21 June 1994 - USN - F/A-18 - VFA-82
18 November 1994 - USN - F/A‑18A - VFA‑97
9 May 2000 - USMC - F/A‑18D - VMFAT(AW)‑101
23 October 2001 - USN - F/A-18C - VFA-105

These were specifically listed as "crash due to engine failure" listings, several others between the years of 1987 and 2001 alluded to engine failure, but stopped short of the claim. There was a good number of crashes between 1994 and 2000 that were very vague as to cause.

However, from 2001 onward, "crash due to engine failure" ceases to exist...not because they stopped crashing, because there is plenty of crashes listed...however, the "crash due to...." is now vaguely listed.

Even so, this is quite a few twin engined aircraft that crashed due to engine failures...so at what point did that extra engine come in handy?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> F-18 crashes involving engine failures:
> 7 February 1987 - USMC - F/A‑18A - VMFA‑122
> 21 September 1987 - CAF - CF-18
> 16 November 1987 - USMC - F/A‑18A - FVMFA‑531
> ...



Good post - and if we could compare those number with the hours flown, it would probably make you want to fly in an F-18 in lieu of driving your car.... For a number of reasons!


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 26, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good post - and if we could compare those number with the hours flown, it would probably make you want to fly in an F-18 *in lieu of driving your car*.... For a number of reasons!



Dunno...does an F-18 have early warning for old women driving Buicks?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 26, 2015)

also the disastrous engine failures shown in those photos would almost certainly have caused a failure also of an engine housed right beside it.

So, the brief after seeing those photos gets even more specific....how many aircraft with engines housed together, or in close proximity, can survive as compared to a single engine configuration.

Having two engines can probably help in some situations, that much im prepared to concede, but how much safer, and do you make sacrifices like increased signatures , incresed costs, decreased serviceability rates and the like.

I trust the military and the the manufacturer enough to believe these issues would be considered at concept stage. I want to give this issue better consideration and clear air, but there is just nothing in front of us to demonstrate any significant problem


----------



## Glider (Sep 26, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> The engine failed or not? Good thing it was still on the ground.



You are correct, it was lucky that they were on the ground as the first one almost certainly would have resulted in the loss of the aircraft.

The only aircraft I can think of that was deliberately designed for survivability in the case of the loss of an engine was the A10. Its competitor the Northdrop A9 also had two engines but didn't get the contract. One reason was that the engines were close to each other and damage to one would almost certainly damage the other.

I notice that you still haven't answered any of the questions put to you or supplied any evidence to support your position. This silence speaks louder than any words could say.

The occasional photo doesn't prove anything, as whatever we discuss, someone can always find a photo of the exception. As the saying goes, the exception proves the rule, particularly if that's all you've got

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gixxerman (Sep 26, 2015)

Glider said:


> The only aircraft I can think of that was deliberately designed for survivability in the case of the loss of an engine was the A10.



I can't give you quotations but I am pretty certain that from the F15 F14 onwards engine/engine-bay layouts for those military twin engine aircraft did take into account the possibility of damage to one being contained as much as possible so as to (hopefully) leave the other still able to operate.
Clearly not to the same degree as an A10 but I am pretty sure I have read it was a consideration during their design.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2015)

Glider said:


> I notice that you still haven't answered any of the questions put to you or supplied any evidence to support your position. This silence speaks louder than any words could say.
> 
> The occasional photo doesn't prove anything, as whatever we discuss, someone can always find a photo of the exception. As the saying goes, the exception proves the rule, particularly if that's all you've got




And Syscom, you will answer my earlier post as well. You've been nothing more than a moronic disruption so put up or I'll shut you up!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2015)

Gixxerman said:


> I can't give you quotations but I am pretty certain that from the F15 F14 onwards engine/engine-bay layouts for those military twin engine aircraft did take into account the possibility of damage to one being contained as much as possible so as to (hopefully) leave the other still able to operate.
> Clearly not to the same degree as an A10 but I am pretty sure I have read it was a consideration during their design.


The MiG-19 had two side - by - side engines, but that was done more to attain the desired performance.


----------



## Gixxerman (Sep 26, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The MiG-19 had two side - by - side engines, but that was done more to attain the desired performance.



Indeed FLYBOYJ ( similarly aircraft like the F4 Phantom etc) it's just that I'm pretty sure I've read hisories of the design of the F15 F14 where they specifically paid attention to the possibility of one engine being hit trying to then enure that it would not (as easlily as may have been the case previously) be able to take out the other (although clearly severe levels of damage would make that imposible).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2015)

Gixxerman said:


> Indeed FLYBOYJ ( similarly aircraft like the F4 Phantom etc) it's just that I'm pretty sure I've read hisories of the design of the F15 F14 where they specifically paid attention to the possibility of one engine being hit trying to then enure that it would not (as easlily as may have been the case previously) be able to take out the other (although clearly severe levels of damage would make that imposible).



And agree as well, but the situation that we have is more than likely if any of these aircraft did take a well placed hit it's going down (or loosing both engines) so in going full circle here is it better to place yourself in a situation where the possibility of being tracked and shot at is mitigated (stealth technology) or flying an aircraft with two engines that paint a huge radar target and you're hoping to survive the possibility of being hit? I rather not be shot at but some people prefer the punishment!


----------



## Greyman (Sep 26, 2015)

Cool video on Italy's f-35:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxXM7j4nmQg_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 26, 2015)

Gixxerman said:


> I can't give you quotations but I am pretty certain that from the F15 F14 onwards engine/engine-bay layouts for those military twin engine aircraft did take into account the possibility of damage to one being contained as much as possible so as to (hopefully) leave the other still able to operate.
> Clearly not to the same degree as an A10 but I am pretty sure I have read it was a consideration during their design.



You are correct but two engines in close proximity is always a risk, a fire in one will almost always lead to damage to the other even if its one of the feeds into the system fuel, oil, or a disruption to the power. As Syscom is always keen to mention we are talking about combat aircraft and a hit/proximity fuse hit will produce shrapnel and they will hit both engines. On the A10 the engines are as far away as possible from each other whereas the A9 didn't have this advantage.


----------



## GregP (Sep 27, 2015)

Here's a very low altitude jet application:






Looks like a B-47 crashed into a train ...

I might decline to drive the one below:






I've seen the checklist for an F-104's Emergency Procedures. Fully 75% of them end with the word "Eject!"

Here's a short list of notable uncontained engine failure incidents:

1) Qantas Flight 32: an Airbus A380 flying from London Heathrow to Sydney (via Singapore) in 2010 had an uncontained failure in a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine. The failure was found to have been caused by a misaligned counter bore within a stub oil pipe leading to a fatigue fracture. This in turn led to an oil leakage followed by an oil fire in the engine. The fire led to the release of the Intermediate Pressure Turbine (IPT) disc.

2) Delta Air Lines Flight 1288: a McDonnell Douglas MD-88 flying from Pensacola, Florida to Atlanta in 1996 had a cracked compressor rotor hub failure on one of its Pratt Whitney JT8D-219 engines. 2 died.

3) United Airlines Flight 232: a McDonnell Douglas DC-10 flying from Denver to Chicago in 1989. The failure of the rear General Electric CF6-6 engine caused the loss of all hydraulics forcing the pilots to attempt a landing using differential thrust. 111 fatalities. Prior to the United 232 crash, the probability of a simultaneous failure of all three hydraulic systems was considered as high as a billion-to-one. However, the statistical models used to come up with this figure did not account for the fact that the number-two engine was mounted at the tail close to all the hydraulic lines, nor the possibility that an engine failure would release many fragments in many directions. Since then, more modern aircraft engine designs have focused on keeping shrapnel from penetrating the cowling or ductwork, and have increasingly utilized high-strength composite materials to achieve the required penetration resistance while keeping the weight low.

4) Cameroon Airlines Flight 786: a Boeing 737 flying between Douala and Garoua,Cameroon in 1984 had a failure of a Pratt Whitney JT8D-15 engine. 2 people died.

5) Two LOT Polish Airlines flights, both Ilyushin Il-62s, suffered catastrophic uncontained engine failures in the 1980s. The first was in 1980 on LOT Flight 7 where flight controls were destroyed, killing all 87 on board. In 1987, on LOT Flight 5055, the aircraft's inner left (#2) engine, damaged the outer left (#1) engine, setting both on fire and causing in-flight break up, killing all 183 people on board. In both cases, the turbine shaft in engine #2 disintegrated due to production defects in the engines' bearings, which were missing rollers.[5]

6) National Airlines Flight 27: a McDonnell Douglas DC-10 flying from Miami to San Francisco in 1973 had an overspeed failure of a General Electric CF6-6, resulting in one fatality.

7) British Airways Flight 2276: a Boeing 777-200ER flying from Las Vegas to London in 2015 suffered an uncontained engine failure on its #1 GE90 engine during takeoff, resulting in a large fire on its port side. The aircraft successfully aborted takeoff and the plane was evacuated with no fatalities.

But, considering the number of flights every day, this a VERY low percentage. It's probably the safest engine ever built as long as it has oil and fuel to burn. Of course, we know from Capt. Sullenberger that geese are a serious threat to commercial turbine engines in New York airspace around the Hudson River.

Fortunately the geese that perpetrated that incident will never so it again as they got sliced, diced, julienned, and fried by said turbines. So it turns out commercial turbines also function as blenders under the right circumstances, and perhaps vacuum cleaners, too, though the exhuast would likley bring down the wrath, as well as their entire apartment, of the upstairs neighbors.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 27, 2015)

This is not new, but its the first time ive seen it. F-35 going through STOVL. Nice and stable hover characteristics and seems to taxi exceedingly well. Looks stable in the air as well, especially compared to the AV-8 which always behaved a little unsteadily in the hover.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7s59qe5mPE_

For comparison, here is a clip for similr manouvres for the BAE Sea Harrier


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAYjZPneasQ_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 27, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> First, there are some munitions that won't fit in the F-35B in the planned loadout, later mods will take care of that. As far as weapons, it depends what model of the F-35 you're talking about.
> 
> http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkADougHayward.pdf
> 
> ...



True, I think that Gripen's limit is 18,000+ take off....
As for which version of the '35, wasn't really thinking any particular version of them, just in general...
As for the F-117, every time that Top Ten of fighters shows on of the famous reality show channels, Discovery, History and National Geographic, which ever one it is, it's 'facepalm', as I seem to remember that the F-117 is _not_ a fighter....
Thanks for the link, if I remember correctly, I think that it was a few of the NATO boom-booms, that's too big for the -35's weapons bay, the Meteor being one of them...I'll have a look anyway!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 27, 2015)

Hoe much safer would it make carrier ops, with not having to use the catapault?


----------



## parsifal (Sep 27, 2015)

in the case of the Melbourne, of the 11 losses whilst in RAN service, 6 occurred whilst on the carrier. Of these, 3 related to catapult failure, 1 to engine failure, 1 to pilot error and 1 was a deck handling accident (restraining cable parted when the ship was hit by a freak wave and the bird went over the side). For the land based crashes, 1 was to airframe failure (nosewheel snapped and the a/c flipped), 1 was a mid air collision, 1 was put down to pilot error and 2 to engine failure. 

Total losses to engine failures were 3, which is a statistically significant number, but how does that compare with a similar random sample of twin engine aircraft. 

After the final deployment in 82 Melbourne had had all fixed wing operations suspended and it was intended at that time to retain that restriction until final retirement in 86. The RAN jumped at the chance of getting an invincible class at scrap prices, because they knew they could operate the Harriers with about half the attrition rate compared to catapult operatiuons.

I dont know the US experience, and thats one of the bits of information I wanted from Sys.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 27, 2015)

Found this, while looking for other things for this thread....

Navy’s new $12b aircraft carrier beset with performance problems


----------



## parsifal (Sep 27, 2015)

Im cautious about that article. The ship is still going through its acceptance trials and its normal that some systems don't perform to spec straight away. the proof will be if, the ship is not accepted into service or a new delivery contract is negotiated, or, it is accepted and it has problems whilst in service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 27, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Found this, while looking for other things for this thread....
> 
> Navy’s new $12b aircraft carrier beset with performance problems


First off, the article is from the Boston Globe, a typical "metro" rag that thrives on hysteria-journalism for ratings.

The carrier is first in a series, so yes, there will be bugs with the new technology. The Nimitz ran into similar issues when they were developing that class and the bugs were worked out before it's debut. And if you notice, the article quickly mentions that it's still two years yet, before anticipated delivery, but moves along to other wrist-wringing, burying that little bit of important information.

I did have a great laugh, however, over the part where they were concerned about the power requirements for the electro-magnetic catapault. The nuclear powerplants on these carriers (and our subs) generate enough electricity to power a fair portion of a small city, so this is a prime example of journalism that twists facts to leave the reader the impression that the Gerald R. ford is a fiscal and material failure...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 27, 2015)

I know that it's a bit off topic, but.....does any of these *rse wipes, actually know what they're talking about....I know, stupid question!


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 27, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> I know that it's a bit off topic, but.....does any of these *rse wipes, actually know what they're talking about....I know, stupid question!


The majority of editors or contributing editors don't know their azz from a hole in the floor. They simply take a wire service report and add it to their own publication. They *may* embellish it a little, but by and large, it'll be the same story, just different newspaper.

This is why so much incorrect information keeps circulating, because they keep regurgitating articles. Like this persistant "F-35 versus F-16" story which keeps popping back up like that mystery floater in the commode that just won't go down with the flush.

In the words of Mark Twain: "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story..."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 27, 2015)

parsifal said:


> in the case of the Melbourne, of the 11 losses whilst in RAN service, 6 occurred whilst on the carrier. of these related to catapult failure, 1 to engine failure, 1 to pilot error and 1 was a deck handling accident (restraining cable parted when the ship was hit by a freak wave and the bird went over the side). For the land based crashes, 1 was to airframe failure (nosewheel snapped and the a/c flipped), 1 was a mid air collision, 1 was put down to pilot error and 2 to engine failure.
> 
> Total losses to engine failures were 3, which is a statistically significant number, but how does that compare with a similar random sample of twin engine aircraft.
> 
> ...



So, from those figures, eliminating the need for the cat eliminates that same number of accidents as all engine failures?


----------



## parsifal (Sep 27, 2015)

gumbyk said:


> So, from those figures, eliminating the need for the cat eliminates that same number of accidents as all engine failures?



well, one would think so, but before I sign on the dotted line, you have to know what the engine failure rate for a/c like the sea harrier has been. Does that VTOL technology in any way make worse the engine failure rate.

For the Falklands war, a total of 20 Sea Harriers and 8 Harrier GR3s were deployed. operations were pretty intense, with I think 7 lost in total. 2 lost in bad weather, presumed to be a midair collision, 3 shot down by enemy ground fire, 1 lost to engine failure (exploded while in the hover), 1 was shot at by small arms, punctured a fuel tank and then ran out of fuel and ditched before they could get back to the Hermes.

The datasets are not comparable though im afraid.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2015)

parsifal said:


> I dont know the US experience, and thats one of the bits of information I wanted from Sys.



I think it was shown he was incapable of providing that and because he continued to speak out of ignorance rather than fact. (and being warned about it countless times) He's now on a little cyberspace vacation.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 28, 2015)

That was the obvious outcome from almost the beginning of this discussion. ive never seen sys so obstinate.......its a pity, because there may be some substance to at least some things he was saying. i honestly dont know how much of an advantage having two engines is. if he had stopped squawking it might have been good discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 28, 2015)

parsifal said:


> ...i honestly dont know how much of an advantage having two engines is...


In looking at the F/A-18 incident reports (some of which I posted earlier), it appears that having two engines aboard didn't stop catastrophic failure during an engine fire and/or engine disintigration, ultimately resulting in the downing of the aircraft.

I am far from an expert on aircraft engines, but it seems to me that having two engines in direct proximity to each other exposes either one to damage in the event one fails.

It would be interesting to see a comprehensive list of contemporary single and twin engined military aircraft incident reports, that are equipped with comparable engines and compare failures.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## razor1uk (Sep 28, 2015)

Slightly off topic or belated, my musing on the 2 engines..

Considering that that most jet engines are designed to cost and certainly mostly for civilian models, the combustor/turbine section, and the compressor casings are designed to keep debris inside until they leave the nozzle of the engine; I'd assume that military engines are more paired down more than civvy ones - possible less compressor cassing protection., 

..and that the F/A-18 has a narrow rear (narrower than say the MD-D F-4 - due to it being essentially decended from the N improved F-5/YF-17), while having a thin fuel tank between the engines bays, 

..I'd guess that that the single engine faliure was more than designed for, that the nature of the faliure if it didn't shed debris into the other engine through the interior structure/spaces the fuel tank, then the damage also affected the auxillary drives, electro hydraulic transfer system in such a ways that the associated safeguards/cut-outs/switch-overs were unable to work to keep it controllable and or powered.

Generally 2 engines are safer, even if a more usual fault renders one in-operable; such as a fueling or cooling problem/mechanical or software glitch. Also when the engines are widely spaced, you have greater control problems when power is lost, but how the power is lost is less likely to affect the other engine directly. Closely spaced engine give less directional problems and help make a smaller, more aerodynamic vehicle, but with a slightly higher chance of a serious problem spreading to the adjacent engine.

But Voltare did say "All is possible in for the best of Worlds." (or something similar)


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 28, 2015)

I still find it funny, that they decided to go for the internal weapons bay, for which the Meteor missile is too large, know they'll how to make a smaller one to fit, how will that affect its performance, will it be less than the 'normal' version? I don't know how 'hot' the Meteor is, among other missiles in missile universe of today and I can't help but think back to the F-102 and F-106 with their internal weapons bays and their....eeerrmmmm....Falcons, I do know that things have moved on after those, quite a bit too, but didn't they still leave a bitter aftertaste though? Which also makes me wonder why they didn't develop the _Phoenix.._

Found this at: The Best Air-to-Air Missile in the World Is in Sweden. Gripen fighters the first to get the new Meteor missile

_According to the manufacturer, in a head-on engagement the Meteor provides a no-escape zone three times greater than that of a conventionally powered missile. With the Meteor launched in pursuit of a target—a tail-chase engagement—the Meteor is five times as lethal as a conventional equivalent such as the American AMRAAM._

Mind you, I don't know how reliable the site is, plus it's from July last year. Since then, they've tweaked some more on the Meteor, changed here and there, think it's using K-Band or what it was called, which improved and made it even more sensitive towards anything stealth, think that increase in sensitivity was a fair bit, hopefully I'll find it again! 
Trying to find where I found it, have a nagging feeling that it was in the Gripen for Canada article that I posted....

Again, damn interesting thread and discussion!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 28, 2015)

Internal weapons bay reduces radar cross-section...munitions on hardpoints would most likely be used in ground attack where being a sneaky bastard isn't a priority.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2015)

No doubt its a great missile, I'd like to see it proven in combat.

With that said, as far as it being too large to fit I the weapons bay - the F-35 can carry wing pylons and will do so once air superiority is achieved. But backing up, remember, the F-35's primary role is that of an attack aircraft. If it can't be effectively picked up on radar why worry? Although its been over 20 years since the Gulf War, looked at what the F-117 achieved (I know Lucky, you probably don't want to hear about it). AFAIK, they were first in/ first out and no fighter ever threatened them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Internal weapons bay reduces radar cross-section...munitions on hardpoints would most likely be used in ground attack where being a sneaky bastard isn't a priority.



You beat me to the punch!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 28, 2015)

sneaky bastard...I like that terminology


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 29, 2015)

Aaaahh......from bastard to sneaky bastard!


----------



## parsifal (Sep 29, 2015)

I think we have a new nickname for the f-35....sneaky bastard

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 29, 2015)

Agree, far too many names is getting recycled, I vote for _Sneaky Bastard_....


----------



## Greyman (Sep 29, 2015)

I _almost_ prefer it over the current one. I dislike 'Lightning II' so much.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2015)

Some friends at Edwards told me they were calling the F-35 "Minnie Me."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Sep 29, 2015)

I dig it ... 

But the Belgians were there first (both Dr.Evil _and _Fabrique Nationale ..whoa, how's that for coincidence ...)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 29, 2015)

Well, as long as they don't say that it's 'cute'....which, it kinda is!


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 29, 2015)

Would A-35 or F/A 35 be more appropriate?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Would A-35 or F/A 35 be more appropriate?



I would think so but sometimes combat aircraft designations are issued based on funding appropriations rather than actual use.


----------



## Greyman (Sep 29, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I would think so but sometimes combat aircraft designations are issued based on funding appropriations rather than actual use.



Or to protect pilot ego (F-117).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2015)

Greyman said:


> Or to protect pilot ego (F-117).



Where did you come up with that? 

I've heard this from several sources...

_"Why the designation F-117A?

This has been a topic of much debate. However, the most plausible theory that is believed by the author is that the F-117A really did get its number from the numbering system used for Soviet and other "black" aircraft at Groom. Numbers such as YF-110, YF-113, YF-114, etc.,...up through (and possibly beyond) YF-117A were used by the test pilots as radio callsigns. After a while, these radio call signs came to be sort of unofficial designations for these aircraft. The number 117 became so closely associated with the stealth fighter that *when Lockheed printed up the first Dash One Pilot Manual, it had "F-117A" on the cover. Since the Air Force didn't want to pay millions of dollars to re-do all the manuals, the aircraft became the F-117A officially.*(As a note: A similar mistake was made when LBJ announced the existence of the "Blackbird". It was supposed to have been designated RS-71, but LBJ announced it as SR-71 and no one had the guts to tell LBJ that he had goofed. The designation stuck.)"_

F-117A: Frequently Asked Questions


----------



## Greyman (Sep 29, 2015)

From here:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXJjPU_oX04_

Link should skip to 23 min 50 seconds in.

The gentleman speaking is Alan Brown (senior project engineer 'Have Blue').

*EDIT:* When he says Bob Dixon 'who was head of Tac' he is referring to General Robert J. Dixon, head of the Tactical Air Command.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 29, 2015)

Fighter or not and stealth or not, being down on the deck, takes a pair of humongous dogs sphericals, sometimes bigger than the fighter jocks have, right?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 29, 2015)

I still think that the "wobbly Goblin" was cool looking...certainly one of the more unusual aircraft types ever made.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2015)

> The gentleman speaking is Alan Brown (senior project engineer 'Have Blue').
> 
> *EDIT:* When he says Bob Dixon 'who was head of Tac' he is referring to General Robert J. Dixon, head of the Tactical Air Command.



I know of Alan Brown, brilliant man from the school of Kelly, I seen him once or twice when I was in the Skunk Works in 1980 - the problem is TAC has nothing to do with directly development, procurement and testing of new combat systems, that lies with USAF Material Command. It was their call.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 29, 2015)

Well, Mustang started life as the A-36 Apache, add some British knowhow and badaboom....we got the P-51 Mustang....


----------



## GregP (Sep 29, 2015)

Hey I have a question that should ... please ... not be misinterpreted. Really, I want it answered.

Joe, you asked syscom for some stats and hours and statistical significance. He might have wanted to answer, but might not have been able to find anything. If you asked me that, I probably couldn't find it, either. So my question is:

Where exactly would someone go about finding the data to refute or support an argument about single versus twin engine aircraft in either commercial or military service?

I certainly don't know or I would have done a LOT of anaysis a hell of a lot sooner, just out of personal curiosity.

I very occasionally see some study that is many years old detailing some number of hours between accidents, but the studies don't exactly say where they got the information except from some obscure military office to which I have no access at all.

How about a thread or a subforum on sources of aviation data related to WWII and later military aircraft and possibly even civilian aircraft since most of us who fly ... fly civil aircraft?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hey I have a question that should ... please ... not be misinterpreted. Really, I want it answered.
> 
> Joe, you asked syscom for some stats and hours and statistical significance. He might have wanted to answer, but might not have been able to find anything. If you asked me that, I probably couldn't find it, either. So my question is:
> 
> ...



There's plenty of sources available to anyone with internet access. As far as Syscom, I did give him ample time to answer but was fed up coddling him and his ignorant bullsh!t (as were other members of the forum who have complained to me about his stupidity), that's why he's gone for a while and that's all that's going to be said about that.

Now if you want to build an analysis comparing aircraft capability, engine reliability etc., you could try the manufacturer or sometimes even public military records. For example;

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R43049.pdf

AIB REPORTS

Some civilian sources;

https://www.pw.utc.com/Content/Press_Kits/pdf/PrattWhitney_Brochure.pdf

and you could always go to the FAA SDR Data Base and fish around;

FAA :: SDR Reporting [SDR Submission Form]

And last but not least the NTSB accident data base;

NTSB Aviation Accident Database Synopses

I could list more and do welcome further discussion but right now I'm at work and am hoping to get on the road - more to come!


----------



## GregP (Sep 29, 2015)

Thanks Joe!

I already downloaded 77,000+ accidents / incidents from the FAA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Sep 29, 2015)

I thin it'll be a bit like the single vs. two pilot debate.
There is no significant difference in the accident rate, but the difference is in the root cause of the accidents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 29, 2015)

Id really like to hear what you come up with Greg


----------



## GregP (Sep 29, 2015)

Might take awhile, might not. I'm JUST now starting a new job.

I can say this, a twin engine aircraft is always going to be safer tahn a single atfer failure of one engine. At least SOME of the twins will land uneventfully, probably on an airport. The single will all have a forced landing.

That being said, the single that experiences a forced landing will usually be more surviviable than a twin in a forced landing situation. In general aviation, that is because the singles all have a lower stall speed than the twins and the probability of survival is inversely proportion to the speed of arrival. Faster is less survivable.

If your trusty single-engine steed is an F-104, you are SOL. Best glide in an F-104 engine-out is around 270 knots! That's NOT a good speed at which to hit rocks. A dry lake like Edwards might be OK ...

But MOST people these days aren't flying F-104's, even if they are military. In the military, I'd say fighters in general are not very survivable in a forced landing situation as their power-off stall speeds are high enough to kill King Kong. I'd rather glide down in a military Beech King Air than a T-38, though, as it would definitely arrive much more slowly.

I did a quick-look at the AIB reports for FY 2000 and the most prominent accidents were from the F-16 crowd. There were 23 Class A accidents in FY 2000. 13 were single engine, 8 were twin engine, and 2 were 4-engine (C-130 and a JSTARS).

Of the 13 singles, 9 were F-16s. Haven't completed the investigation yet but, so far, 1 was a mid-air, 1 was during an airshow when the pilot failed to recognize a high rate of descent from a low-altitude split-S and impacted the ground before pull-out was accomplished. So far, two have been compressor stalls which failed to restart after 2 - 3 tries in the air and the pilots ejected. Seems like there was a particular lot of F-16 engines that had a welding splash degrade the fan blade attach point. They were supposed to all be inspected, but one of the two was JUST outside the serial number range and experienced a fan blade failure. The other one was in the range but had yet to be inspected. Still have a few more to look at.

Perosnally, I'd expect most losses to be due to pilot error or systems other than the engines since there are so many systems on a modern fighter that have a shorter MTBF than the engines do.

I'll make one observation about WWII type piston engines. I have been working the Planes of Fame airshow for nine years. During that time we have had about 30 WWII planes per show, flying on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday to the tune of about 50 sorties per day, plus a practice day.

Ignore the practice day. That is about 1,350 sorties and we have had 5 aborts or non-starts. One was an F4U Corsair that couldn't get a wing down ... failed hydraulic valve. One was a flat tire. One was a C-47 that lost an engine after liftoff and struggled around the pattern on one and landed safely. If he had been a single, it would have force-landed in a pasture. The other two were engine-related. One was a rough eninge on a Tigercat who aborted on takeoff, He flew later after changing spark plugs. The other was a non-start. I don;t really count the non-start because it gave fair warning and was fixed before it ever started. The fix was simple.

So that's less than 0.5% of the sorties that didn't go and only 1 with a failed airborne engine.

And these engines are all 75 - 80 years old! In my humble opinion, that ain't bad.

The turbines are MUCH more reliable ... but, yes, they DO occasionally fail. People occasionally keel over and die, too. Not often, and less often without some prior warning, but they do.

Engines are like that. They usually, but not always, give you a warning or three before failing outright.

I have not a lot of flying hours compared with someone who flies for a living but have had a partial engine failure in a Cessna 172. The engine started running rough, and then quit. I switched tanks and nothing happened. I played with the mixture and nothing happened. Then, for no reason other than a desperate try with an engine-related system, I tried the primer handle and got a shot of power. So I pumped the primer handle all the way to the nearest airport and landed.

Turned out to be sugar in the gas tank and it had partially plugged up the carb and was about to foul all the plugs had it needed to run much more. So I got a "failure" of sorts, but it wasn't the engine's fault and wasn't a complete failure because the primer circuit allowed sufficient power to land. Since it was a rental, I had them come pick me up in another plane and declined to pay for it unless I got to fly back. As it happens, I flew back and got checked out in a C-210 along the way, all for the price of a C-172. What more can you ask for?

I'm not sure that qualifies as an engine failure at all. There was nothing wrong with the original C-172 engine. It was caused by a deliberate act of sabotage by a human. They caught him ... and I flew that same plane later with no more trouble. Turns out there is NO WAY to detect sugar in the gas if you do a standard drain-the-fuel-into-the-cup type check anyway, but it never happened again at that flying club while I belonged to it. So, the reliablity of flat 4 - 6 piston single in my own experience has been rather high ... 100% if I discount the sugar-in-the-tank experience due to being a man-made issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2015)

Now that's what I'm talking about!

Now take those F-16 engine failures and bounce them against hours flown and you could almost use the term "foolproof," although we know that could be an oxymoron! Now combine that with an engine that's designed to be twice as reliable as an F110 (F135) and one could see why the DoD moved away from the "twin engine naval combat aircraft requirement." Some folks were just obtuse to see that!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 1, 2015)

Any comments? 

More Bad News for the F-35, the Plane That Ate the Pentagon.

It's the Yahoo News though....


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 1, 2015)

I hope that you didn't choke on your morning coffee!  

This is just out of curiosity, but....how much bang do get for the money with the -35, compared to the hottest birds in the -60's, -70's, -80's and -90's and the money back then, what's the pricetag on the F-8 Crusader F-4 Phantom and F-14 Tomcat in today's dough, or maybe the F-111 is a better example, it also suffering a bit of a bumpy road at first...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 1, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Any comments?
> 
> More Bad News for the F-35, the Plane That Ate the Pentagon.
> 
> It's the Yahoo News though....



I saw that yesterday, more rubbish from a civil servant. There many "simulated" exercises that don't use live ordnance and so what if the deck of the carrier was cleared of other aircraft? How conveniently the article omitted that during the exercise the aircraft were operated at about a 90% MC rate.


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 1, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I saw that yesterday, more rubbish from a civil servant. There many "simulated" exercises that don't use live ordnance and so what if the deck of the carrier was cleared of other aircraft? How conveniently the article omitted that during the exercise the aircraft were operated at about a 90% MC rate.



_MC rate?_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 1, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> _MC rate?_



Mission capable - This is the percentage of the fleet that's available for sortie. When an aircraft is mission capable it will be ready to accomplish the mission but may have an item or two inoperative. FMC is fully mission capable and it means everything on the aircraft works. Although it is desired to have everything 100% MC, sometimes you have to set a level for routine maintenance and operating costs. Some USAF aircraft fleets are required to be in the 80 percent range while others are a lot lower - for example the B-2 is only required to be 50% MC the last time I looked.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 1, 2015)

Thanks Joe!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 1, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> I hope that you didn't choke on your morning coffee!
> 
> This is just out of curiosity, but....how much bang do get for the money with the -35, compared to the hottest birds in the -60's, -70's, -80's and -90's and the money back then, what's the pricetag on the F-8 Crusader F-4 Phantom and F-14 Tomcat in today's dough, or maybe the F-111 is a better example, it also suffering a bit of a bumpy road at first...



Some numbers from Wiki and other military forums...

An F-4E cost $2.4 million in 1965 which would be about $19 million in today's dollars.

An F-111F costs 10.3 million in 1973, which would be about $57 million in today's dollars.

An F-8 cost about $1 million in 1965, which today would be about $7.5 million in today's dollars.

An F-14 cost about $38 million in 1998, which today would be about $55.3 million in today's dollars

Some things to consider;

These prices may not include "GFE" (Government Furnished Equipment, engines, avionics, etc.)

The labor rates to produce these aircraft were probably a lot lower than what you're seeing today. When I started at Lockheed back in January 1980 I was making $8.35 an hour which was more than a structural assembler was making. $8.35 in 1980 equates to about $25.00 an hour today. LMCO structural assembles start at $29.00 an hour.

Salary: Aircraft Assembler | Glassdoor

Like your car, consider the costs of all the fancy electronics. Depending who you talk to, *avionics and onboard computers could add up to 50% of the cost of an aircraft in today's world.
*
Lastly - longevity;

F-8 Crusader - 9 years of service for about 1,300 units built

F-4 Phantom - over 55 years in service (still in service with some air forces) US service 47 years, over 5,100 units built

F-111 - 31 years in service with the USAF, 37 with the RAAF, 565 units built.

F-14 - 32 years in service with the USN, still in service with the IAF, 712 built, 79 operated by Iran, about 44 remaining.

If a 2,500+ F-35 fleet is fielded and the aircraft remotely performs as advertised and last for 50 years (with a 10% attrition rate), it will definitely be worth the 90 million per unit price tag.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 1, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Mission capable - This is the percentage of the fleet that's available for sortie. When an aircraft is mission capable it will be ready to accomplish the mission but may have an item or two inoperative. FMC is fully mission capable and it means everything on the aircraft works. Although it is desired to have everything 100% MC, sometimes you have to set a level for routine maintenance and operating costs. Some USAF aircraft fleets are required to be in the 80 percent range while others are a lot lower - for example the B-2 is only required to be 50% MC the last time I looked.



Good description Joe. We had similar definitions on the flip side for NATO TACEVALs - a sortie was counted towards the squadron's total if the aircraft was "wartime MC" even if the aircraft could not be safely flown under peacetime regulations. For example, the aircraft's civilian transponder may have been inoperable which would have prevented flying, or the engine was near to peacetime service limits.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Oct 1, 2015)

Need to hit the breakfast buffet before you fly .........Exclusive: F-35 Ejection Seat Fears Ground Lightweight Pilots


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 1, 2015)

Torch said:


> Need to hit the breakfast buffet before you fly .........Exclusive: F-35 Ejection Seat Fears Ground Lightweight Pilots



Kind of funny because the same seat (MB MK 16) is used on the T-6, Typhoon, NASA T-38Ns and USAF T-38 upgrades and no mention of those aircraft.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 1, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Kind of funny because the same seat (MB MK 16) is used on the T-6, Typhoon, NASA T-38Ns and USAF T-38 upgrades and no mention of those aircraft.


Do you get the impression that these "reports" look to be an attempt to dig up anything possible to make the F-35 look bad?

Next thing you know, there'll be an exclusive report that the F-35 has the "same green colored light" on it's wing as Malaysian flight MH370...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 1, 2015)

Over the years it hasn't been very difficult to make the F-35 look bad. Perhaps this is simply a reaction to reports that are less than satisfactory after all the years of problems.

You can like or not like the F-35 (another thread I don't wish to pursue in here), but it HAS been plagued with delays, performance reductions, and cost increases as a matter of public record. Cost increases always gets up people's dander even if nothing else does, so I'm not surprised.

There were a significant number of people screaming for the F-4 Phantom to have a gun early-on, but the apologists kept saying it wasn't needed. That lasted until the F-4s started getting shot down in South Viet Nam by MiG-17s. The F-4E and ALL later variants had the gun that was asked for at the start.

The F-35 is showing many of the same signs ... lots of people sweeping the objections under the rug with one-liner replies. Time and service will tell whether or not the objections that have been raised are valid or not. To do that, it has to GET into service and see what events transpire.

I'm still wondering what the real RANGE is until the fuel supply gets so small that it gets overheated to the point of shutdown by the idiotic decision to use the fuel for a heat sink in the first place.

Maybe when they get into service we can get the real range from some country who will tell us the truth. You can't seem to find it in the USA from any reliable source. We can find the fact that the fuel needs to be there to act as a heat sink, but not how far it can fly until that point is reached. We may never KNOW that until the F-35 is long in the tooth since it is a parameter of interest to our enemies as well as to our friends, but it a given that it won't fly the previously-stated range because that range is with fuel used down to minimum reserves.

That is interesting because the F-35B version only has a stated combat radius of 469 miles ... or 900 miles range total. I'm still wondering how the radius can be 469 miles when twice that exceeds the 900 mile range ... somebody's numbers don't add up. But we know the real range is relatively short, at least for the F-35B, which is the STOVL version.

Hopefully at some point we'll have active duty F-35's doling some missions. Since it weas declared combat ready in August, maybe some reports will surface soon and we can see what has happened in the first active month of the F-35's service life.

I'll withhold all opinions until I see some real numbers. I hope it does well, and we aren't that far away from the multinational partners also have a shot at using it actively, either. Perhaps we will hear some things by year's end.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 1, 2015)

OK - there's a lot of things here Greg I have to thow my two cents at...



GregP said:


> Over the years it hasn't been very difficult to make the F-35 look bad. Perhaps this is simply a reaction to reports that are less than satisfactory after all the years of problems.
> 
> You can like or not like the F-35 (another thread I don't wish to pursue in here), but it HAS been plagued with delays, performance reductions, and cost increases as a matter of public record. Cost increases always gets up people's dander even if nothing else does, so I'm not surprised.



The F-35 had some major issues and is still not out of the woods - HOWEVER many of the issues were either half reported or flat out wrong. Part of the contract was cost plus, the DoD tried to put a cap on that amount but that doesn't work when you're developing a new technology and can't give a development number until you develop the article! Most of the cost over-runs were at the government's discretion and had to be approved by the DoD, so it wasn't like LMCO just ran wild with taxpayer's money. I'll repeat again - all of the F-35s predecessors had issues and cost over runs during development. The F-14, F-16 and F-22 all had class A mishaps during their development. The First F-14 was lost after it's third flight. So many forget the grounding of the F-15 weeks after entering service and the F-18 cracking vertical stabilizers




GregP said:


> There were a significant number of people screaming for the F-4 Phantom to have a gun early-on, but the apologists kept saying it wasn't needed. That lasted until the F-4s started getting shot down in South Viet Nam by MiG-17s. The F-4E and ALL later variants had the gun that was asked for at the start.


this is a myth. True, pilots wanted a gun in the F-4. 3/4's of the F-4's initial dismal performance was due to the ROEs imposed by the politicians. Another 1/4 of their problem was the poor performance of the Sparrow missile. In the book "And Kill MiGs" there is a list of MiG kills and gun kills account for a small percentage (I believe only 6) out of 165 MiGs claimed. Even the famed F-8 Crusader "The last gunfighter" only downed 4 of their 17 MiGs with a cannon. The Navy never put a gun in their F-4s.



GregP said:


> The F-35 is showing many of the same signs ... lots of people sweeping the objections under the rug with one-liner replies. Time and service will tell whether or not the objections that have been raised are valid or not. To do that, it has to GET into service and see what events transpire.


 What people can't get their heads wrapped around is this is not 1970. What was deemed impossible or foolish to develop 40 years ago is common place today. Compare an F-4s INU to a GPS today, it's like comparing a rock to a cruise missile.


GregP said:


> I'm still wondering what the real RANGE is until the fuel supply gets so small that it gets overheated to the point of shutdown by the idiotic decision to use the fuel for a heat sink in the first place.


 Greg, this has been addressed over and over again. The USMC had no issue with the F-35B running low on few a few weeks ago.


GregP said:


> Maybe when they get into service we can get the real range from some country who will tell us the truth. You can't seem to find it in the USA from any reliable source. We can find the fact that the fuel needs to be there to act as a heat sink, but not how far it can fly until that point is reached. We may never KNOW that until the F-35 is long in the tooth since it is a parameter of interest to our enemies as well as to our friends, but it a given that it won't fly the previously-stated range because that range is with fuel used down to minimum reserves.


 With over 300 built and a second production line going in Italy, I'm sure these concerns have been well addressed.


GregP said:


> That is interesting because the F-35B version only has a stated combat radius of 469 miles ... or 900 miles range total. I'm still wondering how the radius can be 469 miles when twice that exceeds the 900 mile range ... somebody's numbers don't add up. But we know the real range is relatively short, at least for the F-35B, which is the STOVL version.


 Do you realize the range might be shortened because the F-35B had the ability to be operated with wing pylons?


GregP said:


> Hopefully at some point we'll have active duty F-35's doling some missions. Since it weas declared combat ready in August, maybe some reports will surface soon and we can see what has happened in the first active month of the F-35's service life.


Well there have been reports and of course the marine brass praised the aircraft, Pentagon watchdog groups said the initial combat simulations were flawed (see my earlier post)


----------



## GregP (Oct 1, 2015)

Hi Joe,

Most of my entire point was that since it has had a lot of problems, any small "glitches" will bring out the nay-sayers. What the F-35 needs is some good old sterling performance in the field with no or very few glitches in order to silence anyone who doesn't like it.

Maybe we'll see some numbers after a quarter or so. They may or may not be real numbers when we see them since DOD has a vested interest in sprucing up the numbers a bit so things look good. I doubt we'll see false numbers from Australia, but you never know.

The issue might come to light if we turn out to have vastly superior performance numbers to other users of the same aircraft. Then it might stat to smell a bit. Otherwise, if we see similar numbers across the board, it might be close to true numbers. If so, it doesn't mean the F-35 is good or bad. It probably means they are using it correctly for the intended application, which usually produces good numbers.

The first time we use it in a limited political situation and the ROE dictate close to WVR, it might turn out differently. I hope they're smart enough to not DO that.


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 2, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Some numbers from Wiki and other military forums...
> 
> An F-4E cost $2.4 million in 1965 which would be about $19 million in today's dollars.
> 
> ...



Cheers Joe!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 2, 2015)

By the way, good points about cost per unit and longevity.

The B-29 cost $639,188 per unit ($8,431,967 in 2015 dollars) and was in service for about 15 years.

The B-36 cost $4,000,000 per unit ($43,685,953 in 2015 dollars) and was in service for about 10 years.

The B-52 cost $14,000,000 per unit ($123,122,397 in 2015 dollars) and has been in service for about 60 years.

The B-2 cost $737,000,000 per unit ($1,091,150,340 in 2015 dollars) and has been in service for 18 years.
_* costs shown above, is flyaway price when first introduced *_

I know these examples are not fighters, but they illustrate just how much money can be spent per unit on aircraft and how often folks will say "oh, so and so aircraft only cost X dollars back in 19 whenever..." but don't realize that a dollar is a dollar, no matter what the year...military equipment is expensive, it always has been, it always will be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 2, 2015)

The B-2's been is service for _18_ years!!?? 
Ok, it's official.....I'm _old!_


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 2, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> The B-2's been is service for _18_ years!!??
> Ok, it's official.....I'm _old!_


lmao

yep...you're a fossil


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 2, 2015)

Oi....show some respect!! pmsl


----------



## parsifal (Oct 2, 2015)

the sexier the technology, the more expensive the hardware. Im not trying to be completely accurte here, but simply illlustrate a point. Tiger tanks cost RM 780000 per copy when first produced in 1942, as the production run matured, those unit costs gradually came down, such that by 1944 each tank was costing about 200000 as they rolled out the front door. Panthers cost nearly 300000 per copy when first produced, but had reduced to just over 150000 per unit by mid-44. If a piece of hardware has lots of new goodies, the cost per unit will be high, as the production run progresses that proportion of cost per unit can reduce.

Ive no doubt the cost for the F-35 is greatly influenced by the impressiveness of its technology.

what is worrying is whether the costs have been jacked up by a bit of old fashioned gouging. are there bolts and rivets costing $50000 per item in this aircraft? Has ther been much oversight of the budget for thios aircraft. One would have to think so....


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 2, 2015)

parsifal said:


> the sexier the technology, the more expensive the hardware. Im not trying to be completely accurte here, but simply illlustrate a point. Tiger tanks cost RM 780000 per copy when first produced in 1942, as the production run matured, those unit costs gradually came down, such that by 1944 each tank was costing about 200000 as they rolled out the front door. Panthers cost nearly 300000 per copy when first produced, but had reduced to just over 150000 per unit by mid-44. If a piece of hardware has lots of new goodies, the cost per unit will be high, as the production run progresses that proportion of cost per unit can reduce.
> 
> Ive no doubt the cost for the F-35 is greatly influenced by the impressiveness of its technology.
> 
> what is worrying is whether the costs have been jacked up by a bit of old fashioned gouging. are there bolts and rivets costing $50000 per item in this aircraft? Has ther been much oversight of the budget for thios aircraft. One would have to think so....



How come that this doesn't work on women??

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 2, 2015)

No that's true, the sexier the woman the more expensive they are.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Oct 3, 2015)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTF2mxxPqgo_

Two F-35C Lightning II carrier variants conducted their first arrested landings aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2015)

Great clip! Geez, the weather looked pretty soupy. I thought the F-35 couldn't fly in bad weather or even get wet?


----------



## parsifal (Oct 3, 2015)

Perfect!

So now ive seen the deck and landing/take off characteristics of both the B and the C, and i cant seen anything wrong with the way it does that part of the job. if it can get on and off the carrier that well, it will have a low attrition rate at sea.

And these were the pre-op trials undertaken by the USS Wasp end of May this year. aircrew and ground staff were all service personnel, not test pilot and company people. 

These are near perfect manouvres as well


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAFnhIIK7s4_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2015)

parsifal said:


> These are near perfect manouvres as well



What are you talking about?!?!? Can't you see?!?!? That *"CONTRAPTION"* almost set the deck on fire when it landed!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Oct 3, 2015)

And whilst looking about found this clip titled F-35 busting the Myths


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyHlp7tJrxY_

The second clip talks a bit about engine safety with a single engine

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 5, 2015)

The computer voice sounds just like all the Russian clips you see around today. 

Sounds like they're using the original Macintiosh voice from 30 years ago ... wonder why?


----------



## parsifal (Oct 6, 2015)

Id say they are cheap.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Oct 6, 2015)

parsifal said:


> Id say they are cheap.....



I assume the creator is just an enthusiast at home - like the rest of us. Hiring a voice actor for something like this probably wasn't in the cards.

On top of that most of us have shockingly bad presentation/narration voices (and/or audio recording equipment) after listening to professionals all day.

'Robot voice' is a reasonable way to go. A lesser of two evils to keep people watching.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 7, 2015)

This .... positive:

In defence of the F-35: Why future air combat will be different - Telegraph

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> This .... positive:
> 
> In defence of the F-35: Why future air combat will be different - Telegraph



“The F-35A is an agile aircraft, it has speed and can pull a 9G turn like an F-16,” said Mr Linstead. “It would be trite to say dogfights are over. *But if an F-35 got into a dogfight situation then the pilot would have probably done something wrong.” *

Have we heard that before?!?!?!?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## razor1uk (Oct 7, 2015)

I keep looking at this thread from time to time, and I have yet to feel 10% better about this bird in any variation except the proposed conventional T/L version, nor its abilities being able to match the marketing hype that was spieled to investors/states/nations before the greatest monetary scam (since the bankers crash) for it was conceived. 

Lockheed Martin and asociated fiddlers, give us all our money back for this sham, enough is enough, they lied, they prevaricated, they're ripping all involved off.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 7, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> “The F-35A is an agile aircraft, it has speed and can pull a 9G turn like an F-16,” said Mr Linstead. “It would be trite to say dogfights are over. *But if an F-35 got into a dogfight situation then the pilot would have probably done something wrong.” *
> 
> Have we heard that before?!?!?!?


Yep...something really familiar about that observation... 



razor1uk said:


> ...Lockheed Martin and asociated fiddlers, give us all our money back for this sham, enough is enough, they lied, they prevaricated, they're ripping all involved off.


Can you provide facts and figures to support this?


----------



## razor1uk (Oct 7, 2015)

No, fact and figures are not available in the UK due to information restrictions from the DoD MoD about specific info apart formthose already shared upon the Lockheed Martin website, which could be suggested as possibly truthful, yet are unable to be cross checked reliably.

..its my opinion and gut feeling on what its is as well, a naturally nationalistic job and skill retention with a hope it will work if it those involved keep at it long enough.

Its taking long enough already - has the conventioanl version been worked on or is all effort only being used on the VTOL/STOL versions? 

Meanwhile Eastern Middle-Eastern problems are developing more strongly and in ways not though of a few years ago (I'd imagine they thought of), let alone as they are going now, plus things are very likely to go wrong with two rival airforces in the same regional airspace - I'm sure the prospect for some ad hoc military engaugement/loss has been though of by at least one side, and the testing is still ongoing with no clear idea when full production and service usages will actually be.

I do hope things in those currently warming up areas will remain as is or cool intime before thses birds can fly the coup to their operators en-mass, as I have a haunch that if something would brew up, Mr V.V.Crapbox would endevour/hope/wish it to happen before that time is near.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 7, 2015)

In all fairness, any time a next generation peice of equipment is being developed, there will be delays as it's being perfected.

As it stands, NATO and allies still have very competitive hardware, but the F-35 will set the bar a little higher. The USMC is happy with the F-35's performance and we'll start seeing feedback from other branches as it starts deliveries and trials.

Now, let's spin the clock back to the 1930's, when Willy introduced the Bf109. It was the first of the next generation of fighters, and it went through a good deal of development before it emerged as a world-class fighter. In the early stages, there were a good many detractors who said it was a waste of time and money, etc. etc. and will never amount to much. Ten years later, it was still considered one of the more formidable fighters in the world and held it's own in the face of rapidly advancing fighter technology.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2015)

razor1uk said:


> I keep looking at this thread from time to time, and I have yet to feel 10% better about this bird in any variation except the proposed conventional T/L version, nor its abilities being able to match the marketing hype that was spieled to investors/states/nations before the greatest monetary scam (since the bankers crash) for it was conceived.
> 
> Lockheed Martin and asociated fiddlers, give us all our money back for this sham, enough is enough, they lied, they prevaricated, they're ripping all involved off.



you're entitled to your opinion but in the mean time their aircraft is maturing and silencing the nay-Sayers. The contract is firm fixed price to the government (at least the US government) approves anything that is outside the scope of the contract or anything that impact the budget. If LMCO screws up its now on their dime (and for the most part has been so for some time). So unless you could come up with some current and credible evidence to show this program is a failure, please post, I'm all ears!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2015)

razor1uk said:


> Its taking long enough already - has the conventioanl version been worked on or is all effort only being used on the VTOL/STOL versions?



If you don't know that you're about two years behind...

F-35 Lightning II Program

BTW, this isn't a Lockheed site, it's whats called "dotmil," US govt site...


----------



## razor1uk (Oct 7, 2015)

Since the end of the coldwar, many militaries have downsized, have mothballed or scrapped systems, and also after the bankers crisis, and many countries own future opinions, forces are weaker than they were. When the remaining edge is only tech and skill after numbers have been cut, then the difference between the players is minimised, and the chances of a outcome less onesided are greater, and it is this that is making me jumpy for the near future, I'd like these birds active and supplied asap,if not, to use those monies to reactive, re arm and bolster current forces, to give Pooptin strong 2nd thoughts that are lower than going into a 1962 senario that's all.

I am miffed at the ongoing slowness, yess it has a 55 lifespan desing ed instead of the previous 10 -20 years of old A/C's, but the longer it is not ready and the hotter things get elswhere, the bigger the gap for things to go the wrong, within that gap, I'm getting jittery living in the UK's 2nd city and 2nd biggest target hould things go all the way in the next few years, 2020+ for 'roll out' is long off yet.

Some useful info there still FBJ, thanks, still doesn't quell my future situation blues, but slightly more info altogether than just reading Combat Aircraft and companies sites, Military Aviation and others, etc.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 7, 2015)

For the RAAF, the original service delivery dates were 2012, then put back to 2015-16 and now 2019-23. The constant delays are an undeniable PR debacle, but in this country the US aerospace industry has a rock solid reputation for delivering superior products....eventually. im old enough to remember the scathing attacks made on another US a/c, the F-111 which took 11 years longer than the RAAF had wanted before delivery was achieved. The wait was worth every second. those 28 F-111s gave our forces total dominance over the oceans as a regional power until well into the 2000s. The only nation with the force projection able to challenge those aircraft was US carrier fleet and thankfully they were on our side.

The F-35 has big shoes to fill, because they are part replacements for the f-111s. I worry about the range issue, but my RAAF buddies say its covered.

The ever diminishing force structure is a function of costs, and to an extent the cost of the f-35 contributes to that, but more importantly are the parsimony each of our national govts are prepared to apply. as each year goes by, and no hot war emerges, they snip a little bit more off the budgets. they don't realise that defence budgets are there to keep the peace, not to make war, and each time the knife is applied, a little more risk is added to security. 

My criticisms are more toward the Euro-aerospace industry. During the war the Brits really scr*wed us over, and not for defence related reasons, more for commercial purposes. After the war we had several instances of relying on European techs, notably the Mirage and the Leopard I tanks. In both cases, for different reasons and with variable impacts, we were comprehensively done over by the Europeans. Our military will never trust anything with "made in Europe" again for anything relating to our national security (at least vital interests).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## razor1uk (Oct 13, 2015)

I like your honest antipodean assessment of EU suppliers Parsifal, you can add the some of the educated UK's civilians squaddies opinions to some of what you hint at bad kit too, they say one thing, and it does at least 2 things less than envisaged it should/could/sold as ..why else do we drink tea. 
As to if (some of) those issues are solved verses others yet to be solved for our own gear, it is likely only a few know persons enough over here, let alone those under gags or behind closed doors. 
..Didn't we have problems with localised area coms systems not functioning, munitions supply faliures and before we purchased HK, our rifles wouldn't regularly work correctly on anything more than single shot - perhaps a nod to the paperwork involved in UK forces for bullet accountency, before we sold them (HK) on.

But I feel you feel strongly aggrieved with EU/UK, and despite being from their eyes 'English' you hoped for a better deal from the French and a lesser form, the Germans too...
In which War did we screw you, Mirages and Leaopards production usages range from the 50's/60's until now? 
(Do you mean Vietnam, we objected to that one - partially due to the Suez fiasco, but your own government wanted to become effectively a US protectionate from possible from PRC/Malaysian/Indonesian possibilities, so please hold it against us for your national decisions when where possible, for it the common binding of the Commonwealth, GB/UK is the prigenitor of all its glories, faliures and the spread of its peoples, good, bad, ugly dispicable.)

If you feel so strongly that few can supply your national needs, then however your government really works, petion, create community rallies etc for 'real Assie industries' or whatever nationalistic titles work in your neck of the woods to produce your own kit and then you can complain about that too, just like we do over 'ere.


----------



## Glider (Oct 13, 2015)

parsifal said:


> My criticisms are more toward the Euro-aerospace industry. During the war the Brits really scr*wed us over, and not for defence related reasons, more for commercial purposes. After the war we had several instances of relying on European techs, notably the Mirage and the Leopard I tanks. In both cases, for different reasons and with variable impacts, we were comprehensively done over by the Europeans. Our military will never trust anything with "made in Europe" again for anything relating to our national security (at least vital interests).



I always thought that the Australians did well with the Centurions, Artillery and even SLR's and GPMG's. As for the Mirage you were I think offered the Mirage with the Avon which really had a performance (even the French admitted it was far superior) but still let the French talk you into accepting the Atar version with all the problems that followed. 
For those interested the Avon version was faster, climbed faster, had a gun firing ceiling raised by 10,000ft, shorter field length and 20% greater range. Remembering that the RAAF already had experience with the Avon in the CA27 the decision to go with the Atar can only be blamed on one nation, Australia.
I should also add that the Avon Mirage was also to be equipped with a new Airpass 2 multi mode radar far superior to the Cyrano but the choice was Australia's.

A final point, although the UK didn't approve of your involvement in Vietnam we did supply you with spares and ammo something the French and Sweden wouldn't do.


----------



## GregP (Oct 13, 2015)

Reference post #839. The Bf 109 was a winner 10 years later.

The F-35 began in 1992 with the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter that morphed into the Joint Strike Fighter that morphed into the F-35. If my math isn't wrong, that's a 23-year gestation period and it still is not in full service.

23 years atfer the Bf 109 was conceived it was history except in Spain, who built a few in the form of Hispanos to tide them over until their jets became available and kept a few a while more for historic purposes. Nobody seriously condsidered them as front-line fighters at the time, even the Spanish, but they kept their cadre of fighter pilots flying. It certainly wasn't cutting-edge 23 years after 1936.

To me as a taxpayer, the F-35 is too little for the money and over a decade too late. It may well turn out OK, but was a bad decision in my opinion. I wish it well but will probably never be a fan. If it lives up to hype in the real world, I may change my mind. But for that to happen, I'd need to see some combat results against a decent opponent ... and there is no way I want a war to start just to make me like the F-35. So I firmly hope I never come to like it since that would mean lasting peace.

I'll be watching it with interest and some skepticism, coupled with hope that the F-35-likers turn out to be right in the end. If it turns out to be a good one, I won't complain about the price. If it turns out to be turkey, I would wish for some basic congressional controls to be put in place to prevent them from doing it ever again without both bipartisan support and public support.

The cost of the entire weapon system is staggering if it turns out bad, and bad but perhaps acceptable if it turns out good.

All I can say in support at this time is it looks to be doing OK so far, but it is not in full service yet. That is better than the record of some other planes that turned out OK in the end, so at least it appears to be headed the right way.

Maybe the worst IS behind us.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 14, 2015)

we were happy enough with Mirage performance, but the refusal to provide spares was holding the entire nation to ransom for political reasons and goes beyond the pale. 

The French did the same thing to the Israelis a short time later, a little more controversially admittedly. 

The leopard I had a serious problem...... the metallurgical treatment of the armour plate was faulty and crystallized making them fragile and unsuitable for any operations. Germans refused to fix the problem, so we were stuck with an expensive training vehicle for more than 30 years. 

Nothing wrong with Centurion, but the brits were happy for us to showcase the technology in Vietnam, nothing like a centurion in the scrub as a photo op. Would have sold a lot of tanks. Im not even sure who actually built those aussie Centurions, but they were well within our skillset to fix ourselves. Even if the brits had told us to nick off we could have managed to keep them going ourselves.

SLRs were a European design, for sure, but made (and even exported) from Australia. Not going to be a problem if the Europeans tried to get jiggy with us over the SLRs.

Brits did other things just to nark us. Like dropping lots of a-bombs on our soil, and then bugging out without cleaning up the mess. Okay, but a bit rude.

French decided to drop a few bombs in our backyard as well, told us to bugger off, acted like general a*holes, and even blew up a few protests boats to boot. Not military issues, but evidence of an arrogance that really does the Europeans no favours. We aren't just "mere colonials" that you can screw over at your leisure and think nothing will happen. If nothing else, if you treat us like that, you can stick your Mirages where the sun don't shine 

There is nothing wrong with European technology, its the strings that go with it, that is so irksome, and has really soured Australia as a purchaser of European military technology unless we can build it or fix it ourselves

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 14, 2015)

I've heard that from other forums, from other countries, with a change in who did what and left what there and what the strings were. It's one of the reasons I'm not too fond of outsourcing ... though I wish we had gotten the FN-FAL rather than the M-14.

When we got the Canberra, we made sure we could make it and support it. In fact, they just recently took an RB-57F out of retirement and refurbished it for NASA ... and it's back operational. Now THAT was a shocker, at least to me.

The best situation for you guys might be to partner with someone, not purchase. You build some of and they build some of it ... and you both depend on each other. Sort of like SEPECAT did with many European companies.

If we can help Japan with an F-16 derivative, you guys could do something like, too, with the nation and company(ies) of your choice.

Of course, that assumes there is any money left after the F-35 purchase. Are you guys getting a mix or all 3 types, or maybe just 1 or 2 versions, or what? How many?


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 14, 2015)

GregP said:


> Of course, that assumes there is any money left after the F-35 purchase. Are you guys getting a mix or all 3 types, or maybe just 1 or 2 versions, or what? How many?



As I understand it, we have 72 F-35A's on order with a further 24 planned. Also Australia is going to be the maintenance "hub" of the Southern Pacific area.
Australia chosen as preferred F-35 global support location | Australian Aviation


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 14, 2015)

GregP said:


> The F-35 began in 1992 with the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter that morphed into the Joint Strike Fighter that morphed into the F-35. If my math isn't wrong, that's a 23-year gestation period and it still is not in full service.


 Not true - that's when the specification was drawn up and the government issued the first request for solicitations. There was a competition for initial design proposals and Lockheed and Boeing were allowed to "play" in the final round. The X-32 and X-35 were the entries and in 2001 the X-35 concept was chosen. The X-32 was a miserable failure and Boeing was removing components off of it so it could meet some of the test requirements in hover. The F-35 program officially began after the 2001 Joint Strike Fighter was announced as the X-32 and X-35 were really proof of concept aircraft. The first F-35A rolled out in 2008 after a redesign proposed by Lockheed and ACCEPTED by the government that took over 2500 pounds off the weight of the aircraft. In November 2010, the GAO found that "Managing an extensive, still-maturing global network of suppliers adds another layer of complexity to producing aircraft efficiently and on-time" and that "due to the extensive amount of testing still to be completed, the program could be required to make alterations to its production processes, changes to its supplier base, and costly retrofits to produced and fielded aircraft, if problems are discovered.This global network of suppliers was not by choice as all team members got a piece of the pie and some of the foreign suppliers drug their feet in meeting delivery schedule, so if you're making this assumption based on what you're reading in the internet, you're getting half the story.


GregP said:


> 23 years atfer the Bf 109 was conceived it was history except in Spain, who built a few in the form of Hispanos to tide them over until their jets became available and kept a few a while more for historic purposes. Nobody seriously condsidered them as front-line fighters at the time, even the Spanish, but they kept their cadre of fighter pilots flying. It certainly wasn't cutting-edge 23 years after 1936.


Greg, its silly to compare the production of a WW2 aircraft to the F-35. the ejection seat alone is twice as complex as the whole me 109 airframe!


GregP said:


> To me as a taxpayer, the F-35 is too little for the money and over a decade too late. It may well turn out OK, but was a bad decision in my opinion. I wish it well but will probably never be a fan. If it lives up to hype in the real world, I may change my mind. But for that to happen, I'd need to see some combat results against a decent opponent ... and there is no way I want a war to start just to make me like the F-35. So I firmly hope I never come to like it since that would mean lasting peace.


the aircraft was actually 7 years late and has 'caught up' to much of the delays in which many were due to flight test concurrency which was induced by the pentagon. LMCO told the government that this was going to increase the cost but the approval was given anyway.


GregP said:


> I'll be watching it with interest and some skepticism, coupled with hope that the F-35-likers turn out to be right in the end. If it turns out to be a good one, I won't complain about the price. If it turns out to be turkey, *I would wish for some basic congressional controls to be put in place to prevent them from doing it ever again without both bipartisan support and public support.*


Although LMCO is not blameless, the root of the problem are those approving contract add-ons be it hardware or software related. In the beginning of the program there were tons of customer induced design changes. Remember - LMCO built this aircraft based on a Pentagon solicitation and was not offered as a non-solicited proposal in the same manner you would go out an buy a car off the shelf.


GregP said:


> The cost of the entire weapon system is staggering if it turns out bad, and bad but perhaps acceptable if it turns out good. All I can say in support at this time is it looks to be doing OK so far, but it is not in full service yet. That is better than the record of some other planes that turned out OK in the end, so at least it appears to be headed the right way.
> 
> Maybe the worst IS behind us.



Well the latest news says otherwise...

_U.S. Navy Rear Admiral John Haley, commander of Naval Air Force Atlantic, said developmental testing of the F-35C, the carrier variant of the new stealthy fighter jet, had been "pretty doggone good" compared with earlier aircraft._

_"The F-35 is going to bring ... sensors and an ability to guide the fight, whether it's an air-to-ground fight or an air-to-air fight. They’re going to have an ability that’s going to change how we think about getting to the target, delivering weapons and getting out of the target," Haley said._

Lockheed F-35s finish at-sea test flights as U.S. Navy warms to new jet - Reuters News 10/9/2015 8:48 PM
Lockheed rolls out first F-35 fighter jet for Norway | The Star-Telegram

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 14, 2015)

Nice!


----------



## Glider (Oct 14, 2015)

parsifal said:


> we were happy enough with Mirage performance, but the refusal to provide spares was holding the entire nation to ransom for political reasons and goes beyond the pale.


But had you purchased the Avon version the RAAF wouldn't have had the spares or support issues and a better performance. Also the RAAF were not happy with the performance and had been promised a higher powered version of the engine which was late.


> The leopard I had a serious problem...... the metallurgical treatment of the armour plate was faulty and crystallized making them fragile and unsuitable for any operations. Germans refused to fix the problem, so we were stuck with an expensive training vehicle for more than 30 years.


Totally agree that this was a serious issue, but not the fault of the British. 


> Nothing wrong with Centurion, but the brits were happy for us to showcase the technology in Vietnam, nothing like a centurion in the scrub as a photo op. Would have sold a lot of tanks. Im not even sure who actually built those aussie Centurions, but they were well within our skillset to fix ourselves. Even if the brits had told us to nick off we could have managed to keep them going ourselves.


Don't be quite so fast to take the credit for selling Centurion tanks. By 1967 they were in service in a number of countries and had seen combat in Korea and in 1967 was in action in the Six day war on both sides, in 1965 they were in combat in India.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 14, 2015)

F-35 Eye Candy compilation ...


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSVAnEQMn2I_


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 15, 2015)

It does have a cool look to it.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Oct 15, 2015)

I know it's not the first plane to use this configuration but I never liked seeing the refueling nozzle behind the pilot. Always seemed like it would make it harder for the pilot during refueling operations.


Wheels


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 15, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> “The F-35A is an agile aircraft, it has speed and can pull a 9G turn like an F-16,” said Mr Linstead. “It would be trite to say dogfights are over. *But if an F-35 got into a dogfight situation then the pilot would have probably done something wrong.” *
> 
> Have we heard that before?!?!?!?



Can't help but think Vietnam again and the missiles only fighter....circus, just listen to what Robin Olds say in _Dogfights_ about it....

I don't think that dogfights will disappear in a foreseeable future....and I bet a packet of bacon! 

Didn't they think that Vietnam would be a missile only airwar? See what happened there... 

I think that, much like everything else in military aviation, stealth is something that has come and will in time also go, as in systems....weapons etc., will be or already are in development that will make it not as useful as when it first showed up, just look at the Meteor missile, all they did to it, was changing the way it operates, can't remember what is was called K- something wavelength and it turned out be much more sensitive to stealth....

The F-35 is _not_ perfect, it never was and it'll never be, neither is the Gripen or anyone else out there...thinking that and you're shooting yourself in the foot or whatyacallit...

Again, bl**dy good and educational thread lads!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Can't help but think Vietnam again and the missiles only fighter....circus, just listen to what Robin Olds say in _Dogfights_ about it....



For that era, dogfighting was alive and well as were the stupidity of the politicians who put ROEs on the pilots and actually induced VR dogfights in an environment that favored the enemy.


Lucky13 said:


> I don't think that dogfights will disappear in a foreseeable future....and I bet a packet of bacon!


dogfights won't go away IMO but they wont be the same twisting and turning encounters so many of us are programmed to believe what really happens. In fact I believe most of the encounters wont even see high G aerobatic maneuvers!


Lucky13 said:


> Didn't they think that Vietnam would be a missile only airwar? See what happened there...


2 comments - actually it was when you compare the amount of gun kills to the amount of missile kills on BOTH sides. Even 3/4 of the "Last Gunfigter" F-8 kills were missiles kills.

For the US it would have been more of a missile only airwar if most of them worked and the airmen were allowed to use them! 




Lucky13 said:


> I think that, much like everything else in military aviation, stealth is something that has come and will in time also go, as in systems....weapons etc., will be or already are in development that will make it not as useful as when it first showed up, just look at the Meteor missile, all they did to it, was changing the way it operates, can't remember what is was called K- something wavelength and it turned out be much more sensitive to stealth....


 Again, stealth isn't the catch-all, it just makes it easier for you to get the first shot off first


Lucky13 said:


> The F-35 is _not_ perfect, it never was and it'll never be, neither is the Gripen or anyone else out there...thinking that and you're shooting yourself in the foot or whatyacallit...


Not perfect, no machine is, but if it works half as well as say the F-16, it will be damned close!


Lucky13 said:


> Again, bl**dy good and educational thread lads!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 15, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> ...I don't think that dogfights will disappear in a foreseeable future....and I bet a packet of bacon!
> 
> Didn't they think that Vietnam would be a missile only airwar? See what happened there...


But this is the 21st century and with a far higher degree of systems that will allow an accurate kill beyond visual range.

Having ballistic weapons on board (MG, Cannon) is certainly an insurance policy, but getting down and dirty in a slug-fest is not, and should not, be a priority for a modern fighter.

It seems to me, that the general public still sees fighter pilots as those daring guys who put on their leather cap, toss their silk scarf around their neck and fly off into the puffy white clouds in search of thier adversary, charge their maxims and yell "Tally Ho!" (or Horrido!) as they dive into the fray and this tends to color the "jets must be dogfighters" argument.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 15, 2015)

Didn't they once compare the dogfight to a boxing match? Maybe the missile is the dancing around with a few punches here and there, with all the countermeasures there's around against them, using a good gun for the final technical knockout? 

With all that it takes to fly a fighter today, aren't the pilots more of a gamer than anything else?


----------



## parsifal (Oct 15, 2015)

I disagree with some of this. The primary mission of a/c for a nation other than one like the US with the resources to take losses and replace them should not be to configure optimise your forces for air combat. That is now the primary department of ground based air defence systems. it is far more economical to win your air battle from the ground, and only when and where you need to. 

For nations like mine, your airborne assets should of course have have air to air capability, for two reasons. If an enemy is penetrating your air space to deliver its packages on your assets, you may need your a/c airborne and able to knock them out of the sky as required. Bomber destroyers gents. Where your forces are set to deliver packages onto enemy assets, you want your assets survivable, which means undetectable, with sufficient defences to maximise your survivability and then get out of Dodge as quickly as you can. Strike aircraft. you don't use an aircraft like the F-35 to sweep into enemy airspace like the US cavalry and ride around the sky making as much noise as you can. You sneak into their airspace, blow the cr*p out of whatever you need to and then retreat to your own air space and try and shoot down their assets if they try to retaliate, on your terms. 

Im not saying the F-35 is not an air superiority weapon. it most certainly is, but it does it in the modern way, not to outmoded tactical concepts.


----------



## GregP (Oct 16, 2015)

Hi Joe,

There's nothing in that last quote of yours that contradicts what I said. And when the solicitation is sent out and a reply is formulated or in the process of being formulated IS when the design begins ... 1992, just like I posted.

Of course I can compare an F-35 to a Bf 109 ... they're both fighters and the knowledge to make the airframes fly is about equal, considering we have computers for what they used to use slide rules for. It's all the added crap that stretches things out, not the basic airframe. You know that.

I am WELL aware of government bungling in contracts having been engaged in trying to thwart it for more than 16 years. I finally had a handle on it when I asked the government people for a change order for every "minor" change. After that, they started handing us real change orders instead of pecking away at changes ... at least we got paid for that. We also declined any change that didn't include a schedule adjustment to account for the change after being hurt several times.

I hate to say it but if I had a small company I'd decline government work. It isn't worth the hassle that accompanies the work. If we ever do another thing like this and I am retired at that time, I may join the vocal opposition unless it can be shown to be cost effective. To me, the F-35 never did and still doesn't seem cost effective. It may well perform when deployed, and at least that's something, but I have never been and still am not a supporter. If it winds up meeting the hype, I might be pursuaded to defect to your side ... but that will have to happen first. I hope it does meet the hype rather than the alternative.

You aren't the only one who has worked on it. I did too.

We made all F-35 actuators (gear, ailerons, elevators, rudder, gear doors, tailpipe pivot for the STOVL and other linear actuation requirements), the lift fan clutch assembly, brakes, the assembly that pivots the tailpipe for hover, and a few more pieces. I KNOW they were well made, but some of the designs were forced on us ... and there are still some electronic "stupid things" in those designs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hi Joe,
> 
> There's nothing in that last quote of yours that contradicts what I said. And when the solicitation is sent out and a reply is formulated or in the process of being formulated IS when the design begins ... 1992, just like I posted.


But that's NOT when the first solicitations went out for a FIGHTER. It was a proof of concept aircraft that led into the X-32 and X-35. The gestation time was dictated by the government, NOT the contractor and that's one of the reasons why it's been 23 years. 



GregP said:


> Of course I can compare an F-35 to a Bf 109 ... they're both fighters and the knowledge to make the airframes fly is about equal, considering we have computers for what they used to use slide rules for. It's all the added crap that stretches things out, not the basic airframe. You know that.


 Agree and disagree - the conception, design and production of a WW2 fighter compared to a fighter of today is like comparing cave paintings to CAD CAM models - yes "the added crap that stretches things out" is quite true especially when you have a customer who continually changes it's mind, triple tests the aircraft and then allows an R&D budget to be over run.
the added crap that stretches things out


GregP said:


> I am WELL aware of government bungling in contracts having been engaged in trying to thwart it for more than 16 years. I finally had a handle on it when I asked the government people for a change order for every "minor" change. After that, they started handing us real change orders instead of pecking away at changes ... at least we got paid for that. We also declined any change that didn't include a schedule adjustment to account for the change after being hurt several times.


And that's exactly what happened to LMCO in most cases, but sometimes they tried to retain schedule and got stung by it. It's like having a friend asking you to help him move then he starts yelling at you for not working fast enough. 


GregP said:


> The government does that all the time and I see it all the time.
> the added crap that stretches things out



I'm still a government contractor and I see it today


GregP said:


> I hate to say it but if I had a small company I'd decline government work. It isn't worth the hassle that accompanies the work.


It could be worth wild for something simple that yielded a good profit margin. I worked with a machine shop who made part of the toilet system for ships, that were a sole source and it was very profitable for them.


GregP said:


> the added crap that stretches things out


And that's 3/4 of the problem with the F-35 and many other fighters that come before it, unfortunately in this day and age any large defense system is highly scrutinized by a very ignorant and anti-military media and further enflamed by a non-aviation educated general public.


GregP said:


> If we ever do another thing like this and I am retired at that time, I may join the vocal opposition unless it can be shown to be cost effective. To me, the F-35 never did and still doesn't seem cost effective. It may well perform when deployed, and at least that's something, but I have never been and still am not a supporter. If it winds up meeting the hype, I might be pursuaded to defect to your side ... but that will have to happen first. I hope it does meet the hype rather than the alternative.


 I believe the F-35 will be a winner, no hiding that and would also join the effort to make programs like this more cost effective, but again the REAL MIC that lives inside the walls of places like the pentagon and at Wright Patterson AFB need to be harnessed and held accountable for their actions as well as the contractor.


GregP said:


> You aren't the only one who has worked on it. I did too.


Greg, you were a subcontractor, one of many.


GregP said:


> We made all F-35 actuators (gear, ailerons, elevators, rudder, gear doors, tailpipe pivot for the STOVL and other linear actuation requirements), the lift fan clutch assembly, brakes, the assembly that pivots the tailpipe for hover, and a few more pieces. I KNOW they were well made, but some of the designs were forced on us ... and there are still some electronic "stupid things" in those designs.


 As a sub *WITHOUT* design authority it's basically not your place to consider what's stupid and what isn't. I was a QA Rep assigned to Parker at both Costa Mesa and Irvine, and both facilities were class acts, but they provided a service to a prime contractor. I had some other subcontractos complain about "things" that although were quite legitimate to them, worked exactly how* we *wanted it. For a host of reasons we would ignore their concerns as *they did not have a need to know*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2015)

Almost going operational with the USAF.

F-35A Lightning II Stealth Rollout Ceremony | Military.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Oct 19, 2015)

within that block, I also see the sea trials for the F-35C are, or already have completed this month (October). Im stuck on just how smooth the aircraft in all manner of deck operations. Its a very classy a/c


----------



## GregP (Oct 20, 2015)

Hi Joe,

All I can say about being a subcontractor is WE found the problems and knew how to fix them. The PRIME declined to fix them unless they were paid to do it. The thing is, in my mind, they WERE paid to design it and made errors that SHOULD have been theirs to fix in the first place. So we had to manufacture things that weren't going to meet *spec*, and had to do it just because they were to the prime's drawing and part number.

The prime was Moog.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hi Joe,
> 
> All I can say about being a subcontractor is WE found the problems and knew how to fix them. The PRIME declined to fix them unless they were paid to do it. The thing is, in my mind, they WERE paid to design it and made errors that SHOULD have been theirs to fix in the first place. So we had to manufacture things that weren't going to meet *spec*, and had to do it just because they were to the prime's drawing and part number.
> 
> The prime was Moog.



Greg,

That's the trial and tribulations of being a subcontractor. In the end if your component works safely and you're paid for your services that's what matters. I worked for a sub after my days at Lockheed and saw this from the other side of the fence. When they were still around, McDonnell Douglas Long Beach was the worse and seemed to blame us for discovering an issue with their design.


----------



## GregP (Oct 22, 2015)

Here's a recent article. Read the part about the F-35.

How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs

Sort of justifies my own thoughts ... very admirably. And nobody in here can accuse the author of being unqualified to comment on it from a position of knowledge.

I have no opinion on whether or not the F-35 can turn and burn since I DON'T know but, if it can't ... then Thanksgiving is a good holliday for it since we eat a LOT of turkey at that time. The answer SHOULD be EASY. Fly it and report the facts. If it can't turn and burn when empty, scrap it. 

Or mortgage our grandchildren for a loser. Of course, that asssumes it can't perform ... but maybe it CAN. Do a real ... PUBLIC test and report the facts.

Maybe we're all fighting over nothing. The real objective is the truth about the aircraft ... NOT from the manufacturer's PR people. Electrronic superiority doesn't guarantee real-world survivability. All it means is you can fool 'em for awhile ... until you can't.

Please no ONE line trite excuses. Make your case.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 22, 2015)

parsifal said:


> within that block, I also see the sea trials for the F-35C are, or already have completed this month (October). Im stuck on just how smooth the aircraft in all manner of deck operations. Its a very classy a/c



See, that's where you're wrong, _this_ is a classy aircraft, carrier based aircraft....!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2015)

GregP said:


> Here's a recent article. Read the part about the F-35.
> 
> How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs
> 
> ...



Easily spoken from an individual who is retired and not in the game anymore.

Here's the perspective from an active duty pilot who actually flew the aircraft;

Pilot reaction to flying the F-35B | Ares

My case - if you're fighting VR with an F-35 you've pissed away 85 million dollars worth of airplane - one line statement, if I have to explain why then you don't know anything about modern combat aircraft. Look at the test report that's causing all this BS - the F-35 flew VR, no sensors, no radar, all the advantage to the F-16, and it really wasn't a true dogfighting test! Someone posted for about it several pages back.

Again - this aircraft WAS NOT designed to be a dedicated air-to-air fighter. The word "STRIKE" was used in copious amounts through out it's development.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 22, 2015)

".....See, that's where you're wrong, this is a classy aircraft, carrier based aircraft...."

Admit it, Lucky, you're a romantic ... 

*Wikipedia*: "... The Crusader _was not an easy aircraft to fly, and was often unforgiving_ in carrier landings, where it suffered from yaw instability, and the poorly designed, castoring nose undercarriage made steering on the deck problematic. It earned a reputation as an "ensign killer" during its early service introduction.[10] The nozzle and air intake were so low when the aircraft was on the ground or the flight deck that the crews called the aircraft "the Gator". Not surprisingly, the Crusader's mishap rate was relatively high compared to its contemporaries, the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and the F-4 Phantom II. However, the aircraft did possess some amazing capabilities, as proved when several Crusader pilots took off with the wings folded. One of these episodes took place on 23 August 1960; a Crusader with the wings folded took off from Napoli Capodichino in full afterburner, climbed to 5,000 ft (1,500 m) and then returned to land successfully. The pilot, absent minded but evidently a good "stick man," complained that the control forces were higher than normal. The Crusader was capable of flying in this state, though the pilot would be required to reduce aircraft weight by ejecting stores and fuel prior to landing.[3] In all, 1,261 Crusaders were built. By the time it was withdrawn from the fleet, 1,106 had been involved in mishaps.[11] Only a handful of them were lost to enemy fire in Vietnam.[11]

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Oct 23, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Where did you come up with that?
> 
> I've heard this from several sources...
> 
> ...




Having talked and worked with several people involved in the early days of the program I am not buying either explanation of the designation, although I have heard both. I absolutely have no firsthand knowledge of the designation selection, but what follows fits with everything I have heard.

First the miss-printed Dash 1. There were a very limited number of manuals printed, particularly early on, and it would not have been millions of dollars to reprint, a few tens of thousands max. Costs which any self-respecting CORE would have made the contractor eat if the contractor operated without authority. Also, the contractor does not make the military designation of an aircraft, they are told what it will be called, although naturally they may have an internal or early designation they use before the aircraft receives its “official” ID. And of course the contractor may have a favorite name / designation they champion and try to make “official”. They would not have printed a manual, and the manual would not have made it through both the contractor and military vetting process, with an unauthorized designation on the cover.

Next the pilot egos’s. While the project was black, before the project was an acknowledged project, acknowledgement that did not occur until after the aircraft was in operational service, prospective pilots did not know what aircraft they would be involved with, the A-7 enhancement cover story extended to prospective pilots also. Before being read in to the project, something that did not happen until after they were selected for the project, they were told that the aircraft they would be involved with was a modified / enhanced A-7 so the “F” designation did not matter. After the project was acknowledged the designation of the aircraft would not have mattered, many of the prospective pilots of the correct mind set and abilities would have given their eye teeth to fly the cutting edge, super sexy, space age, aircraft.

I had always heard the designation of the F-117 came from three factors in combination, politics, location, and OPSEC. While possibly sound this is speculation that might be impossible to support with documentation.

Politically the Air Force of the day was not buying new attack aircraft. The perceived future role of the Air Force was Fighters and Bombers, with the Navy and Marines working Fighters and Attack, and so Air Force combat aircraft would receive either F or B designations, or possibly F/B. The Air Force already had two major Bomber projects underway, the ATB (what became the B-2) and the initially problematic, expensive, somewhat embarrassing B-1. Remember that even “black” projects require funding, and Congress would be more likely to fund a “fighter” than another expensive bomber. So when TAC pursued funding for Senior Trend it was not as a bomber.

According to Col Peck’s book the location for the first base of operations for the aircraft was selected before the first airframe flew, before the first Dash One was printed, and while the project was still black. The airfield at Tonapah Test Range was expanded specifically to support the F-117, after initial testing at Groom Lake but before the aircraft was operational. A small town was constructed on base near the airfield so that personnel would not mix with locals as much. And this leads to the OPSEC portion.

The aircraft already flying in and around the TTR airfield were the aircraft of Constant Peg and the 4477th. These foreign aircraft had been given the designations of F-110, F-113, F-114, etc, to use on the radio. It draws less attention in US airspace to say “F-113” on the radio than “MiG-23”. A designation consistent with the designators already in use in the area would draw less attention. And while still a classified project the existence of the Constant Peg aircraft was already publicly known by the time the first F-117 flew. So even if folks did not know specifically what an F-113 was, they knew in a general way what it was, and the appearance of a “new” one-teen designation, if it ever became known, would point towards Foreign Material Exploitation, vs towards a “new” aircraft for the Air Force, since the new aircraft designation system would not draw from such numbers.

Many folks in and around the industry knew a stealth fighter was on the way or here already, but folks not in the program expected the aircraft to receive a teen designation, with F-19 being the one most suspected. I would have to say the misdirection in designation worked well.

T!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2015)

Token said:


> Having talked and worked with several people involved in the early days of the program I am not buying either explanation of the designation, although I have heard both. I absolutely have no firsthand knowledge of the designation selection, but what follows fits with everything I have heard.
> 
> First the miss-printed Dash 1. There were a very limited number of manuals printed, particularly early on, and it would not have been millions of dollars to reprint, a few tens of thousands max. Costs which any self-respecting CORE would have made the contractor eat if the contractor operated without authority. Also, the contractor does not make the military designation of an aircraft, they are told what it will be called, although naturally they may have an internal or early designation they use before the aircraft receives its “official” ID. And of course the contractor may have a favorite name / designation they champion and try to make “official”. They would not have printed a manual, and the manual would not have made it through both the contractor and military vetting process, with an unauthorized designation on the cover.
> 
> ...



All sounds good but I'll tell you I was there, saw the first two built. Both stories were widely spoken about but in my world the aircraft was just know as "the article".

BTW when a military is flown (at least in the white world) a call sign is given for the mission (Congo 64 for example). I would think a spoken word would be used on the radio along with a number to designate the aircraft by flight plan, not by type. I've flown many times on military aircraft and this was the norm - Biff could chime in on this as he's "been there, done that".


----------



## Token (Oct 23, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> BTW when a military is flown (at least in the white world) a call sign is given for the mission (Congo 64 for example). I would think a spoken word would be used on the radio along with a number to designate the aircraft by flight plan, not by type. I've flown many times on military aircraft and this was the norm - Biff could chime in on this as he's "been there, done that".



Yeah, Reach XX, Coso YYY, Dagger ZZ, etc are the norm, however there are still times when aircraft type gets sent, for various reasons. Radio hobbyist have been listening to the Nellis ranges for many years, and all of the aircraft type designations were heard at one time or another, including the F-117 before it was acknowledged.

T!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2015)

Token said:


> Yeah, Reach XX, Coso YYY, Dagger ZZ, etc are the norm, however there are still times when aircraft type gets sent, for various reasons. Radio hobbyist have been listening to the Nellis ranges for many years, and all of the aircraft type designations were heard at one time or another, including the F-117 before it was acknowledged.
> 
> T!


Hmmm - and they're eavesdropping on them with VHF?


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 23, 2015)

Naughty, naughty....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 23, 2015)

So the only active duty or former active duty pilots who KNOW what they're talking about are the ones who support the F-35?

We'll have to disagree on that one.

The ROE have historically been heavily slanted toward political safety ... not staying within a supporting aircraft's design parameters. If the F-35 has to fly missions with the SAME ROE, it definitely WILL be within VR a LOT, and I now believe that will not be a good thing.

No amount of whitewash will make me believe otherwise unless and until it is proven so in combat. Perhaps then we will all find out. We certainly will NOT find out in war games with restrictive politically-motivated ROE.

Since the F-35's operational time is soon to be upon us, I'd say we'll probably find out soon enough, assuming the progression of stupid acts in the world continues unabated, and I can se no reason why it won't at this time.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 24, 2015)

I might point out that even two days ago, an F-18 (this also points back to the twin-engine conversation earlier) went down in England. Of note, is the fact that the F-18 has a remarkable reliability record...and yet, here were are, one F-18 down and one pilot has perished 

So nothing is perfect, but from what I have seen and heard, I feel that the F-35 will be a winner.


----------



## GregP (Oct 24, 2015)

I was not arguing the single versus twin thing ... I was referecing the link I posted earlier where an F-16 combat pilot says the F-35 is a big mistake.

I realize Joe worked on it. I did , too. We were both subcontactor (actuators for the ailerons) and prime (elevator actuators, nozzle flex mechanism, brakes, and other items)) and I am fully aware he supports it ... maybe 110%.

I just don't agree and, much more importantly, can't find a real reason to do so. It is not disrespect for Joe ... far from it; it is a simple difference of opinion. Doesn't mean we won't eventually have a beer together, it means we don't see the F-35 in the same light *at this time*.

I may come around and may not depending on the experience with it. I have low expectations and would be happy to be pleasantly surprised. We'll see, and it won't probably be in the next several days or weeks. It will be when we get into a fight with it, considering the history of our "peacetime hostile encounters," in which we have done quite well over the lifetime of the F-15 and F-16. 

If we continue to do so, maybe the F-35 will be OK. If it fails, especially early on ... maybe several times, the proponents won't exactly have much of a leg to stand on. Only time will tell and, as I have stated numerous times, seemingly without apparent effect (maybe that will change?) ... I hope it does well.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 24, 2015)

Greg, my point was that an F-18, that has a remarkable record for reliability, just crashed.

The twin engine comment was an aside because, as you may recall, Sys was adamant that twins were far safer than singles.


----------



## GregP (Oct 24, 2015)

No airplane is perfect and even 8-engine aircraft crash. Think B-52. Sometimes circumstance overcomes multiple engines. When that hapens, it USUALLY but not always is NOT the rest of the engines that cause the crash.

Twins ARE safer than singles when one engine fails and the other one doesn't. A twin can shut down one engine and fly home on the other one. A single cannot do that under ANY circumstances other than being directly over the airport.

In other circumstances it isn't quite so simple, and the systems on a single may be more or less reliable than those on a twin. I've seen it go both ways. The Oxygen system, for instance, may or may be the better on a single or a twin. In recent times, I'd say single turbines are as reliable in the engine department as twins. That doesn't make them any better or worse than singles in other systems areas.

But if you have ... say ... two alternators on a twin, one on each engine, and one engine fails ... then the single is not as reliable as the twin because even if he has two alternators ... if one engine fails, he goes down and loses electrical power other than battery.

I'd rather be in a piston twin than a piston single most times, but if in a turbine aircraft, I'd rather be in the one with the better systems setup for redundancy. That's usually the twin but not always, particularly in military aircraft. They are designed for combat survial in the face of multiple system failures.

For an example, look at the AD Skyraider, firmly rooted in WWII design. It could take a LOT of damage and still attack and still get home in Viet Nam. The Muitsubishi G4M Betty was called the flying lighter and it wasn't for nothing. Give me a Skyraider anytime.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2015)

GregP said:


> So the only active duty or former active duty pilots who KNOW what they're talking about are the ones who support the F-35?



I think the argument is better if you talk to someone who's actually FLOWN the aircraft!



GregP said:


> The ROE have historically been heavily slanted toward political safety ... not staying within a supporting aircraft's design parameters. If the F-35 has to fly missions with the SAME ROE, it definitely WILL be within VR a LOT, and I now believe that will not be a good thing.


Even if its dropping bombs, the mission it was designed to do to begin with?


GregP said:


> No amount of whitewash will make me believe otherwise unless and until it is proven so in combat. Perhaps then we will all find out. We certainly will NOT find out in war games with restrictive politically-motivated ROE.


I could agree with that


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 25, 2015)

GregP said:


> So the only active duty or former active duty pilots who KNOW what they're talking about are the ones who support the F-35?



Have to agree with Joe on this one and take comments from pilots who've actually flown the F-35. 

It seems to be a pretty common trait for pilots of the current platform to believe that the its replacement isn't good enough. We saw that in the RAF with the Buccaneer being replaced by the Tornado GR1, the Lightning being replaced by the Phantom and then the Phantom being replaced by the Tornado F3. It's human nature for pilots to trust their current aircraft, which has had years of updates and fixes to issues, compared to a modern replacement that still has some bugs. Who now remembers that the F-15 when introduced had an atrocious radar? Yet the F-15 was rightly considered the best fighter on the planet until the advent of 5th Generation platforms. 

Frankly, I have issues with this whole discussion of BVR-vs-VR and whether the F-35 can cut it in the latter environment. To view VR engagements as full-on ACM with no involvement from other platforms is anachronistic and harks back to Biggles in his trusty Sopwith Camel. The real issue is data fusion of onboard and offboard sensors to ensure a successful engagement. I've probably mentioned this before but I supported a military exercise where the RAF pitted AWACS-supported Tornado F3s against F-15s in a many-vs-many engagement. Logic suggested that the F-15s would wipe the floor with the Tonkas which, let's face it, were a dog when it came to air combat. However, good tactics and intelligent use of sensor data allowed the F3s to close on the F-15s undetected and unseen--to within visual range, mind you--and wax the entire F-15 formation. 

If such tactics can work for the unstealthy Tonka, how much better could they be used by the F-35 to overcome a more agile adversary? Any F-35 driver lets himself or herself get into a position where they're at a disadvantage in a turning fight with a more agile opponent has not been using the right tactics. ROE undoubtedly impacts air combat but they don't mean that the F-35 will cede ground against more agile adversaries. Clever tactics derived from operationally realistic training, and which leverage information dominance will always put the F-35 driver in a winning position...or at least they should. As I've said before, if you're fighting fair then you're doing it wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2015)

I think another issue with regards to the PR dilemma the F-35 has is all the bad press and the public"brainwashing" as a result of the 2008 Rand Report as well as the BS excreted by Pierre Sprey. Not to worry, when the B-2 replacement is being built it will be the new whipping boy of the anti-aviation, anti-military press.

Let's see - V-22, death trap, dog, waste, now has one of the highest FMC rates in the US military. The F-22 started getting bashed over the O2 problem and saw its production prematurely ended, everyone loves it yet its barely meeting its MC rate. Next you had the Boeing Dreamliner that took a beating in the press over its batteries. 

Yep, when the B-3 (or what ever it will be designated) is being developed it will be the new media scorn, maybe by then the F-35 will have long proven itself.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 26, 2015)

Joe, let's not forget the days of the AV-8A/B...

All the hand-wringing, bed-wetting and media baiting over the USMC's decision to purchase that aircraft.

I recall that the list of negatives was a long one: death trap, too expensive, foreign built (even the AV-8B was considered foreign built according to the press), incapable of dogfighting (sound familiar?) and on and on and on.

In other words, whatever the media can do to whip up public sentiment in their favor means good ratings, which equates to income. All they need to do, is stick a big fat worm on the hook and the fish come-a-runnin'...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jtm55 (Oct 26, 2015)

Hi All
Here are my thought on the F-35. I think that all of the misinformation that's been published is shameful. I understand that it's a expensive aircraft, it shouldn't be that much of a surprise. What I think is vitally important is if/when the F-35 is deployed against a enemy, the Politicians who dictate the ROE have a clear understanding of the F-35s strengths weakness's deploy the aircraft in the manner that takes advantage of all of its strengths. What would be criminal, is to do what was done in Vietnam, Politicians that had no understanding of tactics or weapons how they should be deployed dictating ROE.

I for one think that the F-35 will succeed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2015)

GregP said:


> *Twins ARE safer than singles when one engine fails and the other one doesn't. *A twin can shut down one engine and fly home on the other one. A single cannot do that under ANY circumstances other than being directly over the airport.



Not totally true. A big killer in GA (and at one time the biggest) were engine out during take off. Even people *practicing* take off engine out procedures were killing themselves. True though if you're flying along in a twin and then suddenly lose an engine, the second engine will obviously get you home.

The thing to realize that turbine engines these days are extremely reliable but like anything else can and do fail. I've been around turbine engines when they fail and its not as benign as a piston engine, especially a higher performing military engine. When they let go, you basically have a contained explosion within a fuselage and there's little that can be done to contain or mitigate damage, so in the case of a modern combat aircraft with engines in close proximity to each other, the wishful thinking of "flying home on one engine if one fails" could be very wishful thinking, it was for these guys...

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=F-14+explosion&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001


----------



## parsifal (Oct 26, 2015)

Its conundrum. There are advantages to having two engines over one, but there are also advnantages for having one engine. One of the advantages is that one engine (of modern design) is a smaller heat and radar signature, making it more survivable in a hostile environment, not less. Two engines is safer in a non combat situation. If you can overcome the reliability issues, the the single probably has the better overall profile, but there are other peripherals like two engines are better than one if you are being shot at by unguided ground fire....

I dont think the answer is as easy as it looks....


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 26, 2015)

parsifal said:


> ...I dont think the answer is as easy as it looks....


It's really not and as I pointed out a few posts back about that recent incident involving the F-18 in England, proves that two engines are not always going to be a salvation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 26, 2015)

I sort of agree with you guys about the opinions of pilots who haven't flown one ... and sort of not. If the pilot is within some time, say 5 - 8 years, of active duty flying, then he had an idea about the aircraft in question and what it would do. If he's been out of the cockpit for 10 - 15+ years, then maybe he lost touch a bit.

However, from what I've read, they haven't let the "bad guys" go after the F-35's in a realistic fashion in war games. Perhaps I just haven't read about it yet. If we have to go into, say Russia, they'd send up 80 older-gen jets to get 4 - 8 F-35's and they F-35's would be overwhelmed and run out of offensive weapons and be down to guns rather quickly once they are located. The first F-35 attack will locate them within an area. The older Russian jets would close as they are faster, and then you'd be in a WVR dogfight.

Naturally if the bad guys fight us one-on-one, I'd certainly think the aircraft with better SA would win BVR, and I strongly believe that would be the F-35. But if it turns into 80 on 4, then the F-35s would run out of missiles before the bad guys ran out of planes and they'd be in a WVR dogfight rapidly. The F-35 certainly isn't going to outrun an Su-35/37 or even a MiG-29, much less 50 of them and both have superior internal fuel reserves. 

So I can agree the F-35 might be OK if we use it as it is intended to be employed. If we don't, I'm not quite so sanguine as you guys about its chances of survival unless the bad guys are fighting in near-equal numbers.

In the end, it looks like we're going to get the F-35 anyway, so any aguments pro or con don't matter. It's like worrying about your new car's gas mileage after you buy it. Whatever it is, you have to have gas in it if you want to get anywhere. Once we HAVE the F-35 in service, then finding out it is either great or a turkey won't matter much. We'd still wind up having them in service. So we'd better learn how to successfully employ them.

I don't think the STOVL version is going to be doing any VIFFING like the Harrier did so well ... I seriously doubt the STOVL can engage vertical thrust at significant forward velocities. So it will have to win on it's own conventional aircraft merits. It would be good to find out I was wrong here ... if anyone knows, that is.


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 26, 2015)

parsifal said:


> Its conundrum. There are advantages to having two engines over one, but there are also advnantages for having one engine. One of the advantages is that one engine (of modern design) is a smaller heat and radar signature, making it more survivable in a hostile environment, not less. Two engines is safer in a non combat situation. If you can overcome the reliability issues, the the single probably has the better overall profile, but there are other peripherals like two engines are better than one if you are being shot at by unguided ground fire....
> 
> I dont think the answer is as easy as it looks....



One engine has half the chance of an engine failure...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 26, 2015)

GregP said:


> I sort of agree with you guys about the opinions of pilots who haven't flown one ... and sort of not. If the pilot is within some time, say 5 - 8 years, of active duty flying, then he had an idea about the aircraft in question and what it would do. If he's been out of the cockpit for 10 - 15+ years, then maybe he lost touch a bit.
> 
> However, from what I've read, they haven't let the "bad guys" go after the F-35's in a realistic fashion in war games. Perhaps I just haven't read about it yet. If we have to go into, say Russia, they'd send up 80 older-gen jets to get 4 - 8 F-35's and they F-35's would be overwhelmed and run out of offensive weapons and be down to guns rather quickly once they are located. The first F-35 attack will locate them within an area. The older Russian jets would close as they are faster, and then you'd be in a WVR dogfight.
> 
> ...



There are a number of major challenges with your concept for a mythical 80 older airframes:

1. They'd have to acquire and track the F-35s. This may be possible if the F-35s were carrying external stores but if we were just sending 4-8 airframes, it would more likely be a sneak attack.

2. The F-35s wouldn't be on their own - they'd be operating as part of a package including AWACS (unless we're talking a maritime operation...but then where would the opposing 80 fighters come from?).

3. An 80-v-4 or 80-v-8 are unassailable odds for any platform, including the current F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. 

If we're coming up with scenarios, maybe it would be better finding ones where perceived F-35 weaknesses would result in mission fail when current platforms would succeed on the same mission.

It's not a case of being sanguine. It's a case of assessing the viability of the threat, the power of net-centric operations (yes, I know that's an old term...but it still applies) and the tactical flexibility that the F-35 provides with its stealth strike/attack capabilities.

All that said, I am in complete agreement with your comments about the F-35B. I see absolutely no reason for that variant, other than to satisfy the Harrier mafia on both sides of the pond. I see no tactical/operational benefits to the added complexity and other constraints that apply to the STOVL variant.


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 26, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> All that said, I am in complete agreement with your comments about the F-35B. I see absolutely no reason for that variant, other than to satisfy the Harrier mafia on both sides of the pond. I see no tactical/operational benefits to the added complexity and other constraints that apply to the STOVL variant.



Has anyone proposed a new-gen followup to the US AV-8B Harrier II and UK Harrier II?
I wonder if such a craft would have the potential to outperform the F-35B.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 26, 2015)

I don't think there's any way to use the existing Harrier/AV-8 structure format and wring out performance to match the F-35. The Harrier will never be supersonic and its range and load carrying capability both fall far short of the F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 27, 2015)

Don't agree at all, buffnut. Finding an F-35 in daylight is as easy as seeing it. The FIRST time they attack anything, they KNOW where you were a few seconds or minutes ago, and can converge. Once in visual range, stealth is useless.

Of course, it the F-35s only attack at night, then maybe they do have chance of evading line of sight. Don't for a minute think the Russians haven't added things to their planes that can sniff out stealth planes. You must know they already have passive IR sensors, and have a net of sound mics on the ground. That's not the case in areas OTHER than the former Soviet Union, but in the scenario I was taking about ... it's Russia.

The F-35 might BE stealthy ... but it ain't quiet. Neither is the F-22. Go watch one. It's louder than an F-15.

So once again, IF we manage to employ the F-35 as they were designed to be employed, then we have something. If we get much outside of that, I'm not confident in the F-35 at all and have seen nothing whatsoever to change that opinion other than pie in the sky hype.

NOBODY knows how the F-35 will fare, certainly not you or me. We'll see when they get into combat and not before. If history repeats itself, it won't be all that long till we DO know. At that time, maybe someone will have an argument. Until then it is all conjecture that the enemy will do as you expect him to do; as will the F-35. That is a premise fraught with uncertainty. There isn't anyone who knows how the F-35 will play out unless they have a time machine.

The Russians certainly know what stealth is ... they FLY them. Is there anyone in here who thinks they aren't working on penetrating it? A WWII radar will see one due to lower frequencies and they have many such old radars. Does anyone seriously think they haven't developed NEW radars at stealth-seeing lower frequencies? The switching frequencies are so much lower you don't have much of a design challenge as far as circuitry goes. As an electrical engineer, I am confident in that.

Military technology "secrets" that are 35+ years old are the most fleeting of all. If WE can see a stealth plane, they can, too. If we can't, we haven't been trying very hard. My bet is we have radars that can see them. You HAVE to assume the other side does, too, and plan accordingly. If the F-35 is NOT invisible, we gonna' have a turkey in the inventory agianst a first-rate opponent; perhaps not agianst people without the technology to matter. If it IS invisible, we'll have a nice weapon system.

Again, if it WORKS like we think, it canand well might succeed. If it doesn't, time to punt. Since it hasn't been battle-tested, nobody knows for sure one way or the other, no matter what the hype says.

Want a REAL war game, ask the European nations ,Turkey, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Australia, Canada, and Brazil to come to Red Flag and try to intercept and stop the F-35s with their best pilots and sensors without restrictions. And see what develops. Hell, ask Russia, India, and Pakistan to come, too. Want to spice it up? Ask Saudi Arabia and Israel to come and fly, probably not at the same time. I'd really like to see what a Grippen can do, too.

Perhaps we'd HAVE a good F-35 evaluation after that. But it makes too much sense so it will never happen.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 27, 2015)

Greg,

The problem you run into with lower frequency radars is that they don't have the resolution for an engagement from missiles and fighters would have to get to the right place to effect an intercept...and then visually (or via IRST) acquire the target. It's also worth noting that VID isn't easy (which means your initial, somewhat dismissive, statement is actually accurate, just not in the sense that you meant it (if I'm interpreting your statement correctly)).

If we were going up against Russia (and I pray to my Deity of choice that we never do), it won't be 4 or 8 F-35s going in alone - it'll be a major force-on-force event, probably with some build-up beforehand. We'd have F-22s and modern fighters from other NATO forces aligned. You keep putting the F-35 into isolated scenarios without including the wider impact or how they might be employed as part of a force package.

And for the record, i've never claimed nor insinuated that the F-35 was invisible. Clearly, it's not. However, an extra few seconds can make the difference between a successful engagement/mission and a failure. I do know what smart tactics can do when you fight to your platform's (and your entire Air Component's) best capabilities. None of us can predict the future but nothing I've seen about the F-35 indicates it will be worse at its job than the platforms it's supposed to replace. The A-10 might be an exception to that rule but, frankly, the A-10 needs to retire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Oct 27, 2015)

> I do know what smart tactics can do when you fight to your platform's (and your entire Air Component's) best capabilities. None of us can predict the future but nothing I've seen about the F-35 indicates it will be worse at its job than the platforms it's supposed to replace



That is such a true statement. but what I think will make the f-35 a winner is that it will give options to the planners and pilots when a given threat arises. I don't think its a one trick pony, and if it can offer several ways of skinning the cat that could make a helluva difference if and when the time comes.....

One thing ive not heard much about is the "stretchability of the design. Some designs react well to planned obsolescence, others are stuck in a rut and cant be modified easily. How will the F-35 travel in time.....its meant or intended to have a 40-50 year airframe life that's a long time to be the leader. it will need to be updated at some point(s) in a career that long.


----------



## GregP (Oct 27, 2015)

With modern digital processing, lower-frequency radars would work just dandy. Their only real use would be counter-stealth, but I am SURE we have them. The design is too easy. You can do it without surface mount parts. If WE have 'em, then we have to assume top-tier potential enemies have them, too.

I am NOT insinuating that the F-35 could not handle a limited engagement by any means. I am saying if it goes up against a top-tier opponent who is expecting it, it might come up quite short. I cannot be proven wrong until I actually am by events, no matter what the argument is.

I don't want to fight Russia or China and I certainly don't want an incident that "validates" my opinion. What I DON'T want is a real need in the future, when this thing is in service, to come up short.

I do NOT have a warm, fuzzy feeling about the F-35 and likely won't unless and until it is proven. When and if it is, I may become a fan. Until then the jury is out.

It is too slow, with too little wing area, and has too little thrust-to-weight combined with a poor fuel fraction (29 - 31% at attack weights). None of those bode well, but it could happen that it works out. Canada is very likely pulling out (Canada's F-35 Decision Poised To Shake Up Fighter Jet Market).

Others may follow. That does NOT fill me with confidence in the plane and when they lowered the g-limit rather than strengthen it, I started to doubt it. Why fight faster 9-g fighters with a slower 6 - 7-g unit? It makes no sense to me and, apparently, not to Canada, either. 

The F-35 first flew in 2006 as a MULTI-ROLE FIGHTER. Don't EVEN try to tell me it isn't. Here is a quote from F35.com ... "The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th Generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. Three variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and *F-16* for the U.S. Air Force, the *F/A-18* for the U.S. Navy, the *F/A-18* and *AV-8B* Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of *fighters* for at least ten other countries."

The normal loaded weight is some 49,000 pounds and the thrust, in A/B!, is some 43,000 pounds. Max weight is 70,000 pounds and it goes Mach 1.6 . A 1959 T-38 will do Mach 1.3. That gives the F-35 a thrust to weight of 0.87 for normal loaded weight and 0.61 at max weight. A 1950's fighter was right there. The F-100 had a thrust to weight of 0.55 . The MiG-29 first flew in 1977 and has a thrust to weight at normal loaded weights of 1.09 and it goes Mach 2.25 . The Su-37 normally flies at some 45,000 pounds with a thrust to weight of about 1.4 and it first flew in 1996 as a development of the Su-35 that first flew in 1988. The Su-37 goes Mach 2.35. And these are older airplanes.

Doesn't seem like much of an advance to me, except in avionics, which SHOULD be first rate and above reproach. It ain't the avionics I'm worried about or even Canada is worried about. It's the airframe performance, pure and simple. It doesn't seem to have it with respect to the potential competition.

Only time will tell whether or not the avionics make up for the lack of airframe performance. I hope they DO and look forward to being able to retract some of the above if and when the F-35 proves itself in the arena of combat. It will or it won't. I'm in the cheering section only because we're buying them, not because I'm a fan. If it works out, I may become a fan. If it doesn't, I may not have the chance to change my mind. That is not a comfortable thought.

For the first time in my lifetime, there is NO manned follow-on fighters in the design stage in case the F-35 flops. THAT worries me, too. If you don't plan for a replacement, you surely won't be able to make a change if it is required in the event things don't work out quite as expected. You don't see the Russians doing that, do you? They are flying new prototypes and keeping the possibility of manufacturing them alive and well at a mere fraction of the cost of our "Lightning II."

Why aren't WE exploring alternatives in case things don't happen to work out? Like we used to do? A study isn't a production run and no metal need be cut. But the "next gen" should be taking shape. It isn't. Talk about short-sighted .... we are THERE.

Maybe we need a squadron of Eurofighters ... or Su-37s ... with US avionics in them ... or a military acquisition system that doesn't change things on an aircraft continuously once the contract is awarded. Buy what you spec and be done with it! If you don't get what you want, learn from it and be smarter next time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2015)

GregP said:


> However, from what I've read,



From where - the uninformed media or from those at EDW, PAX, Hill or Nellis?



GregP said:


> they haven't let the "bad guys" go after the F-35's in a realistic fashion in war games. Perhaps I just haven't read about it yet.


Well it was reported that the F-35 couldn't "dogfight" against an older F-16, some more of the purposely placed bad press. And as far as being 'realistic' - the F-35 used in that test was not a combat configured machine.



GregP said:


> The F-35 certainly isn't going to outrun an Su-35/37 or even a MiG-29, much less 50 of them and both have superior internal fuel reserves.


The f-35 shouldn't be fighting against those aircraft, that's what the F-22 is for. In that same capacity, how do you think the home town favorite A-10 will do if put in the same predicament?



GregP said:


> The F-35 might BE stealthy ... but it ain't quiet. Neither is the F-22. Go watch one. It's louder than an F-15.



Greg - this is just plain silly - have you ever had a fighter approach you at low level??? You hear it when it's right on top of yo and I can assure you that on a battlefield the acoustic levels of any aircraft at low level are going to be indistinguishable. 




GregP said:


> It is too slow, with too little wing area, and has too little thrust-to-weight combined with a poor fuel fraction (29 - 31% at attack weights).



Too slow? Faster than an F-117 and Harrier. An F-16 at sea level can only go mach 1.2. How are you coming up with that Greg when the 3 versions have variations in wing design and the F-35C carries a different wing? Here's some REAL non biased information about all 3 versions.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II



GregP said:


> Canada is very likely pulling out (Canada's F-35 Decision Poised To Shake Up Fighter Jet Market).



Right now IMO Canada is doing some political posturing. It is no secret that the Trudeau government doesn't want the aircraft and much of their disdain is based on cost and politics. Bristol Aerospace, a huge defense contractor in Winnipeg is a major player in the F-35, the area will suffer greatly if the Canadian government pulls the plug on the F-35 and doesn't have any offset work available in a replacement buy. i don't think yo understand that many of the F-35 teaming countries have a stake in the aircraft and are getting something back in participating in this aircraft. And you do realize that Italy has it's own production line?


GregP said:


> That does NOT fill me with confidence in the plane and when they lowered the g-limit rather than strengthen it, I started to doubt it. Why fight faster 9-g fighters with a slower 6 - 7-g unit? It makes no sense to me and, apparently, not to Canada, either.


 Greg, once again you're VERY misinformed. the aircraft could withstand 9gs, it can't sustain a 9 g turn which means it looses airspeed in the turn. Again if you're dogfighting in this aircraft you've done something very wrong and just pissed away 85 million worth of jet.


GregP said:


> The F-35 first flew in 2006 as a* MULTI-ROLE FIGHTER. Don't EVEN try to tell me it isn't.* Here is a quote from F35.com ... "The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th Generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. Three variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and *F-16* for the U.S. Air Force, the *F/A-18* for the U.S. Navy, the *F/A-18* and *AV-8B* Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of *fighters* for at least ten other countries."



All true, but also include how the USAF intends to deploy it.

F-35 and F-22 combine capabilities in operational integration training mission


GregP said:


> The normal loaded weight is some 49,000 pounds and the thrust, in A/B!, is some 43,000 pounds. Max weight is 70,000 pounds and it goes Mach 1.6 . A 1959 T-38 will do Mach 1.3. That gives the F-35 a thrust to weight of 0.87 for normal loaded weight and 0.61 at max weight. A 1950's fighter was right there. The F-100 had a thrust to weight of 0.55 . The MiG-29 first flew in 1977 and has a thrust to weight at normal loaded weights of 1.09 and it goes Mach 2.25 . The Su-37 normally flies at some 45,000 pounds with a thrust to weight of about 1.4 and it first flew in 1996 as a development of the Su-35 that first flew in 1988. The Su-37 goes Mach 2.35. And these are older airplanes.


you're comparing apples to oranges to bananas - A T-38 cannot sustain those speeds at sea level and again you're comparing dedicated fighter aircraft to an aircraft that was built as a primary strike aircraft - Yes, we mentioned its a Multi-role aircraft but if you bother to read the unclassified pilot reports it does have the maneuverability of an F/A-18C which although outdated, isn't too shabby for a plane who's primary mission is to drop bombs.



GregP said:


> For the first time in my lifetime, there is NO manned follow-on fighters in the design stage in case the F-35 flops.


Then you're either very young or forgotten that the same situation existed for the F-22 and right now aside from dropping a few bombs over Syria, the F-22 hasn't really proven it self either!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Oct 27, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hmmm - and they're eavesdropping on them with VHF?



More UHF than VHF, even a bit of HF from time to time. The Support VHF freqs are the most interesting in the VHF band. And while of course communications can be secure, a surprising amount of interesting stuff is sent in the red. The non-aviation Range activities have moved to digital trunked P25 transmissions, but most of that is still unencrypted. I used the Nellis ranges as an example, however hobbyist monitor across the nation. Nellis seems to receive a bit of extra push in the hobby world.

T!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 27, 2015)

"....Right now IMO Canada is doing some political posturing." _Under_statement. 

Scrapping F-35 fighter jets may not lead to big savings, experts say - The Globe and Mail

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2015)

Token said:


> More UHF than VHF, even a bit of HF from time to time. The Support VHF freqs are the most interesting in the VHF band. And while of course communications can be secure, a surprising amount of interesting stuff is sent in the red. The non-aviation Range activities have moved to digital trunked P25 transmissions, but most of that is still unencrypted. I used the Nellis ranges as an example, however hobbyist monitor across the nation. Nellis seems to receive a bit of extra push in the hobby world.
> 
> T!



I could tell you that during the time the Soviet aircraft were operated there "while classified", their designations were never openly spoken over the radio, and if they were it was not on purpose. ATC may need to know aircraft type for control separation but would always revert back to the mission call sign. Be advised that there was also a lot of disinformation as those who are at they site know they are being monitored.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 27, 2015)

Token said:


> More UHF than VHF, even a bit of HF from time to time. The Support VHF freqs are the most interesting in the VHF band. And while of course communications can be secure, a surprising amount of interesting stuff is sent in the red. The non-aviation Range activities have moved to digital trunked P25 transmissions, but most of that is still unencrypted. I used the Nellis ranges as an example, however hobbyist monitor across the nation. Nellis seems to receive a bit of extra push in the hobby world.
> 
> T!


If they are using P25 equipment, it would most likely have the encryption key in place, as the GSA procured huge blocks of radios when the digital mandate deadline approached.

I seriously doubt any radios would have passed through the shop and placed in service without encryption loaded. When the freqs are loaded, so is the key and ID data.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Oct 27, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I could tell you that during the time the Soviet aircraft were operated there "while classified", their designations were never openly spoken over the radio, and if they were it was not on purpose. ATC may need to know aircraft type for control separation but would always revert back to the mission call sign. Be advised that there was also a lot of disinformation as those who are at they site know they are being monitored.



That does not negate the fact that all the designators were heard on radio at one time or another, but I never said it was common. I heard some of them myself over the years, I have heard recordings of others. Also keep in mind what I said about Support and Range services, and don't fixate on the use by pilots or ATC. I am specifically talking of the later time during Constant Peg and its overlap with the F-117 operations, and before the 117 went public in 1988. I am not talking about during Have Drill / Ferry / Doughnut, I have no knowledge of what it was like during those projects.

Yes, I know folks there are somewhat aware they are being monitored. To some extent they have always been aware of it, although less so in years gone by. In the 70's and 80's the site was much less cognizant of hobby monitoring, and the use of encryption was less common.



GrauGeist said:


> If they are using P25 equipment, it would most likely have the encryption key in place, as the GSA procured huge blocks of radios when the digital mandate deadline approached.
> 
> I seriously doubt any radios would have passed through the shop and placed in service without encryption loaded. When the freqs are loaded, so is the key and ID data.



P25 can be used encrypted or not, not all of the Nellis talk groups used encrypted P25. All of the Area 51 frequencies were encrypted from day one, the NTTR and NTS / NNSS groups were a mixed bag of encrypted and not with a gradual shift towards encryption. This is not a guess, I can tell you this as fact.

The last time I listened to them myself was in 2010 but I have heard that today some groups can still be monitored. Think of monitoring for me as a busman's holiday.

DoD P25 systems in general are slightly chaotic with regards to encryption. Some of the ones you think would be encrypted are not, and others that seemingly have no real need are 100% encrypted. For example I have heard EOD nets that were in the clear, and I know of Public Works maintenance channels that are encrypted. Before we converted locally to P25 encryption was never a serious concern, as soon as we went P25 we went encrypted for everything.

Personally I am not a fan of digital radio. And the EF Johnsons that our command purchased as part of the DoD conversion to P25 are junk. We traded in our analog Motorolas and Kenwoods for these, and few users were happy with the switch.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 28, 2015)

E.F. Johnson has been garbage for a long while...however, the Kenwoods are at the top with Motorola a close second.

It seems that the Bendix-King has an in with GSA, because the majority of feds use them (USFS fire LEO, BLM, NPS and some Secret Service) although FBI, IRS, DHS and some Secret Service assets use the dual mode (high-band/low-band) Motorola XTL series. It's been my experience that when a two-way is assigned to a unit (swapout or fresh install), it's pre-loaded with freqs, ID and key from the service center...complete with an asset tag and an infinite paper trail...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vanshilar (Oct 30, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Look at the test report that's causing all this BS - the F-35 flew VR, no sensors, no radar, all the advantage to the F-16, and it really wasn't a true dogfighting test! Someone posted for about it several pages back.
> 
> Again - this aircraft WAS NOT designed to be a dedicated air-to-air fighter. The word "STRIKE" was used in copious amounts through out it's development.



Just wanted to post about the test, because I haven't seen it covered in this way yet here: Not only was it not a true dogfighting test, but the test wasn't really about dogfighting at all. It was just looking at the F-35's software control laws at high angle of attack. Having an F-16 there was just a way to make it more "realistic" compared with, say, just having the pilot pull back really hard on the stick.

The test report that the "F-35 vs F-16 dogfight" article was based on can be found here (as well as many other places):


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psHLxerf7t8_

* The F-35C's fuel burn rate is roughly that of a Super Hornet. It holds much more internal fuel though (19,750 lb vs ~14,000 lb). This implies its range is that much greater; again, it also won't suffer as much from carrying things externally.

There have been a few statements that the F-35 is comparable or better than F-16 and F-18 in combat configuration; I'll have to dig those up though. (I want to say I saw one while reading this thread, but too lazy to go back and find it now.)

We'll see in the coming years how well it really performs. But I think right now the public perception that it won't be able to handle itself in close quarters is likely pretty far off the mark. This is even without getting into its improved situational awareness, which will really help in close combat and in multi-plane situations.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2015)

Vanshilar, thanks for that post and welcome to the forum - evidently you have read some of the discussion here and this is the type of information that actually puts a perspective on the whole F-35 argument, I'd wish more people would explore information like this instead of relying on 7 year old half truths and BS. Again, welcome to the forum, hopefully you'll participate more.


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 30, 2015)

Vanshilar said:


> One thing I've noticed is that when the military officials make statements about the performance of the F-35, they're careful to say that it's comparable or better to F-16's or F-18's when combat-configured. My takeaway is that yes, flying "clean" then other planes will perform better. But when loaded up for a mission, the internal carriage (both payload and amount of internal fuel) means that the F-35 will suffer a lot less than other planes, and thus the result is that it has decent performance in an actual fight scenario. In short, claiming that it won't be able to dogfight is bogus, unless the other plane has run out of missiles, fuel tanks, and most of their internal fuel.



With the pricetag that the '35 comes with, surely you want better than a _decent_ performance in combat, right? I don't think that the pilots would like the thought of having a _decent_ chance either...


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 30, 2015)

Still trying to find that blasted info on the Meteor missile....pain in the tailpipe! 

Is this a good website? Meteor - Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM) - Airforce Technology

It's interesting how it made it more effective against stealth, by just switching the band frequency it was using, it became 25% more effective or sensitive, don't quote me on this though, I think that it was 25%, this is why I try to find that blasted website! 

Found out about this as well, that the Meteor has a large No Escape Zone - many times larger than that of current MRAAM's...don't think that I've that expression before..and that it's rather quick, Mach 4!

Anyhoo, with development in missiles moving along and also being rather competitive, how long before being stealth meaning nothing?

Oh....btw, don't worry, it wasn't one of those propaganda websites!  That's one thing that I've learned here!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> With the pricetag that the '35 comes with, surely you want better than a _decent_ performance in combat, right? I don't think that the pilots would like the thought of having a _decent_ chance either...



They would if they're flying a *fighter bomber *that could at least compete with any front line fighter that might come across *when carrying a full bomb load.* And don't forget the F-22s that will be along to feast first!

I quote our new member - *"In short, claiming that it won't be able to dogfight is bogus, unless the other plane has run out of missiles, fuel tanks, and most of their internal fuel."*


----------



## Vanshilar (Oct 31, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> With the pricetag that the '35 comes with, surely you want better than a _decent_ performance in combat, right? I don't think that the pilots would like the thought of having a _decent_ chance either...



Actually, the improvement in aerodynamic performance between 4th generation and 5th generation aircraft is relatively limited. It simply isn't worth it to design a more maneuverable fighter (in terms of structures, reduction in payload, increase in cost, etc.) when it won't really be able to outmaneuver missiles, just like how the 1950s and 1960s focused on speed until radars on fighters became commonplace (so you could no longer sneak up on an enemy via speed). Instead, the focus has been on better sensors so you can detect enemy aircraft from farther away, better computational power to process the data from those sensors, stealth so that you deny those advantages from the enemy, situational awareness so the pilot has a better understanding of the battlefield, etc. There are some minor improvements to aerodynamic performance (supercruise, thrust vectoring, etc.) but they're more geared toward air superiority fighters, which are bigger and more expensive, to try to screw every last ounce of performance out of their airframes.

The F-35 is geared more toward a strike role, rather than air superiority. This means it needs to be maneuverable while carrying a significant payload. Even so, it's not designed to outmaneuver other planes as its method of "winning". Rather, it's designed to be able to detect other planes from far away, and let its missiles do the maneuvering, while the F-35 stays far away. It doesn't mean that the F-35 *can't* maneuver, just that maneuvering is not its focus. Similarly, the F-22, far as I know, in exercises usually beats other planes by means of its superior radar and stealth, rather than its maneuverability.

So the F-35 has decent _aerodynamic_ performance, likely on par or better than other multi-role fighters that it's replacing (F/A-18, etc.) when combat-loaded, but its advantage over 4th generation aircraft is really its sensors and stealth.

Also, the F-35 in a few years should have a comparable cost compared to other fighter planes. It is already cheaper than the Eurofighter Typhoon, and by the 2019 time, it should be slightly cheaper than the Rafale. Sure, the development costs have been very high, but that's the price the U.S. pays to stay ahead of everybody else.



Lucky13 said:


> It's interesting how it made it more effective against stealth, by just switching the band frequency it was using, it became 25% more effective or sensitive, don't quote me on this though, I think that it was 25%, this is why I try to find that blasted website!
> 
> Anyhoo, with development in missiles moving along and also being rather competitive, how long before being stealth meaning nothing?



Um, I think you misunderstand what stealth means. It's not some invisible cloaking device like in Starcraft, where you just stick a detector unit nearby and suddenly cloaked units are just as vulnerable as regular units and targetable by everybody. Stealth just means the plane is difficult to detect on radar -- the effective range at which the plane is detected (and tracked, etc.) is significantly less than for non-stealthy aircraft. So any improvements in detecting stealth aircraft will have a corresponding improvement in detecting non-stealth aircraft. So if in the future missiles are able to engage _stealthy_ aircraft, would you want to be flying in a _non-stealthy_ aircraft when it means the enemy will know you're coming from that much farther away, and can launch missiles at you from that much farther away?

The proper comparison here is not the F-35 against some hypothetical magic technological advances in stealth detection and missile technology, it's the F-35 versus other aircraft when placed against the same hypothetical magic.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 31, 2015)

Really enjoying your input, Vanshilar...and welcome to the forums!


----------



## GregP (Oct 31, 2015)

The people that said the probability of a twin losing an engine is twice that for a single obviously haven't taken a class in mathematical probability. It isn't true. On another forum one guy posted that if the probability of an engine failure was 50% for a single, then the probability of an engine failure ona twin was 50% + 50% = 100%.

I spit out some beverage laughing ... until I realized that many people don;t know how far wrong he was. People like that are a testament to our rather obviously faltering school system. If he seriously thinks that is true, he'd best never play cards for money. Any non-idiot can take him for all he's worth.

Of course I'm assuming engine failures that are independent from one another, not engine failures that are interrelated, such as flying through a flock of geese near the Hudson River. That is another calculation entirely. But probabilities of independent failure of engines do not add together. They are independent parallel events, not serial events.

And you have to be a real idiot to get on a plane with an engine probability of failure of 50% to start with. In fact, it could never be sold because too many would have crashed. They grounded the Concorde for just ONE crash.

But it IS good for a humorous evening of wondering why people who don't know math assume they do and argue as if they actually knew.


----------



## Vanshilar (Oct 31, 2015)

GregP said:


> Of course I'm assuming engine failures that are independent from one another, not engine failures that are interrelated, such as flying through a flock of geese near the Hudson River. That is another calculation entirely. But probabilities of independent failure of engines do not add together. They are independent parallel events, not serial events.



I'm not sure where you learned your math, but at the probabilities that we're talking about, adding the probabilities of failure is a good approximation, in the same way that Newtonian equations of motion is a good approximation at speeds very much lower than the speed of light.

Take a dice roll, 2 dice. Assume their rolls are independent of each other. The probability of each die individually coming up "1" is 1/6. The probability of "1" showing up on either (or both) die is 11/36. This is just 1/36 less than adding them up. The difference is the probability that both were "1", i.e. 1/36.

Basically, if p is the probability of "true", if there are two independent events, the probability that one or the other or both will be "true" is:

p + p - p^2 or 2p - p^2

One way to see this is to look at what is the probability that neither event will be true. The probability of one event _not_ occurring is (1-p), and the probability of the other event _not_ occurring is also (1-p). So the probability that neither event will occur (i.e. that neither die will show 1) is (1-p)^2, or 1 - p - p + p^2.

If you don't believe this, you can throw dice around if you want, or just logically count up all 36 possible events, and do this using dice of different numbers of faces.

I don't know if this is what you're talking about for serial events, but when you're looking at the probability of two independent events not occurring, you do use serial (i.e. multiply the probabilities of _not_ occurring). Otherwise, what do you think is the proper way to calculate it?

It should be fairly obvious that as p decreases, p + p - p^2 ~ 2p because p^2 will go to 0 much more quickly than p. This is what people are talking about when they say you double the probability of an engine failure if you have two engines.

Without bothering to work out the math, it should also be intuitively obvious that for low p, if one engine failing causes the other engine to fail 50% of the time, then your overall chance of both engines failing would be about the same as the probability of engine failure for a single-engine plane. (This is assuming there isn't an outside event causing both engines to fail, such as the Hudson River crash. In fact, that crash demonstrates that having multiple engines won't save you.)


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 31, 2015)

Vanshilar said:


> Um, I think you misunderstand what stealth means. It's not some invisible cloaking device like in Starcraft, where you just stick a detector unit nearby and suddenly cloaked.....



Aaawwwwww....d*mmit!  

I know, I used to work for a company that delt a lot with the SAAB 39 Gripen....


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 31, 2015)

Vanshilar said:


> I'm not sure where you learned your math, but at the probabilities that we're talking about, adding the probabilities of failure is a good approximation, in the same way that Newtonian equations of motion is a good approximation at speeds very much lower than the speed of light.
> 
> Take a dice roll, 2 dice. Assume their rolls are independent of each other. The probability of each die individually coming up "1" is 1/6. The probability of "1" showing up on either (or both) die is 11/36. This is just 1/36 less than adding them up. The difference is the probability that both were "1", i.e. 1/36.
> 
> ...



....and now I've got a headache!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2015)

GregP said:


> The people that said the probability of a twin losing an engine is twice that for a single obviously haven't taken a class in mathematical probability. It isn't true. On another forum one guy posted that if the probability of an engine failure was 50% for a single, then the probability of an engine failure ona twin was 50% + 50% = 100%.
> 
> I spit out some beverage laughing ... until I realized that many people don;t know how far wrong he was. People like that are a testament to our rather obviously faltering school system. If he seriously thinks that is true, he'd best never play cards for money. Any non-idiot can take him for all he's worth.
> 
> ...



Instead of using math to determine twin engine failures, worry more about what's going to happen when ONE engine fails, and train as if its going to fail 50% of the time as this kills more people and simultaneous engine failures!!!


----------



## Token (Oct 31, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> It's interesting how it made it more effective against stealth, by just switching the band frequency it was using, it became 25% more effective or sensitive, don't quote me on this though, I think that it was 25%, this is why I try to find that blasted website!



Because missiles have a pretty limited frontal section I am going to assume this statement is caused by the use of a Ku band active seeker, vs an X band seeker.

A statement such as that, "25% more effective against stealth", is overly simplistic and can only be used with regards to a single specific platform. RF Stealth encompasses multiple techniques, but shape and coatings are the primary. As such each platform has different performance. So 25% better against which Stealth platform? Because they will not all have the same response to the Ku seeker.

While typical RF Stealth is probably optimized for H, I, and J bands (where the majority of shooters can be found) specific platforms might have Ku band performance in mind also.



Lucky13 said:


> Anyhoo, with development in missiles moving along and also being rather competitive, how long before being stealth meaning nothing?



Vanshilar provided a pretty good response with regards to this, but I will expand on it.

The answer to your question is never, as long as the enemy uses a detection method for which the Stealth provides improvement.

While we tend to fixate on the RF characteristics of Stealth, a proper Stealth design goes beyond RF to include IR, visual, and audio signature reduction techniques. However lets consider only RF for this discussion.

As has been stated several times so far in this thread, Stealth is not a Klingon Cloaking device. No Stealth aircraft has ever been, or was ever intended to be, invisible to radar, they are only harder to see, sometimes very hard to see. This means that EVERY Stealth aircraft can be tracked by radar, the technology just reduces the detection range for the radar. This increases the survivability of the aircraft in combat.

Aircraft with RCS reduction as part of their design will always have some detection advantage over aircraft designed with no consideration of RCS reduction. With improved techniques the detection range of an RCS reduced platform can be increased, but the same techniques will also allow for an increase in detection ranges of platforms that are not RCS reduced.

To NOT design with some thoughts of RCS reduction places your aircraft at an immediate detection disadvantage to airframes that are RCS reduced.

The basics are pretty easy to look at for any given radar. Using a theoretical radar we can see how RCS plays into detection (but I am not going to break out the radar range equation ... lol). The following numbers are rough, math in public, kinds of things. No calculator was used, there was some rounding, and some numbers selected for convenience. With that said they should be pretty close and are intended to show the general idea, but if I am a dB or a few percent off, don't be surprised, any such errors that are present should be pretty small. By the way, RCS for any shape other than a sphere is frequency dependent, so an aircraft that has a 100 square meter RCS (expressed as +20 dBsm) at X band will not have that same RCS at C or Ku band. A value of RCS implies a specific frequency even when not stated. An aircraft with a +20 dBsm RCS (this is one number sometimes bandied about for the B-52H) may be detectable for a given theoretical radar at say 200 miles. It takes reduction by a factor of 16 (12 dB) to halve the detection range, and a factor of 10000 (40 dB) to reduce the detection range by a factor of 10. A number sometimes stated for the B1B is about 0 dBsm, or 1 square meter. This means that the same radar could not detect the B1B until it was roughly 60 miles away.

According to this document ( http://faculty.nps.edu/jenn/EC4630/RCSredux.pdf ) the F-35 has an RCS of about 0.0015 square meter (-28 dBsm), while the F-22 has an RCS of about 0.00015 square meter (-38 dBsm). This means that a radar that can detect the +20 dBsm B-52 at 200 miles (detection threshold limited and not some other limit) can detect the F-35 at about 8 miles. This is slant range on the nose, meaning closer than that on a map. Or the radar can detect the F-22 at roughly one tenth the range it can detect the B1B and roughly one fifteenth the range it can see an F-16.

Even if the radar is improved against stealth it will STILL detect the F-22 at one fifteenth the range it can detect the F-16. If unimproved it can detect the F-16 at 100 miles it can detect the F-22 at 7 miles, and a 25% increase in performance against stealth means it can now detect the F-22 at a bit over 8 miles, and the F-16 at 125 miles.

And even if the missile has a 25% improved range on Stealth, the missile does not act alone. Some other detector has to find and target the aircraft.

First to sight, first to fight. If I can kill you before you know I am there I don't really care if your new missile can engage me 25% further than your old one could.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 31, 2015)

I am not worried about the F35s ability to dogfight I am worried that it is so expensive, acquired in such small numbers and comparitively so vulnerable to good old fashioned lumps of supersonic metal being thrown at it that no airforce apart from the USAF/USN/USMC will dare risk it anywhere near a warzone. I can imagine the political shitstorm if an insurgent brings one down with an ancient 14.5mm or 23mm cannon aimed over a ring sight with early warning and direction provided by a man with a walkie talkie or sat phone. A 9 figure gold plated aircraft downed by a $2 cannon shell, jeez the Brass hats would **** themselves and worry about their pensions.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 31, 2015)

If the USAF plans to use the F22s to do top cover for the F35 they are going to spread all those 187 planes very thinly. Dont know what the servicablity rate of the 22 is but it better be 100%.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 31, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> I am not worried about the F35s ability to dogfight I am worried that it is so expensive, acquired in such small numbers and comparitively so vulnerable to good old fashioned lumps of supersonic metal being thrown at it that no airforce apart from the USAF/USN/USMC will dare risk it anywhere near a warzone. I can imagine the political shitstorm if an insurgent brings one down with an ancient 14.5mm or 23mm cannon aimed over a ring sight with early warning and direction provided by a man with a walkie talkie or sat phone. A 9 figure gold plated aircraft downed by a $2 cannon shell, jeez the Brass hats would **** themselves and worry about their pensions.


But in all honesty, what aircraft in any nation's inventory at the moment (A-10 excluded), is immune to conventional AA?


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 31, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> But in all honesty, what aircraft in any nation's inventory at the moment (A-10 excluded), is immune to conventional AA?



None of them apart from maybe the Russian Frogfoot which I believe is armoured against 14.5mm, but its the sheer cost and the chance of losing say 5 or 10% of your available aircraft. The RAF is a bit wary of risking anything other than ancient Tornados near a war zone probably because they are only worth scrap value these days.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 31, 2015)

But also take into consideration that the aircraft designers are aware of the possibility, which has been a reality for air-ops since the days of WWI

Modern day ballistic AA can be anything from a highly trained battery to a bunch of idiots manning an MG in the back of a Toyota pickup, and all present a very real threat to air assets.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> If the USAF plans to use the F22s to do top cover for the F35 they are going to spread all those 187 planes very thinly. Dont know what the servicablity rate of the 22 is but it better be 100%.



You bring up two points - first there was the argument that there weren't enough F-22s built, but thin again in theory you won't need many to accomplish a CAP for the F-35, but ironically the MC rate for the F-22 was horrible for a while, it seems to be improving. Kind of funny while some say how expensive the F-35 is (current price between 90 and 100 million), this is from 2012 concerning the F-22.

"For starters, AFA President Michael Dunn, a retired Air Force three-star general, said, “The flyaway cost for the last block of F-22s was $142M each.” This sort of whopper—trying to proclaim a lowball F-22 unit cost—has been around for a long time: for years, the Air Force’s official “Fact Sheet” on the F-22 has similarly claimed a “*unit cost” of $143 million*."

F-22 In A Dogfight as Panetta Crimps Its Flight Envelope | TIME.com


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2015)

This is all very opinion based, but to me, the F-35 is more than adequate at protecting itself, it is even a credible threat at shooting down enemy aircraft, and destroying them on the ground. I think the critics will come to see that eventually.

But it is an expensive aircraft, and for what we need to get done, its a little short of range, and these are both serious weaknesses. I dont see that as an inherent failing of the aircraft. it was designed and developed to a very demanding specification and it wasnt just built for our needs. Still at the price that it is, it does need to deliver a lot. I hope that it can, Im confident that it can, but if it cant, we have a problem. For people who take their nations defence seriously, and also step up more than we should to meet international obligations, this aircraft needs to do what we need of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2015)

parsifal said:


> It was designed and developed to a very demanding specification.



I think that's one of the biggest things that the detractors and doubters of this aircraft are either ignorant about or choose to ignore. Boeing and LMCO were challenged to build an aircraft to meet a US government *specification* and at the end of the day LMCO won that competition. It wasn't like F-35 program members were "shopping" for a fighter at some kind of car lot, they set the requirement for how the aircraft was to perform. The aircraft had issues (to be expected) but at the end of the day, as the aircraft is being deployed, the customer is getting what is asked for.

*The performance of the aircraft, including how well it maneuvers was dictated by the customer.*

One exception AFAIK - the sustained 9g turn.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 31, 2015)

Thanks for all the replies gents, appreciated!

Anyway, with the Meteor being an not too shabby missile, Mach 4, 100+ Km range etc., etc...but, being too big for the F-35's internal weapons bay, how much will it lose, just making it fit?

Missile systems, defence systems - MBDA missiles

While on the missiles, how come that they didn't develop the Phoenix any further?


----------



## GregP (Nov 1, 2015)

The US government put forth the specification. Both L-M and Northrop responded. When the L-M product didn't meet the spec, they LOWERED it so they could buy L-M, and never gave Northrop the chance to degrade their specs and maybe change things a bit. The YF-23 MET the original spec and the YF-22 never did ... and still doesn't.

Yet here we are, flying them.

Another triumph of the procurement function. If it weren't so tragic, it might be funny.

My country is being run by idiots. The ONLY consolation is the idiocy of other countries' procurement systems.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2015)

Well, if you want Cadillacs for the price of Pintos...then don't be surprised when you get what you pay for.

The United States is not a backwater country, it is a super power...and high performance technology does NOT come at a budget price.

Perhaps we should shut down the U.S. aerospace industry and outsource to China or Europe...I'm sure that the Eurofighter venture could use the business.

Maybe if we asked Putin nicely, he might cut a deal?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Nov 1, 2015)

GregP said:


> The US government put forth the specification. Both L-M and Northrop responded. When the L-M product didn't meet the spec, they LOWERED it so they could buy L-M, and never gave Northrop the chance to degrade their specs and maybe change things a bit. The YF-23 MET the original spec and the YF-22 never did ... and still doesn't.



The YF-23 met some of the original specs, not all of them. Some supporters of the F-23 tend to cherry pick the ones it did meet while ignoring the ones it did not. But during selection you do not only consider if the asset meets spec or not, you also must look at risks associated with transition from prototype to production. Which design is more likely to be able to produced and come closest to the requirements of the force in the form presented.

As tested the YF-23 was the faster of the two. It had the longer range. It potentially had the greater maneuvering envelope although in actual flight testing it did not. The shape might have resulted in greater all aspect RCS reduction. It had IR suppression that the -22 did not. Those are pretty strong positives, no doubt.

Because of packaging, not raw size, the YF-23 had little room for expansion / enhancement over how the prototype performed.

The YF-23 did not meet the internal carriage requirement for the number of weapons the Air Force wanted. Neither did the YF-22, but the -22 came closer. The -23 could only meet this requirement at the cost of internal space already used for fuel, reducing the range and potentially impacting other performance figures.

The YF-23 was very tight on space for the required sensors and tactical systems, the -22 had more room and reduced the risk if footprint grew during development.

Although the -23 probably had the better airframe design with regards to RCS (as far as I know no actual numbers have been released) the engine fan blades were partially exposed, probably meaning JEM lines were going to be a real issue. That can be a tough issue to tackle without major redesign of the engine / intake.

Although not a requirement at the time, the YF-22 actually fired a weapon from an internal bay before down select, the -23 never did.

From published data it appears the YF-22 was a more mature design than the YF-23. It appears to have had the greater potential to transition from prototype to production with fewer changes. We have all seen the issues with the F-22 program, what would the issues have been with the F-23? No one knows, but I can think of several major problems that would have had to be addressed that did not with the F-22.



GregP said:


> Yet here we are, flying them.
> 
> Another triumph of the procurement function. If it weren't so tragic, it might be funny.
> 
> My country is being run by idiots. The ONLY consolation is the idiocy of other countries' procurement systems.



Like it or not, the procurement process is a distillation of decades of experience. If it was not done the way it is a vendor could design a demonstrator that met the spec as presented exactly, but was difficult to build, was inflexible, and could not accept changes during the post selection process.

With the procurement process being as long as it is the systems on board the aircraft go through many changes from concept to IOC. Data links, sensors, weapons systems, all tend to change over time, particularly new / proposed versions of each of these. Any proposed aircraft must have some adaptability to support realistic changes to these systems.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2015)

GregP said:


> The US government put forth the specification. Both L-M and Northrop responded. When the L-M product didn't meet the spec, they LOWERED it so they could buy L-M, and never gave Northrop the chance to degrade their specs and maybe change things a bit. The YF-23 MET the original spec and the YF-22 never did ... and still doesn't.
> 
> Yet here we are, flying them.
> 
> ...



Err.. I'm talking *F-35*. We could open up a discussion about the F-22 vs the F-23. Right now the only major specification parameter that wasn't being met by the F-35 was the 9g sustained turn. If someone is aware of others, please enlighten us!


----------



## Greyman (Nov 1, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Right now the only major specification parameter that wasn't being met by the F-35 was the 9g sustained turn.



Do you have specifics on this?


----------



## GregP (Nov 1, 2015)

OK, I'll stick to the F-35 as a main subject.

The F22 will need to provide a CAP for an F-35 fighter bomber that can only carry two bombs while in stealth mode. $125 million for a plane that has a payload of two bombs. And in stealth, it cant even carry a couple of self defense missiles. Expensive escortiong expensive to drop two bombs? Is that even reasonable to anyone?

Simply brilliant. If that doesn't scream a conclusion about the so-called expertise of decades of so-called "expertise in the procurement process" then there is a basic fault in reasoning somewhere. I see decades of inefficiency in procurement, not decades of expertise.

It's cheaper to shoot a squadron of cruise missiles at it and get your hit when they run out of defensive resources.

And I don't want a "Cadillac for Pinto prices" at all. I want what I pay for. And I cannot see we're getting it. And if you think the real flyaway prices is in the $125M range for the F-35, then you have swallowed the propaganda. Pinto indeed, there was no Ford Pinto with a sticker prices in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The comparion is ludicrous. A Pinto was $2,200 and nobody would complain very hard about cheap, effective aircraft that get the job done , even if in somehwat largeer numbers.

As it happens, I was both a manager of programmers in the government military business as well as doing some programming myself. If you don't write reusable subroutines, then your competence should be in some question. Writing software to control an aircraft isn't exactly easy but, once it is written, then the routines simply need tweaking, not reinvention. If somone is writing it from scratch every time, then there is massive incompetence somewhere that should be addressed by a debarment committee.

Control loops are not simple but, once programmed, also aren't exactly rocket science and do NOT need to be rewritten every time. We had massive libraries of subroutines written in C that could be easily and quickly used as "builiding block" to write new programs rapidly.

I KNOW we're dealing with government procurement but, if they don't keep their own software in controlled libraries, we should stop fuinding them until some competence is displayed.

For instance, a simple routine is a sorting algorithm. You can use a mergesort, a heapsort, a quicksort, a bubble sort, a shell sort, a comb sort, a distribution sort, a counting sort, a bucket sort, or a radix sort. There are a few others. They aren't simple to write but, once written, do NOT have to be re-written. If you need to sort, choose one, copy and paste. It doesn't take any longer than that except to address the passing parameters you are using. Max time for implementation should not exceed 15 minutes programming time including the time to find the routines in the libraries.

There are MANY routines, especially in control systems, that SHOULD be copy and paste and then adjust the loop coefficients.

I haven't lost complete track of the real costs and am unwilling to support "more of the same" until we set some limits on what we ask for, the changes we can make before cancellation, and how we decide if the task is progressing satisfactorily so progress payments can be made. If it goes out of control, shut it down and make another move. The government would still own the designs and the data. If one contractor can't do it, shut them down and have someone else build it. That would add some incentive to get it done right.

EVERYTHING in a government procurment is owned by the government, not the companies. I have read the contracts in the past and it's always that way.

Lest this gets carried away, I realize I can't veto anything myself and the F-35 supporters can't approve it themselves either. All I can do is try to vote for someone with a little common sense and hope they can make reasonable decisions. So far, the liklihood of that seems to be zero. 

But don't ask me to swallow a glowing report on the F-35 based on one-line replies and stacked war games with ridiculous ROE. It ain't gonna' happen. I may support it when the F-35 gets tested in real combat and comes out smelling good.

We already HAVE a great standard for a good combat jet; the F-15. Go look at its combat record. 115+ victories against zero losses in air-to-air combat. There HAVE been operational losses, and that has to be expected. Right now, it can't make full range because we use the fuel as a heat sink, and it has not shown itself to be anything yet. Of course it lloks god when it lands on a carrier in a peacetime takeoff and landing test. It would be pretty bad it it couldn't do at least that.

Go put it up against Allies as well as our own defenders flying their best, without restrictive ROE and see what it can do. THEN make a decision about it based on pre-decided outcomes. If it comes out OK, proceed. If it doesn't, then the decision should already have been made before the test is conducted. That is key ... set the resulting decisions before seeing the test outcomes so your decisions are rational.

There is NO POINT to a test if you can't define what you will do based on certain possible outcomes. So if you are unwiling to call a halt to it if it fails, then you might as well not run the test.

That was the worst thing in the electronics industry about running life cycle environmental tests on products. If management wasn't willing to act on what was discovered based on predefined outcomes, then the test was a complete and total waste of money. If they WERE wlling to do what was indicated, then you could develop a good product. I wish I could make everyone realize how many products showed weaknesses in test that were never addressed after being discovered.

It was staggering.

My real-world bet is aircraft testing is exactly the same; they don't want to hear anything except the company line and cannot make hard calls after they find out test outcomes. To be valid, the decisions should already have been made before the tests are run and should have been sealed from the people running the tests.

It's a basic flaw in the way we do things and results in "more of the same" .... exactly like we are seeing.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 1, 2015)

"....The F22 will need to provide a CAP for an F-35 fighter bomber that can only carry two bombs while in stealth mode..."

*Who flew CAP for the Lockheed F-117 NightHawk in Iraq, Greg? * The F-35 System can do everything the F-117 did only better and more accurately ... and it has a _gun_ ...  .. what fans of the F-35 need to stress is that the F-35 to a "two-fer" ... for your big $$$$ you get a next generation F-117 and, when not in 'stealth' you get a next generation F-16 (as a total system). Not a bad bargin but ... losses will be costly.

America's strategy from Republic Thunderjet/Streak, F-86 Sabre, Lockheed F-104 days to cut 'allies' into aircraft manufacturing aerospace industrial benefits ... into which tradition the F-35 falls ... has served the cause of western progress and democracy admirably well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2015)

My point, Greg, is that top-notch hardware is not cheap.

I posted some figures a few pages back, of various aircraft even from WWII, that illustrate the enormous cost of those aircraft and for the money, they were the best of the best. World beaters, if you will.

I even touched on the fact (several times) that the F-16 was over budget, plagued by delays and the media fueled the fires of it's detractors and nay-sayers. And YET, when it was delivered, it was a combat dominant platform that not only delivered as advertised, but became a world-wide legacy and is still in service nearly 40 years later...

Every single time a new contract is awarded, the crying, wrist-wringing and heavy breathing begins. It seems that this is a requirement for any new piece of U.S. military hardware.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vanshilar (Nov 1, 2015)

GregP said:


> The F22 will need to provide a CAP for an F-35 fighter bomber that can only carry two bombs while in stealth mode. $125 million for a plane that has a payload of two bombs. And in stealth, it cant even carry a couple of self defense missiles. Expensive escortiong expensive to drop two bombs? Is that even reasonable to anyone?



Um, the F-35 can carry 2 air-to-air missiles in addition to 2 2k lb bombs internally, that's part of its spec:

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - F-35 JSF Weapon Carriage Capacity

Additionally, currently the flyaway cost is already $108 million while in low-rate initial production (LRIP), with a planned cost of $85 million in 2019 dollars by 2019 as it enters full rate production. You can certainly argue that the $85 million is the planned cost and thus hasn't materialized yet, but it should certainly be significantly cheaper than the current $108 million as they work out the production kinks and ramp up production.


----------



## GregP (Nov 1, 2015)

Here were the costs as of 31 Dec 2013.






You can find it here: http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/SST-2013-12.pdf

In base year dollars, that's 276,000 MILLION dollars for what amounts to an aircraft that is in some serious doubt by a LOT of people who know what they're talking about. 

Let's say it boils down to 1,000 aircraft. That's still 276 million per aircraft and the creative accountants can't change that. It's simple, forget the hype in the press. GO look at the total program cost divided by the number of aircraft and you have your real cost per airplane.

And it's nowhere NEAR what they claim in the press.

In THEN -YEAR dollars, it added up to 330,000 million. For the same 1,000 aircraft it adds up to 330 million per aircraft. The only way for the cost to be 100 million per aircraft is if the programr eaults in 3,300 F-35s. I don;t think so ... and the costs aren't static. They're higher now. 

We're slated to buy 2,443 F-35s. That's $135M per airplane in 2013 dollars. The cost today isn't what it was in 2013, it has gone up.

I think a real test of the airplane against the best our allies have to offer is way past due. Since we're into initial deployment, schedule it for 6 months from now so they can learn the airplane and have the decisions that will be made based on test outcomes already in place and ready to implement.

Reasonable unless you're worried about the F-35's ability to survive against current-generation allied air power. If you are, then the F-35 has already failed before starting the test and you have already admitted defeat.

I have no prediction about the test myself, but I think it should be run. I could be wrong in what I think. A real test would determine the result, not personal opinions ... performance in combat test with wout restrictive ROE. Everyone gets to operate that way they normally operate, with normally-avaialble resources.

Wnat it to be a REAL test? Invite India and Israel to participate.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 1, 2015)

Vanshilar said:


> Um, the F-35 can carry 2 air-to-air missiles in addition to 2 2k lb bombs internally, that's part of its spec:
> 
> Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - F-35 JSF Weapon Carriage Capacity
> 
> Additionally, currently the flyaway cost is already $108 million while in low-rate initial production (LRIP), with a planned cost of $85 million in 2019 dollars by 2019 as it enters full rate production. You can certainly argue that the $85 million is the planned cost and thus hasn't materialized yet, but it should certainly be significantly cheaper than the current $108 million as they work out the production kinks and ramp up production.



....and what, in 1919, will you find out there, to kick its buttocks? Just keeping the thread going!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2015)

Greyman said:


> Do you have specifics on this?



Elements Of Power: The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...ter-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-382078/


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2015)

GregP said:


> Here were the costs as of 31 Dec 2013.



Dated info Greg - look at the budget that just passed, 

http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/fy2015_Weapons.pdf



GregP said:


> I think a real test of the airplane against the best our allies have to offer is way past due. Since we're into initial deployment, schedule it for 6 months from now so they can learn the airplane and have the decisions that will be made based on test outcomes already in place and ready to implement.



And that will come when the first units receiving the aircraft are fully trained up. You mentioned Israel earlier - do you forget they bought F-35s as well?

https://www.rt.com/usa/252573-biden-f35-israel-military/


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2015)

And in the mean time...

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-mission-continues-to-evolve

The F-35 is an aircraft with an international footprint unlike any other in history. Currently, Luke has two F-35 squadrons but will eventually be home to six squadrons, all housing partner nations.

The 61st Fighter Squadron became fully operational in June and the 62nd Fighter Squadron received its first primarily assigned aircraft in August.

"The 61st FS is up, running and fully operational," said Lt. Col. David Lercher, 56th Fighter Wing F-35 division chief. "In order to be considered fully operational the squadron must have 24 primarily assigned aircraft."

At the moment, the 61st FS is home to two Australian jets and will receive many more. "The Australians will have 12 jets here by the middle of 2019," Lercher said.

The 62nd FS is on track to have eight F-35s by the end of 2015 and be fully operational by the end of 2017. They will be home to Norwegian and Italian jets.

"The two Norwegian jets are expected to arrive before the end of the year," Lercher said. "We should expect the first Italian jets to arrive this spring. Eventually, the 62nd FS will have seven Norwegian jets and five Italian jets."

Construction on the 63rd Fighter Squadron is in the works and should be open by the end of 2016.

"The 63rd should get their first airplane by March of 2017," Lercher said. "Turkey will eventually flow into the squadron with their first aircraft arriving mid-2018."

Luke should expect the fourth squadron, which includes the Netherlands and Denmark, early 2019. The fifth squadron will be home to Canada and also open in 2019. The sixth, and final, squadron will open in 2022.

"Luke will eventually be home to seven partner nation pilots and aircraft and house a total of 144 F-35s," Lercher said.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2015)

So far, there's eleven nations total, that will be receiving the F-35: 
Britain, Australia, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Canada, South Korea, Japan and Israel.

Spain and Belgium have expressed interest, but with Spain's current fiscal concerns, I don't think they'll be doing any buying in the near future.

What's interesting, is Germany's absence in all of this. I find it interesting that the most prosperous country in Europe barely spends any of it's budget on defense.


----------



## GregP (Nov 1, 2015)

I didn't forget ahything Joe, and I bet if Israel were offered the chance to fly it in a war game, they'd do that and make decisions based on outcomes. That alone makes me think we won't give them the chance.

And your link is 2015 budget request, not an overall program cost rollup. I have no doubt the 2015 F-35 is cheaper than the 2011 F-35. But get a complete rollup and divide by the number of planes to be acquired ... and you get a real story, not a 2015 snapshot. I want a rollup per unit cost. It won't be much cheaper than the F-22s that we are seemingly so loathe to expose to hostile fire. So we bought a single engine sled that costs whtin a hair of the same and we'll expose THAT to hostile fire instead. Makes no sense to me.

But I'd still like to see a realisitic war game that employs F-35s with people trying to stop them and ROE that allow normal assets for all combatants. If nothing else, it would help us develop tactics for the F-35 force that we either have or are stuck with, depending on your point of view.

Everyone seems to belive I am against the F-35. I haven't exactly said that. I said I want it to be evaluated realistically and then make a decision on it rather than procure all 2,400+ of them and find out we don't want them after all. I'm neither for it or agianst it at this time, but I think it is stupid beyond description to continue proceeding without an evaluation of it in a realistic test.

Make it the F-35 proponent's cost of proceeding ... if the F-35 proponents are against a real test, then cancel it immediately and try again. If they agree, run the test, make a determination, and DO it. What I really hate is spending all the money before finding out if it is a good idea. So far the tests aren't very convincing to me. That doesn't mean they were run correctly or were reported correctly.

Let that all be water under the bridge and go FIND OUT before another round of spending is passed. By now, it should be ready or not. FIND OUT and act on it.

Hi Michael Maltby,

According to F-177 pilots I spoke with, nobody flew CAP for it. It ingressed and egressed all by itself. It had CAP before going into attack profile ... and was never attacked while forming up. Once in attack profile, it went out all on its own and came back that way, too.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 1, 2015)

.... be careful what you wish for, Greg. But I agree ... the F-35 needs to be blooded .... intelligently.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 1, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> What's interesting, is Germany's absence in all of this. I find it interesting that the most prosperous country in Europe barely spends any of it's budget on defense.



They tried for European domination twice by military means, and things didn't work out. now they get what they want with economic muscle.......

There are more than one way to win a war these days.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2015)

parsifal said:


> They tried for European domination twice by military means, and things didn't work out. now they get what they want with economic muscle.......
> 
> There are more than one way to win a war these days.


They succeeded by way of the Hanovers, for a while.

As far as Merkel goes, she thinks she is in control of Europe. I'm sure with the current refugee tensions escelating in Europe at the moment, she may be put to the test.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 1, 2015)

I didn't wish for a war, Michael, I said a realisitic war game where the ROE are not restrictive and all participants have normally-available assets.

Nobody with a brain wishes for war, and I certainly don'twant one. Been there. It ain't fun. There's no glamor or glory for those who don't make it. They just die.

And for what? I never knew anyone who wanted to be there or agreed with why they were there except for WWII vets. They didn't want to be there but agreed someone needed to be.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2015)

GregP said:


> I didn't forget ahything Joe, and I bet if Israel were offered the chance to fly it in a war game, they'd do that and make decisions based on outcomes. That alone makes me think we won't give them the chance.


Decision? They're already buying it Greg, and I think we know that Israel is not going to accept a piece of military hardware it doesn't want


GregP said:


> And your link is 2015 budget request, not an overall program cost rollup. I have no doubt the 2015 F-35 is cheaper than the 2011 F-35. But get a complete rollup and divide by the number of planes to be acquired ... and you get a real story, not a 2015 snapshot. I want a rollup per unit cost. It won't be much cheaper than the F-22s that we are seemingly so loathe to expose to hostile fire. So we bought a single engine sled that costs whtin a hair of the same and we'll expose THAT to hostile fire instead. Makes no sense to me.


F-22 was 142~ million, I showed that earlier. no matter how you slice it the F-35 is cheaper. I think your numbers include spares and sustainment.


GregP said:


> But I'd still like to see a realisitic war game that employs F-35s with people trying to stop them and ROE that allow normal assets for all combatants. If nothing else, it would help us develop tactics for the F-35 force that we either have or are stuck with, depending on your point of view.


And again, that will come...


GregP said:


> Everyone seems to belive I am against the F-35. I haven't exactly said that. I said *I want it to be evaluated realistically and then make a decision on it *rather than procure all 2,400+ of them and find out we don't want them after all. I'm neither for it or agianst it at this time, but I think it is stupid beyond description to continue proceeding without an evaluation of it in a realistic test.


 The F-35 as it stands right now is the most tested combat aircraft in history, one of the reasons why it cost so much!!!


GregP said:


> Make it the F-35 proponent's cost of proceeding ... if the F-35 proponents are against a real test, then cancel it immediately and try again. If they agree, run the test, make a determination, and DO it. What I really hate is spending all the money before finding out if it is a good idea. So far the tests aren't very convincing to me. That doesn't mean they were run correctly or were reported correctly.
> 
> Let that all be water under the bridge and go FIND OUT before another round of spending is passed. By now, it should be ready or not. FIND OUT and act on it.



Greg, you're saying things that either have already been done or just about to be done. Please get caught up with the state of the program, it's deployment and who's operating it because by some of the statements you're making you're about 3 years behind on the current status of the program. I'm sure the participating nations are willing to piss away a large portion of the their defense budget on an aircraft that doesn't work!!!



GregP said:


> According to F-177 pilots I spoke with, nobody flew CAP for it. It ingressed and egressed all by itself. It had CAP before going into attack profile ... and was never attacked while forming up. Once in attack profile, it went out all on its own and came back that way, too.


 An the F-117 was an unsolicited offering that had no budget oversight and was never under the scrutiny of the press, except for it's role in Panama, where the press tried to make it look like a lemon. Amazing!


----------



## GregP (Nov 1, 2015)

If there is anyone up on the F-117, it's me. I was in on Have Blue and Pave Blue. I followed the F-117 with great interest. Bad assumption there ... Joe. It had some design stupidity and had some design genius. Mostly, the genius part won out. But it certainly didn't exactly fly well. It flew, but you need to "put up with it" ... you didn't have a great time doing it, and it was never going to win any visual engagement ... that's for damned sure. It couldn't run and couldn't fight. All it could do was get used at night and evade. Turned out to be enough.

It's obvious you're sold on the F-35. You might be on the right side there. I'm not sold on it yet and am not firmnly agianst it either. So far it hasn't impressed me much. But I also know how things get distorted in reporting by people with an agenda. I'm open to being a supporter, but this forum ain't gonna' be the deciding factor as I have identified nobody in here on the F-35 program in an operational capacity.

No pilots, no mechanics, no mission planners. It's all a guess in here based on pro-F-35 propaganda sites.

When the fur flies, we'll see what happens. I was hoping for a decent war game, but the way the world works, it might come sooner than we think. I hope not, but you never know.

Believe me, if Israel participated in a war game that showed the F-35 to be a turkey, the order would be cancelled in a heartbeat. Unlike us, they aren't committed to it. They want it if it lives up to the hype. If it doesn't, they'll run like a pair of panty hose being scratched by a cat.

Might as well stop trying to convince me. My conviction will come with F-35 use, not words in here. So I'll go away from this thread until such time as the F-35 actually does something to talk about. Maybe then I'll be on your side. Maybe not.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2015)

GregP said:


> If there is anyone up on the F-117, it's me. I was in on Have Blue and Pave Blue. I followed the F-117 with great interest. Bad assumption there ... Joe. It had some design stupidity and had some design genius. Mostly, the genius part won out. But it certainly didn't exactly fly well. It flew, but you need to "put up with it" ... you didn't have a great time doing it, and it was never going to win any visual engagement ... that's for damned sure. It couldn't run and couldn't fight. All it could do was get used at night and evade. Turned out to be enough.


And it flew good enough for the Air Force to put up with it for 20 years until the F-35 came along. BTW Greg, I was on the program, I saw the first two built and worked in Building 309/ 310 at Burbank, so if you want to compare F-117 resumes, fire away.


GregP said:


> It's obvious you're sold on the F-35. You might be on the right side there. I'm not sold on it yet and am not firmnly agianst it either. So far it hasn't impressed me much.* But I also know how things get distorted in reporting by people with an agenda.* I'm open to being a supporter, but this forum ain't gonna' be the deciding factor as I have identified nobody in here on the F-35 program in an operational capacity.



beaupower32, who has posted numerous photos and comments on the F-35 works on the aircraft at EDW. I consulted on the X-35, my former roommate designed the electrical system, so I think I know a little more about this thing than most.


GregP said:


> No pilots, no mechanics, no mission planners. It's all a guess in here based on pro-F-35 propaganda sites.


 see above and it has nothing to do about a guess from pro-F-35 sites, it has to do with being in this business long enough to separate the fact from the bullsh!t.


GregP said:


> When the fur flies, we'll see what happens. I was hoping for a decent war game, but the way the world works, it might come sooner than we think. I hope not, but you never know.


Ok.....


GregP said:


> Believe me, if Israel participated in a war game that showed the F-35 to be a turkey, the order would be cancelled in a heartbeat. Unlike us, they aren't committed to it. They want it if it lives up to the hype. If it doesn't, they'll run like a pair of panty hose being scratched by a cat.


 Will they fly the one they are buying?!?! 


GregP said:


> Might as well stop trying to convince me. My conviction will come with F-35 use, not words in here. So I'll go away from this thread until such time as the F-35 actually does something to talk about. Maybe then I'll be on your side. Maybe not.


I'm not trying to convince you and never will, what I will do is call you (and anyone else) on the assumptions, half-truths, guesses and sometimes lies being said about this aircraft. It's being deployed, is working as advertised and is being fielded by almost a dozen nations, do you really think that this many participating air forces will buy into a weapons system that wouldn't work? Italy has it's own production line! If this plane was that much of a pig, it would have died in 2007, the same time period some are basing their comments on!!!


----------



## Vanshilar (Nov 1, 2015)

GregP said:


> Here were the costs as of 31 Dec 2013.
> 
> View attachment 304913
> 
> ...



It looks like what you're using as your cost figure is the program acquisition cost. This is the overall cost of the program, including research and development, divided by the number of aircraft produced. Because the F-35 is just starting production, that number will go down as more planes are produced. By this metric, the B-2 costs around $2.1 billion apiece, and the F-22 costs around $412 million apiece in 2012 dollars (link for F-22: http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/317081.pdf ). By contrast, the cost that I was referring to, and the $142+ million for the F-22 that FlyboyJ was referring to, is the flyaway cost, i.e. how much to build another plane. That cost is actually decreasing by LRIP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Procurement_costs


----------



## GregP (Nov 2, 2015)

I didn't say it was a pig or that I was against it. I said I want to see it tested realisticaly, So far, I haven't seen it.

I worked on the F-35, too, and did some detailed design analysis of the actuators. If they are typical of the aircraft, I'll pass on it. I never worked on the electrical system and it might be fine. I have seen no electrical system writeups that raise any particular attention, and so was assuming it to be OK. I haven't seen system writeups because they are classified. If you haven't seen them either, then we both don't know and are guessing.

I am NOT objecting to it out of ignorance in the slightest. I haven't followed the flight test program in detail, but haven't been impressed with what I have read .. and I already addressed that. There was no point in following it since there was a political rush for approval.

I'll get interested when they have some actual service data to analyze that doesn't come from the manufacturer, but rather from the users. So far, in good-wweather, peactime carrier landings and takeoffs, it seems OK. If it can't do that, then we're being duped by professionals. That doesn't make a warfighter. It makes for good press.

Like I said, words ain't gonna' do it; only performance in role. And that hasn't happened yet. I have the right to be unconvinced until such time as I get convinced one way or the other by service performance. Looks like we're buying it whether we should or not, so I'll get convinced one way or the other soon enough. I hope it is later for reasons stated a long time ago in a post far, far away.

Maybe it will be OK. Maybe not. Professionally I never developed an affinity for the many weapopn systems I worked on because I thought it unprofessional. I never developed one for the F-35, the M735, M749, Mk. 45 Mod IV, V or VI, or any of the others. I have faith in what I worked on and none in the rest until it gets proven.

So far it looks like the F-35 systems work OK when flying in peacetime. I hope the trend continues when it isn't peacetime. We'll see together. Let's hope it's a toast and not a wake. 

I'm not trying to fight about it at all, but I have the right to my opinion as you have to yours and won't get railroaded into saying it is OK when that has yet to be shown. I have valid questions and they'll be answered soon enough for everyone. I was hoping to get them answered before spending ALL the money. Might not happen that way and we may well buy them all before we send them into realistic situations.

I can't affect it either way, whether I support it or loathe it.


----------



## Vanshilar (Nov 2, 2015)

GregP said:


> But I also know how things get distorted in reporting by people with an agenda. I'm open to being a supporter, but this forum ain't gonna' be the deciding factor as I have identified nobody in here on the F-35 program in an operational capacity.
> 
> No pilots, no mechanics, no mission planners. It's all a guess in here based on pro-F-35 propaganda sites.



If anything, it's the other way around. Most of the people who write about the F-35 are anti-F-35, and use propaganda techniques against it. For example, just look at the test report that I posted about earlier. If you Google "F-35 vs F-16", you'll mostly just see articles from the end of June to early July timeframe, rather than the April timeframe. It means that most of what is reported in the press is the revisionist "F-16 smacked down F-35 in a dogfight" misinterpretation of the report, rather than what the report actually said, which was reported back in April. Even Donald Trump has said he doesn't want the F-35 based on that misinterpretation of the report:

Trump wants to 'fire' F-35

Note that Trump thinks it's the test pilot that said the F-35 sucks, when it was actually the article's author that pulled quotes from the report out of context, and the test pilot was simply stating the limitations of the F-35's control software and how the software can be improved. But as far as Trump and likely the general public knows, the meme is "even test pilots say the F-35 sucks".

Or you can look at how these authors are trying to pin everything as the fault of the F-35. For example, that the F-35 "only" has a combat radius of 600 miles instead of 2500 miles is the reason why the Air Force needs to have the $100 billion LRS-B program:

https://archive.is/zZoMU

In short, pinning the cost of the LRS-B program on the F-35, as if we have any jet fighters that can go 2500 miles from base and return on one tank of gas.

Or, a fun one in my opinion, with the recent Trudeau victory in Canada, articles like this:

The Right Fighter For Canada Is The Super Hornet, Not The F-35

It talks about how the F-35's range is small compared to the vast arctic, then excitingly talks up how the Super Hornet will give a range increase compared to Canada's current Hornet, a significant improvement. This is part of its reasoning for why the Super Hornet would be a better aircraft than the F-35. What it _doesn't_ bring up, however, is that the F-35's range is actually *bigger* than the Super Hornet's.

These are the types of articles about the F-35 that are pushed on the public on a regular basis. These authors literally make their living by writing articles critical of the F-35. And you're worried about _pro-F-35_ propaganda?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2015)

GregP said:


> I didn't say it was a pig or that I was against it. I said I want to see it tested realisticaly, So far, I haven't seen it.



Well you'll have to take that up with members of the tri-services who have made this aircraft the most extensively tested aircraft in aviation history.


GregP said:


> I worked on the F-35, too, and did some detailed design analysis of the actuators. If they are typical of the aircraft, I'll pass on it.



Well with several hundred F-35s built and flying they must work!



GregP said:


> I never worked on the electrical system and it might be fine. I have seen no electrical system writeups that raise any particular attention, and so was assuming it to be OK. *I haven't seen system writeups because they are classified.* If you haven't seen them either, then we both don't know and are guessing.


Not really - there is a large portion of the program that has to remain transparent and are under scrutiny by congress. Posted earlier was the issue with the ejection seat where it won't support a "135 pound pilot" but yet the same seat is used on several other aircraft.


GregP said:


> I am NOT objecting to it out of ignorance in the slightest.* I haven't followed the flight test program in detail*, but haven't been impressed with what I have read .. and I already addressed that. There was no point in following it since there was a political rush for approval.


Well perhaps you should and also review the actual flight test results that show the aircraft has either met or is meeting its design objectives


GregP said:


> I'll get interested when they have some actual service data to analyze that doesn't come from the manufacturer, but rather from the users.


This is the USAF site for the F-35 F-35 Lightning II Program Navy F-35C Lightning Boards Ike for Developmental Testing Marines U.S. Marines Corps declares the F-35B operational > The Official United States Marine Corps Public Website > News Display

And just to keep things even, here's a Marine report citing a Pentagon report disclaiming the USMC operational trials.

DoD report claims Marine F-35B is not ready for combat



GregP said:


> So far, in good-wweather, peactime carrier landings and takeoffs, it seems OK. If it can't do that, then we're being duped by professionals. That doesn't make a warfighter. It makes for good press.



If you read the last test reports on the F-35C, it completed additional carrier trials in marginal VFR weather. Its time to prove itself in combat be it war games or actual combat will come.


GregP said:


> Like I said, words ain't gonna' do it; only performance in role. And that hasn't happened yet. *I have the right to be unconvinced until such time as I get convinced one way or the other by service performance.* Looks like we're buying it whether we should or not, so I'll get convinced one way or the other soon enough. I hope it is later for reasons stated a long time ago in a post far, far away.


you do Greg, at the same time you'll also be challenged (or confirmed) by facts but I'll state again, right now you seem to be behind about two years in where the aircraft actually is on the flight test and deployment profile...


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 2, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> What's interesting, is Germany's absence in all of this. I find it interesting that the most prosperous country in Europe barely spends any of it's budget on defense.



Why should they when the US, Britain and France do the heavy lifting for Germany.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 2, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> Why should they when the US, Britain and France do the heavy lifting for Germany.


I found it interesting how Merkel railed on Hungary and Croatia for denying access to the "refugees", talking down to them and then ended up choking on her own words when the swarms of "invited refugees" started inundating Germany and they ended up closing their own borders.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 3, 2015)

Could be 2 years behind, Joe. I'll look at your links this week as I get the time. Probably Friday at the earliest. I still think it is too much money for a strike fighter, but what modern plane isn't too much? Ask any user and that's what they'll say. It's sort of like a divorce ... when neither side is happy, it was probably a fair settlement.

I do NOT see how it will avoid WVR fights and remain BVR ... since the rules are mde by people who don't look at capabilities ... but, again, we'll see. The dog'll hunt or won't. 

The F-15 has decades of successful no-loss intercepts. We'll see what the F-35 does in due time. Since we'll have 2,400+ of them and 177 or less F-22s, I'm betting the F-35 will get a lot of intercepts, or at least that makes sense to me.

Data should be forthcoming soon. If not, then something is VERY wrong. The USA historically hasn't purschased large numbers of loser aircraft ... but this one was so political I can't say one way or the other exactly how biased or nonbiased the decision was.

Only results will tell us. As I stated some months ago, I hope it works out OK since we'll be flying it regardless of its merits or lack thereof. Might as well try for the best outcome and think the worst only when it is proven to be true.

My real opinion isn't necessarily bad ... it is undecided at this time. I take a lot of pride in waiting for the worst to come to pass before saying it is so, both as a supervisor and as an interested military observer. I just have to state that there are only two cases ... the F-35 is a good one or it is not. Mediocre falls into the "not" category, so there are really only 2 choices ... good or bad. The jury is out for a lot observers including me, but that situation can't last.

The platform will perform or it won't. We'll probably know for sure before the end of 2016 ... assuming service deployment doesn't get "interrupted." Hell, we've waited for over a decade. One more year won't set the world on fire and destroy our sanity.

I am of the opinion thath positive spins on the F-35 are just as misleading as negative spins are. It would be nice to just report the facts and let it go at that, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, an unbiased reporter seems to be yet to be hired. Reading an article on the F-35 will rapidly show you which side the aurthor is on, but the articles sometimes seem so reasonable until you disect them ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2015)

GregP said:


> Could be 2 years behind, Joe. I'll look at your links this week as I get the time. Probably Friday at the earliest. I still think it is too much money for a strike fighter, but what modern plane isn't too much? Ask any user and that's what they'll say. It's sort of like a divorce ... when neither side is happy, it was probably a fair settlement.
> 
> I do NOT see how it will avoid WVR fights and remain BVR ... since the rules are mde by people who don't look at capabilities ... but, again, we'll see. The dog'll hunt or won't.



Since Vietnam the politicians learned - AFAIK we (the US) have not put US combat aircraft in a situation where visual ID had to be made with the enemy and an aggression had to be undertaken by the same enemy before our forces could take action. During the Gulf War I believe there was only a couple incidents where air battles were fought VR from the onset.


GregP said:


> The F-15 has decades of successful no-loss intercepts. We'll see what the F-35 does in due time. Since we'll have 2,400+ of them and 177 or less F-22s, I'm betting the F-35 will get a lot of intercepts, or at least that makes sense to me.


And once again Greg, you're not getting it - The F-35's primary role is that of a STRIKE AIRCRAFT. If we go by past history you'll find that when the F-16 was used to perform intercepts and enforce no-fly zones they were doing in an environment where there was little or no opposition.


GregP said:


> Data should be forthcoming soon. If not, then something is VERY wrong. *The USA historically hasn't purschased large numbers of loser aircraft* ... but this one was so political I can't say one way or the other exactly how biased or nonbiased the decision was.


You've answered the quagmire...



GregP said:


> I am of the opinion thath positive spins on the F-35 are just as misleading as negative spins are. *It would be nice to just report the facts and let it go at that, wouldn't it? *Unfortunately, an unbiased reporter seems to be yet to be hired. Reading an article on the F-35 will rapidly show you which side the aurthor is on, but the articles sometimes seem so reasonable until you disect them ...


Well the facts are that several hundred of these aircraft have been built, they are in the process of being deployed, foreign buyers are taking delivery of them and there's a production line in Italy. If this aircraft wasn't meeting it's design goals, do you really think all this would be happening as we speak? In the end, look at the fly-specs the media is still emphasizing - the 135 pound ejection seat, the hot fuel issue, the AoA test against the F-16 and the now-moldy Rand Report. My opinion is this aircraft will deploy, perform as advertised and the long Range Strike Bomber will be the new scorn of the media and press.

As of right now this aircraft had been performing brilliantly and with the exception of the engine fire had few issues when compared to some of the aircraft it is planned to replace. the link I provided is a good piece about the F-16, it's ups and downs during development and early deployment. What do you think would happen to the F-35 today if this was allowed to happen today?

_On January 20, 1974, during a high-speed taxi test, General Dynamics test pilot Phil Oestricher applied what he thought were small control-stick inputs in the standard method used to check the airplane’s roll response. However, in response to the pilot’s input, the control stick in the YF-16, mounted on the right instead of the customary center, didn’t actually move. Instead, it measured the pressures exerted by the pilot’s hand and relayed that data, via electronic sensors, to hydraulic actuators in a newfangled fly-by-wire control system. The simulator Oestricher had flown didn’t adequately portray the stick forces, so he hadn’t learned to judge how much aileron he was commanding.

Too much, apparently. The YF-16 oscillated wildly, banging the right elevator on the runway. After struggling with the aircraft, Oestricher decided it would be safer to take off. The test director, retired Colonel Jim Rider, remembers being “up in the control tower, watching my career go down the tubes.”

The short flight and landing were uneventful, no one got fired, and General Dynamics scheduled the first official flight for February 2. Retired Colonel Bob Ettinger, a YF-16 test pilot, was assigned to investigate the cause of the incident. He concluded that it “resulted from flying an antiquated flight test technique that didn’t work for a fly-by-wire system.” *It would be one of many lessons taught by the new arrival.
*
_

The Outrageous Adolescence of the F-16 | Military Aviation | Air Space Magazine

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 3, 2015)

Outstanding article, Joe...and touches on a great deal of subjects that kept circulating in the media (TV, Radio papers) at the time...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2015)

And the beat goes on...

Lockheed wins preliminary deal worth up to $5.37 billion for more F-35s - Yahoo Finance


----------



## Torch (Nov 6, 2015)

http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/06/italians-pilot-f-35-first-time/

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2015)

And with all the fuss of the F-35 cost, Kuwait just bought 28 Eurofighters at 140 MILLION A PIECE!

Kuwait agrees to buy 28 Eurofighter Typhoons in multibillion euro deal | The National

Although this is from the LMCO site, let it be known that the DoD and press would have a field day if the numbers weren't accurate.

_The most recently contracted unit costs for Low Rate Initial Production lot 7 (not including the engine) are:

F-35A: $98 million
F-35B: $104 million
F-35C: $116 million

An F-35A purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will be $85 million, which is the equivalent of $75 million in today’s dollars. _

https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost

BTW the Price/Unit Cost for an F-35 engine (F135): $13.75 to $32.49 million (in FY 2015)

Pratt Whitney F135 Turbofan Engine | AeroWeb

So with that said the F-35A (probably the model that most foreign nations would buy) would cost between $112 to $131 million. An F-35B would cost $137 million (using the higher number of the engine cost). As previously posted, the cost of the F-22 is/ was $150 million if F/Y 2009 dollars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 6, 2015)

In fairness Joe, the article says the list price is "about $140M". It does not say explicitly that Kuwait paid that figure. Such deals typically include a host of other items - spares provision, training services etc etc etc. - so we will likely never know what the actual price per airframe was. However, nobody ever pays list...right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> In fairness Joe, the article says the list price is "about $140M". It does not say explicitly that Kuwait paid that figure. Such deals typically include a host of other items - spares provision, training services etc etc etc. - so we will likely never know what the actual price per airframe was. However, nobody ever pays list...right?



Actually the $140 million per unit quote is straight from the article. It seems the total contract price is 8 Billion Euros which seems to account for sustainment and support. A second article shows unit cost between $98 and $125 million.

Middle East Eurofighter Typhoon Deal: Kuwait To Buy 28 Jets From Italy

Eurofighter closes in on €8bn Kuwait deal - FT.com


----------



## GregP (Nov 6, 2015)

That same article talks about concurrency, which is the biggest load of hogwash I have ever read. All it does is keep money flowing when the product is unproven and hasn'r even met specs yet. If we haven't learned anything else, we HAVE ample evidence of the failure of concurrency.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2015)

GregP said:


> That same article talks about concurrency, which is the biggest load of hogwash I have ever read. All it does is keep money flowing when the product is unproven and hasn'r even met specs yet. If we haven't learned anything else, we HAVE ample evidence of the failure of concurrency.



I agree about the concurrency - it's what jacked up the cost of the F-35. But in this stage of the program (several hundred built, nearing operational status with the USAF and USMC, a second production line in Italy, Norway and several other nations taking delivery of their first birds, and finally the training of foreign pilots), I think this "product" has "met specs."


----------



## GregP (Nov 8, 2015)

I hate to point this out Joe, but they still don't have a gun. It only recently fired one for the first time. The guns aren't expected to be operational until 2017, unles I read wrong.

Since people ARE stepping up, maybe it DOES perform. I suppose we'll see at some point.

I won't rail about it in here anymore, but will still wait for some good press from users other than the US Military. My bet is if a US pilot speaks out agianst it, he or she will probably get canned at this point. Really, all I want is an honest evaluation by someone who expects to be using it in combat. If a combat pilot likes it after testing it, and that includes within visual range since the ROE will almost always dictate that, then maybe we DO have something after all.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 8, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And the beat goes on...
> 
> Lockheed wins preliminary deal worth up to $5.37 billion for more F-35s - Yahoo Finance



_Only_ 55 more F-35's for $5.37 billion!? What's $97,636,363.636 a piece? It's getting cheaper....ebay next?


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 8, 2015)

GregP said:


> I hate to point this out Joe, but they still don't have a gun. It only recently fired one for the first time. The guns aren't expected to be operational until 2017, unles I read wrong.
> 
> Since people ARE stepping up, maybe it DOES perform. I suppose we'll see at some point.
> 
> I won't rail about it in here anymore, but will still wait for some good press from users other than the US Military. My bet is if a US pilot speaks out agianst it, he or she will probably get canned at this point. Really, all I want is an honest evaluation by someone who expects to be using it in combat. If a combat pilot likes it after testing it, and that includes within visual range since the ROE will almost always dictate that, then maybe we DO have something after all.




Can I ask a dumb question - how are you going to differentiate between a combat pilot who really likes the aircraft and one who's simply saying positive things to toe the party line for fear of being canned? Seems like the criteria you're setting for yourself are impossible to achieve. Every time a pilot puts out a positive review, you have the opportunity to claim the he/she is simply being a mouthpiece for the Government. Seems like a no-win situation to me...or am I missing something? 

It looks that the USMC is pretty happy with the aircraft but clearly that isn't enough to satisfy you. Conversely, the negative press on the F-35 programme has consistently been proven to manipulate the facts to generate a story, the "can't dogfight an F-16" being among the latest. I really want to understand what evidence will satisfy you that the aircraft actually works. If the US military holds an operationally realistic exercise and everyone praises the F-35, will you accept that or will you claim that the scenario was biased in favour of a positive outcome? 

There have been numerous examples cited on this thread where sensationist press reporting has been countered by compelling evidence. Unfortunately, you seem to want proof of a negative - you won't accept that the aircraft is good until someone proves it isn't bad, but the people providing the proof you want are the military operators who, per your last post, can't be trusted. Please explain what will make you happy 'cos right now it seems nothing will.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 8, 2015)

Duplicate post.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2015)

GregP said:


> I hate to point this out Joe, but they still don't have a gun. It only recently fired one for the first time. The guns aren't expected to be operational until 2017, unles I read wrong.



Nope that's correct - and the gun is on schedule within the test profile (F-35A)


GregP said:


> Since people ARE stepping up, maybe it DOES perform. I suppose we'll see at some point.



The old saying, money talks!


GregP said:


> I won't rail about it in here anymore, but will still wait for some good press from users other than the US Military. My bet is if a US pilot speaks out agianst it, he or she will probably get canned at this point.


I doubt that for a number of reasons, mainly the whistleblower program within the USAF is pretty strong, especially if a woman brings up an ignored issue. I've been working with the USAF for 10 years and if a pilot has an issue with an MDS, their leadership is compelled to listen.



GregP said:


> Really, all I want is an honest evaluation by someone who expects to be using it in combat. If a combat pilot likes it after testing it, and that includes within visual range since the ROE will almost always dictate that, then maybe we DO have something after all.


I think it will come, after all it took the F-117 almost 2 years to get some good press. People were bagging on it without knowing what it looks like, I remember people saying it was the "Worse kept military secret." The armchairs were just as clueless then as they are now!


----------



## GregP (Nov 8, 2015)

I'd say that would be an easy question. Any pilot whose country is seriously thinking about buying it but hasn't yet committed. They'd probably have one of their better pilots fly it and make a report to the defense miniters (or whomever). I'm also looking forward to seeing what it can do in multinational war games ... assuming we the public are even allowed to know the ROE.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around having some 2,400 F-35s and 177 F-22s and thinking the F-35 won't be required to act as a fighter within visual range. Somehow it just doesn't add up. I'm also wondering how we can possibly have bought 100+ of them and they can't shoot a gun yet. Somehow there's a logical diconnect in this situation. 

Naturally, I think that if they can't get it to shoot a gun, then someone has sold us a boat load of crap, as far as the excuse why not. They've been putting guns on planes for about 100 years. To me, it's simple. Put in the gun and worry about the folding RAM door after you at least have the ability to shoot something. It's better to have a gun and not need it than the other way around, and the F-35 pilot cadre would already have some experience at shooting at targets by now.

It shouldn't take years to fit a gun, no matter what the issues are. And if the RAM material is so sensitive that we can't fit a gun easily, how do we expect to keep it functional in the field, should it ever have to deploy and actually shoot something?

All I'm really looking for is a realistic assessment. So far, everyone, including you, is either staunchly pro-F_35 or staunchly anti-F-35. I can't find any writeups by someone trying to do an honest assessment of the platform, and that worries me.

Positive press spins don't make good fighters, and missing some spec doesn't make a bad fighter. It can even have a seemingly serious weakness and still be a good one, if a workaround can be found.

I'm undecided and can't find any thing to sway me one way or the other, not that it matters. Our path to the F-35 is rather obvious to any who pays attention. I'm just trying very hard to somehow feel good about it and can't yet do that. We'll still buy them since we made that decision years ago and rather obviously aren't going to let anything get in the way. It's not politically correct.

If we HAVE the facts and it IS a good plane, then we should put them in front of the public and be done with it. Not the performance (yet) but at least the facts that tell us how good it is. That we're still seeing pro and con articles makes me wonder whether we DO have the facts.

It doesn't make me want to trash the plane, it makes me want to find out.

As we get F-35 service time, I think the facts cannot be hidden very well, but they seem to be doing a good job of it so far.

If I were running a country and had the decision to make, I'd fly them all and make a choice. I wouldn't buy sight unseen or plane unflown. Perhaps the F-35 is the best attack plane out there. Not knowing for sure, I make no claim either way.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 8, 2015)

You haven't answered my question. You are automatically putting people into 2 buckets, either pro or against. You claim to want a "realistic assessment" but where on earth are you going to find that? There isn't an indicator out there that says "This is a Realistic Report" - you just have to judge it on the merits. Unfortunately, every time someone counters the extreme negative press, you automatically put us in the "staunchly pro" bucket.

I've been on record criticizing the need for the F-35B. I think it's a waste of time, effort and money that has no operational utility. For the other variants, I'll admit to being broadly in support of them in part because there isn't any viable alternative that can do everything the F-35 can do (other than retaining long-in-the-tooth existing platforms which are no more survivable). The early F-15s had a radar that was worse than the aircraft it was replacing, and yet it still entered service...but all that's forgotten in the mists of time and yet every issue with the F-35 that gets brought up DURING TESTING is grounds for cancelling the programme (at least that's the tenor I get from most of your posts).

Also, nobody has said that the F-35 won't operate in WVR conditions but rather that such an engagement ought (rightly, IMHO) to be of last resort. Again, negative critiques of the aircraft's performance hark back to the "can't dogfight an F-16" which was robustly debunked a few posts back. I'd also point out that the aircraft is still being tested and will continue to be tested throughout its life as modifications are implemented. 

Finally, your comment "As we get F-35 service time, I think the facts cannot be hidden very well, but they seem to be doing a good job of it so far". Do you mean that the Government is deliberately hiding facts? Once again, what evidence will convince you that the aircraft works? You claim to be "on the fence" but I'm not detecting any acceptance of data or argument from anyone speaking up in favour of the aircraft because, clearly, we're all saps who just believe the official party line. Seems to me you're not looking for a realistic assessment at all, and even if you got one you wouldn't believe it unless it was filled with negativity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 8, 2015)

Realistic assessments are occurring now, however verifiable, "independent" assessments will begin to flow as the type either gains runs in combat, or the results of joint exercises become known and are shared. Either the entire western military establishment is involved in some diabolical conspiracy to make the company wads of cash for the company for a dud lemon, or they will share realistic military appraisals of the capabilities and limits of the aircraft. In the case of the Australians and the US alliance partners this has been going on since at least the post Korean war period. not everything is one way traffic and not everything is written up as beer and skittles, I can assure you. There will be limits to this a/c, and far from hiding it, the military is and will be looking for those limits and capabilities


----------



## GregP (Nov 9, 2015)

You hit it square on the head Buffnut.

I don't think the government is being forthcoming. I don't think the F-35 will do very well within visual range in dogfights, regardless of any dismissal of same by pro-F-35 people. It's been in development for 14 years for crying out loud, and it isn't even cleared to shoot the gun yet.

So ...if it IS doing great, then it should prove itself rather soon. All the clamor in here trying to convince people it is great is earwash. It will be great when it SHOWS itself to be great and not until. If you guys who like it so well are really convinced, then you shouldn't have any trouble at all letting it prove itself ... either it will or it won't. Why not let the chips fall where they may?

I never said I'd cancel it due to its performance (that's still classified). I said I wouldn't swallow the price, and I wouldn't. When it DOES have to attack and when it DOES have to be fighter, we'll see what happens. If you guys are right, we'll be fine and that's a good outcome.

If it falls on its face as a fighter, then I will be shown to be correct in questioning a force with 2,400 attack planes and 177 fighters. Just seems STUPID; it's never worked before ... why should it work now? Whether the F-35 stubs its toe as a fighter or does just fine will come out and we'll all find out within a few hours of one another. Personally, I hope it succeeds because that will lead to the least expensive option since we're buying it regardless of controversy.

I'd rather have it succeed than buy another fighter because we were too stupid to do it right this time. At this time I'm officially neutral on it. I hope to be persuaded by its actions and performance in the real world to be a fan.

Funny, I like the idea of a supersonic STOVL best of the three and that's the one you don't like. Go figure. I thought the Harrier was a good asset and have been looking forward to having that capability back in the arsenal for the Marines.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 9, 2015)

GregP said:


> ...Whether the F-35 stubs its toe as a fighter or does just fine will come out and we'll all find out within a few hours of one another...


The F-35 is not a fighter, the F-35 is a strike aircraft with fighting capabilities.

The F-22 is a fighter. The F-22 flies top cover while the F-35 conducts it's business.

This is nothing new. The F4F flew top cover while the SBD conducts it's business.

F4F - fighter, SBD - strike aircraft with fighter capabilities.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 9, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> The F-35 is not a fighter, the F-35 is a strike aircraft with fighting capabilities.
> 
> The F-22 is a fighter. The F-22 flies top cover while the F-35 conducts it's business.



Why not then concentrate on one aircraft then, with F-35's as fighters covering other '35's making the mess?

Do you actually _need_ both the -22 and the -35, or is more like when you can't decide between two things....'f*ck it, let's buy both'...

Isn't the Typhoon the same, an 'F/A' aircraft, or is it a pure fighter? You know how it is lads, I'm stuck in the 60's!  

Is the -22', a fighter with attack capabilities?

Is this with more than one aircraft today, with more and more countries going for one type, with multiple capabilities, more a question of aviation industry alive?

Will it end up like car industry, several manufacturers building the same cars, they just change badges?

Compared to today and 50 years ago, how many independent aircraft manufacturers do you have left, would you say that is had a negative impact on the industry?

Sorry gentlemen, too much (if that's possible) coffee!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Do you actually _need_ both the -22 and the -35, or is more like when you can't decide between two things....'f*ck it, let's buy both'...



FLASHBACK 1978 F-15 AND F-16!

From Wiki...

"Experiences in the Vietnam War revealed the need for air superiority fighters and better air-to-air training for fighter pilots. Based on his experiences in the Korean War and as a fighter tactics instructor in the early 1960s Colonel John Boyd with mathematician Thomas Christie developed the Energy–maneuverability theory to model a fighter aircraft's performance in combat. Boyd's work called for a small, lightweight aircraft that could maneuver with the minimum possible energy loss, and which also incorporated an increased thrust-to-weight ratio. In the late 1960s, Boyd gathered a group of like-minded innovators that became known as the Fighter Mafia and in 1969 they secured Department of Defense funding for General Dynamics and Northrop to study design concepts based on the theory.

*Air Force F-X proponents remained hostile to the concept because they perceived it as a threat to the F-15 program. However, the Air Force's leadership understood that its budget would not allow it to purchase enough F-15 aircraft to satisfy all of its missions*."



History repeats itself!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2015)

GregP said:


> I'm still trying to wrap my head around having some 2,400 F-35s and 177 F-22s and thinking the F-35 won't be required to act as a fighter within visual range. Somehow it just doesn't add up. I'm also wondering how we can possibly have bought 100+ of them and they can't shoot a gun yet. Somehow there's a logical diconnect in this situation.



There were supposed to be many more F-22s built but the program was ended by this administration. Let me ask you Greg, how many "intercepts" do you think were done over the years that ultimately resulted in VR aerial combat?!?! Just to add to this, up until 9-11 many of the domestic intercepts were done with unarmed aircraft!!!



GregP said:


> It shouldn't take years to fit a gun, no matter what the issues are. And if the RAM material is so sensitive that we can't fit a gun easily, how do we expect to keep it functional in the field, should it ever have to deploy and actually shoot something?


 Sorry Greg, there are some engineers and program managers who are a lot smarter than you and I who have seen otherwise. The application of a gun in this aircraft is being carefully planned and thought out and is following a schedule set by LMCO *AND THE CUSTOMER! * I would rather have the time spent to properly develop the system than rush it out the door to satisfy the skeptical and less educated aviation public. 



GregP said:


> I can't find any writeups by someone trying to do an honest assessment of the platform, and that worries me.


 Well the fact that just about everything said by Sprey and the Rand Report has been shown to be BS should probably tell you something.


GregP said:


> Positive press spins don't make good fighters, and missing some spec doesn't make a bad fighter. It can even have a seemingly serious weakness and still be a good one, if a workaround can be found.


"Missing Specs"?!?!? Can you enlighten us with what specs you think are "missing"? I'm sure the USAF IG would want to know that!!!

BTW there were 114 F-35s built a year ago.

"Over 145 F-35s have been built and delivered. After seven successive production lots, key manufacturing processes have been refined in preparation for a steady ramp-up of output. A total of 88 F-35s are currently under construction at Lockheed Martin’s plant in Fort Worth, and 110 are being produced worldwide."

Here's the article from Forbes Magazine;

Forbes Welcome


----------



## GregP (Nov 13, 2015)

Since the F-35 was and IS being sold as strike-fighter, I'd say it had better be able to be a fighter. If it can't ... we have bought a turkey, pure and simple. I have no idea where you were 14 - 17 years ago when the F-35 was being hyped, but fighter was at the top of the list ... it was a STRIKE-FIGHTER and is still being marketed as such. That means *fighter *when the strike part is done.

If it can't, we've been sold a load of crap and have been lied to. If that is the case, stop making them now, scrap what we have, and start over with some decent leadership. If that is not the case, then make that fact public with proof from an international war game with non-restrictive ROE and a public outcome.

Don't TELL me; SHOW me or quiet down about it. As amply stated earlier, make your case. Not with development crap; with combat success or combat war game success ... with decent ROE. Since we have 100+ of them; they SHOULD be able to perform NOW. If they can't, stop the expense NOW. If they can, then full speed ahead.

I have no preference but hate the not knowing part of it. Meeting test milestones is meaningless. Success against modern enemies looking for you and knowing you are coming makes your case easily. I think the British or French could easily field a force of modern enemies. So could India, Russia, Japan, Spain, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Korea, etc. Try a war game with Brazil or South Africa or others.

See what it can really do and go with what you find out. If we're good to go, then GO. If we're not, regroup and make a new plan.

Simple and easy ... unless you already know the outcome will be bad and are desperate to spend the money while you can and nobody knows better. I don't claim we're there, but am getting closer to thinking it every day we don't know for sure while I cringe at the money we are expending.

Spare me the "we're on track." It's been 14+ years. Put up or shut up. I'm not in Congress but, if I were, my patience would be wearing VERY thin and Eurofighters would start to look mighty good about now. So would Sukhois.

Prove it or cancel it, and do it immediately.

Instead, we'll probably see more delays and phased-in capability expansion ... other words for more of the same delaying tactics. It makes a potentially good aircraft seem like a bad one, and nobody seemingly wants to really find out.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 13, 2015)

Saw two in formation shooting approach with at least one go-around into Pensacola NAS. Noisy, powerful engine.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 13, 2015)

I think the plane will do its job. I don't think dog fighting is a big issue. Information netting should be a game changer. Long time in development, but three versions must have taken a toll.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2015)

GregP said:


> Since the F-35 was and IS being sold as strike-fighter, I'd say it had better be able to be a fighter. If it can't ... we have bought a turkey, pure and simple. I have no idea where you were 14 - 17 years ago when the F-35 was being hyped, but fighter was at the top of the list ... it was a STRIKE-FIGHTER and is still being marketed as such. That means *fighter *when the strike part is done.
> 
> If it can't, we've been sold a load of crap and have been lied to. If that is the case, stop making them now, scrap what we have, and start over with some decent leadership. If that is not the case, then make that fact public with proof from an international war game with non-restrictive ROE and a public outcome.
> 
> ...



Greg - perhaps you should become the program manager for the project as you think it takes months to develop a modern weapons system. You keep saying the same thing, but at the same time the aircraft is on it's final development stage and being deployed.

You keep questioning it's maneuverability - with an internal ordinance configuration it has the maneuverability of an F/A-18C - not bad for an aircraft that has been sold as a fighter as well.

Bottom line, this is a new age, forget what was done in WW2, Korea and Vietnam. People saying that a multi-role multi-service fighter (F-111) will never work, well I don't think the F-4 did too badly and at the height of the F-111 debacle, when doubters said that a multi-service multi purpose aircraft couldn't work, there was one being operated right under the skeptics noses!!!

I'm not in no way attempting to change your mind or convince you to support this aircraft, but I will say right now you're blowing smoke. The development of this aircraft wasn't perfect but neither were any of it's predecessors.

So in your last sentence you state - "we'll probably see more delays and phased-in capability expansion ... other words for more of the same delaying tactics. It makes a potentially good aircraft seem like a bad one, and nobody seemingly wants to really find out." Show us this or put up or shut up!!!

In the mean time I'll show this clip that's a year and a half old - an F-35 "B", Just so the difference is plainly explained.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=f-35+airshow&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 14, 2015)

davparlr said:


> I think the plane will do its job. I don't think dog fighting is a big issue. Information netting should be a game changer. Long time in development, but three versions must have taken a toll.



Sharing information is old, SAAB started to use that with its Draken long time ago...been developing since the 60's.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 14, 2015)

Comparing today's netting to what was available in the 60s is like comparing today's internet communication to the rotary telephone. The modern high capacity data net will not only be fed from formation pals where targeting/threat information is instantaneously shared but also by AWACS, Joint STARS, ground site, command and control sites, etc. Information will be sorted, categorized, and prioritized to ensure operator usability, at least that is the plan .

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 14, 2015)

It's where it started, with what was available back then....still makes it old news pal!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 14, 2015)

Draken carried one of the first 'data link' systems back in 60/61 I think it was....so, 54 years in the making for SAAB!


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 14, 2015)

I have just been told that the Govt have signed up to a 40 year contract for parts, upgrades and updates to software and hardware. 



I hope that the UK never has to renogiate the contract because spares arent going to be available off the shelf. Lockheed Martin have a wonderful cash cow and I bet they are going to milk it hard.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 14, 2015)

I wouldn't call it a 'cash cow', you might offend all the honest and hard working cows around the world or any other anymals, it not being a called cash xxxx...or Lockheed Martin!  

Back to my Morgan's!


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 14, 2015)

Lockheed martin cash generator


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> I wouldn't call it a 'cash cow', you might offend all the honest and hard working cows around the world or any other anymals, it not being a called cash xxxx...or Lockheed Martin!
> 
> Back to my Morgan's!





fastmongrel said:


> I have just been told that the Govt have signed up to a 40 year contract for parts, upgrades and updates to software and hardware.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the UK never has to renogiate the contract because spares arent going to be available off the shelf. Lockheed Martin have a wonderful cash cow and I bet they are going to milk it hard.



Apparently both of you don't realize that you make more money off by post production support than you do by actually building aircraft. Imagine how much money was made supporting the B-52?!?!?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 14, 2015)

You don't just phone their support line, or deal with any problems with an online chat support!?   

Not much with the B-52, since only the USAF flies them....  
True, you make a few $$$$ or ££££ besides on other things than the aircraft itself, I know....
Must be a few $$$$ on the F-35, with what the bird itself cost....


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 14, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Apparently both of you don't realize that you make more money off by post production support than you do by actually building aircraft. Imagine how much money was made supporting the B-52?!?!?



I do realise, its how a lot of Capitalism works. Its just that for 40 years we are tied to one aircraft because there is no way Her Majestys Treasury is going to pony up if the F35 turns into a Lawn Dart. Lockheed Martin seems to have more accountants than engineers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 14, 2015)

A lot of development will happen in 40 years and how much can be added to F-35, or is it....don't buy anything else, or...? 
....any of them there famous thumbscrews?  

Right...who's round is it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2015)

Well despite what you folks say or think but it's looking like the F-35 isn't that much more expensive than some of it's contemporaries, $145 million for the F-22, $120 - $140 mil for the Typhoon, and least we forget the "low cost" Gripen at about $60 mil. In either event I think the F-35 is more than starting to show it's capabilities as 200 of them will soon to be flying with another 77 on order by the US military...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> A lot of development will happen in 40 years and how much can be added to F-35, or is it....don't buy anything else, or...?
> ....any of them there famous thumbscrews?
> 
> Right...who's round is it?



You could apply that to any fighter being built - the F-15, the F-22 and yes Lucky even the Gripen!


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 14, 2015)

Very true my good man, that's why she did a 'Hornet' and grew a couple of sizes!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 14, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Very true my good man, that's why she did a 'Hornet' and grew a couple of sizes!


Yep! And that's the beauty of it all as all the "winners" we've seen in fighter aircraft in the past 40 years all "grew a couple of sizes" or had some type of upgrades after entering service. During this time we've seen no "dogs" or "lawn darts" from western manufacturers, I doubt we're going to see one now!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 14, 2015)

Very true! Hopefully with a lot less incidents than with the '104!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 14, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Very true! Hopefully with a lot less incidents than with the '104!


It's interesting to see the ongoing problems and political backlash the F-104 had, but in spite of it's shortcomings, it was a beast and remained in service nearly 50 years.

One thing that might be of interest, is it's "dogfighting" limitations. It's main strength was it's fearsome speed. Slowing it to "brawl" put it at an immediate disadvantage and several pilots paid the price for this mistake.

However, it's rate of climb and it's sustained top speed are still impressive, even by today's standards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 15, 2015)

was the starfighter ever used in anger?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2015)

parsifal said:


> was the starfighter ever used in anger?



Yes - over Vietnam, Taiwan and over India/ Pakistan.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 15, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> It's where it started, with what was available back then....still makes it old news pal!



I believe the SAAB system was strickly ground-to-air/air-to-ground(?) similar to contemporary USAF SAGE system which may have been implemented as early as the F-94. Still an impressive capability for SAAB.

The modern data system provides massive data sources, in real/almost-real-time, to the on-scene commander (pilot/WSO). This includes airborne threats from AWACS, ground moving targets from JointSTARS/Globalhawk, active targeting from other F-35s, ground sites, etc., etc., etc., a revolutionary step in system awareness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 16, 2015)

Not that revolutionary....  

From SAAB...

_Gripen has highly developed net centric warfare capabilities. The objective is to find and exploit information. With this definition every Gripen unit is net centric, considering the high-end sensor suite and strong focus on data links for sharing information within the Gripen Tactical unit. Gripen already has Link 16 which is used for battle space control in large NATO-led operations, as well as digital CAS and video link for cooperation with Forward Air Controllers on the ground._

Edit:

_The Gripen is fitted with the "Tactical Information Datalink System (TIDLS)", which gives the fighter four high-bandwidth, two-way datalinks with a range of about 500 kilometers (310 miles) and very high resistance to jamming. The datalinks allow the Gripen to engage in combat using another aircraft's sensors or from targeting data provided by other defense systems. Data acquired from remote sources is fused and displayed on the fighter's main MFD. The link is fully operational when the aircraft is on the ground, allowing a pilot on standby to have high situational awareness of the battle environment. 

One Gripen can provide radar sensing for four of its colleagues, allowing a single fighter to track a target, while the others use the data for a stealthy attack. TIDLS also permits multiple fighters to quickly and accurately lock onto a target's track through triangulation from several radars; or allow one fighter to jam a target while another tracks it; or allow multiple fighters to use different radar frequencies collaboratively to "burn through" jamming transmissions. In addition, TIDLS gives the Gripen transparent access to the SAAB-Ericsson 340B Erieye "mini-AWACs" aircraft, as well as the overall ground command and control system. This system provides Sweden with an impressive defensive capability at a cost that, though still high, is less than that of comparable systems elsewhere._


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 16, 2015)

More grist to the mill:

F-16 Vs. F-35 In A Dogfight: JPO, Air Force Weigh In On Who’s Best « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

While the article acknowledges that the F-35 lacked full mission software, it still misses the key point that the purpose of the trial was to evaluate the F-35's flight control software, not to undertake a combat evaluation of the F-35 against the F-16. There are some good quotes, though, notably from Deptula...and the reference to every pilot who's flown the F-35 liking it should be quite telling (although I don't believe for one second that it will alter anyone's mind on this forum).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2015)

What I would like to see, is an F-16 just try and bounce a fully equipped production F-35...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2015)

buffnut453 said:


> More grist to the mill:
> 
> F-16 Vs. F-35 In A Dogfight: JPO, Air Force Weigh In On Who’s Best « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
> 
> While the article acknowledges that the F-35 lacked full mission software, it still misses the key point that the purpose of the trial was to evaluate the F-35's flight control software, not to undertake a combat evaluation of the F-35 against the F-16. There are some good quotes, though, notably from Deptula...and the reference to every pilot who's flown the F-35 liking it should be quite telling (although I don't believe for one second that it will alter anyone's mind on this forum).



You beat me to the post on this article. Another major point that some of the anti-F-35 camp (to include skeptics, doubters, the media, armchair fighter pilots and engineers) is the fact that the performance specifications of this aircraft WAS DICTATED BY THE CUSTOMER!!!! And so far, AFAIK (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong and I'll once again repeat) the only notable performance parameter that the F-35 couldn't meet was the 9G sustained turn, which I think was only an air force requirement, and in the larger scope of things means very little.



GrauGeist said:


> What I would like to see, is an F-16 just try and bounce a fully equipped production F-35...



In due time!!!


----------



## parsifal (Nov 16, 2015)

How many gs in a sustained turn can the F-35 do?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2015)

Elements Of Power: The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change

I believe the F-35A has actually been flown to just under 10Gs

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 17, 2015)

Heavy stuff!!


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 17, 2015)

parsifal said:


> How many gs in a sustained turn can the F-35 do?



Hugely complicated question - depends on altitude, speed, aircraft weight (which is constantly changing!). The link Joe provided is a great mini-treatise on the subject. Unfortunately, like most measures, sustained g rate may not be as important as it sounds - unless you're flying a Spitfire and progressively turning inside an Me109. I believe (and, if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate contradiction from those better informed than I) that instantaneous turn rate may be of greater significance in a close-in fight because it allows rapid change to the direction in which the aircraft's nose is pointing (not necessarily the direction the aircraft's heading), to allow weapons engagement. According to the article Joe linked, the F-35A has better instantaneous turn than the F-16...which is pretty darned impressive in my book.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2015)

_"Saying the F-35 can’t beat the F-16 in a dogfight is a little like complaining that a tank can’t beat a horse at a fence jump and calling for a return to the age of cavalry charges. Tanks aren’t built to jump fences; they are built to flatten them. Similarly, F-35s aren’t made so much to win dogfights with lesser planes as to blast them out of the sky from afar—before a visual combat situation has begun. Moreover, the press reports do not mention that the F-35’s missile defense systems and ability to suppress enemy radar can enable F-16s and other aircraft, unmanned as well as manned, to get much closer to their targets and strike them much more effectively than would otherwise be possible."_

In Defense of the F-35 - The American Interest

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 19, 2015)

I still don't believe the politicians will allow BVR fire in most situations ... and THAT's why I lament the F-35's lack of within-visual-range prowess. It isn't because I think the F-35 can't take something out BVR ... it's because I think they won't be allowed to do so by the President or whoever is setting the ROE.

Why is this so hard to understand?

That being said, I see in the AIA Daily Lead blogs that the F-35B has been cleared for combat deployment on carriers as of today. That means we should be seeing some operational mission flights coming down the pike. Looking forward to it ... right up to the point where they restrict the ROE.

Up until then, I expect a great performance from the F-35. It WILL do what it designed to do. My worry is it won't be allowed to by politicians ... not that it can't prosecute the battle if not restricted. I fully expect it to perform in a real battle where we are in combat.

I worry it can't perform in a political battle where we fly in and try to intimidate the enemy from 25 feet away, and who might turn out to not be what we expect as an opponent. If we think it's an airliner and it turns out to be a Sukhoi Su-37 ... or even maybe 4 of them in close formation, then the F-35 might be in some difficulty. The thing is, it ain't all that hard for a modern 4.5-gen fighter to fake an airliner's flight profile, and save fuel while doing it to boot.

So if that turns out to not be an issue,then I have no worries. The only people, at this point, who fly these are Russia, China, and India. I hope we aren't fighting them anytime soon. We seem peaceful enough at this point, but you never know. Neville Chaimberlain probably thought so, too, in 1939.

That article above about the F-35 and horizontal turns is funny. NOBODY is worried about 77° versus 79° level turns. They are worried about vertical turn performance and instantaneous turn performance ... pulling 4.6 versus 5.whatever, not about level turns that are never used in combat. ALL jet fighter pilots know that. The author is throwing flak at the argument of taking issue with reducing the g-limit and is talking about level turns! It is classic misdirection ... get them focused away from the issues. Anyone else think that is just wrong?

He is perfectly correct in what he says, but combat isn't composed of level turns. If you split-S from 6,500 feet, you aren't turning level, but you DO need some good g-limits to make it at 450 knots. The g-limits COUNT. That's why even WWII fighters had a g-limit of about 8. Not so they could whip around in level turns, but to escape from vertical dilemmas at high speeds and make hard turns as required.

If the F-35 g-limit is 8 or more and we are talking only about "sustained g" at some altitude, then I retract my objection. It is an excess-power issue, not an airframe strength issue. I'm also teaching new courses right now and haven't read up on it. This may well have been addressed already, and I haven't seen a flight envelope curve set for it or noticed it if I did ... it SHOULD be classified at this time.

I can agree that the difference between 4-point-something and 5-point something isn't much. That isn't the issue. I'm wondering why a military attack plane with the word "fighter" in the name, even if it is an "attack-fighter" or a "fighter-bomber" or a "stealth-fighter," can't sustain 8-g like they could 80 years ago, plus a 50% safety factor before failure.

You can pull more g's in a P-39, and it wasn't one of our better units in the 1940s ... again, if the F-35 real structure limit is 8 or more, then I bow out with objections.

Otherwise it seems like a whitewash that won't matter much BVR when flown as designed and intended, but WILL WVR when flown with political ROE. Or at least that's how I see it. If we don't hamstring the F-35, it won't matter much, and since the B models are now cleared, it won't be too long before we know.

I hope Washington is smart about it and the issue never comes up, but "Washington" and "smart" almost never see the same sentence. They are usually separated by a paragraph or more in the stories.

Joe, help me out here. You BELIEVE 10-g or you KNOW 10-g? Are we talking structural g-limits or sustained turn capabilities? If it's only sustained turn, I withdraw my objections. Otherwise ... they stand and I escalate the objections.

If the airframe can handle high g limits, then the issue is sustained g. That can be handled rather easily unless the encounter is WVR with equal or nearly equal numbers with both sides being aware of the coming fracas.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 19, 2015)

GregP said:


> I still don't believe the politicians will allow BVR fire in most situations ... and THAT's why I lament the F-35's lack of within-visual-range prowess. It isn't because I think the F-35 can't take something out BVR ... it's because I think they won't be allowed to do so by the President or whoever is setting the ROE.
> 
> Why is this so hard to understand?



Because it's not backed up by the data. In Vietnam, BVR engagements started out being 22% of the total number of engagements. Towards the end of the conflict, that number increased to 41%. So even given the push for guns to be reinstalled on fighters, the proportion of BVR engagements INCREASED during that conflict. By Desert Storm, a whopping 59% of all engagements were BVR (source for data is this Air Warfare College paper - perhaps not the best source but it's what I could find by taking 5 mins to Google for info!). 

So even in Vietnam the ROE allowed increasing use of BVR. In all honesty, how valid is your concern about limiting ROE, particularly given enhancements in network centric warfare that permit far better identification and recognition of threats in the BVR fight? Is it possible that politicians might hinder ROE? Yes. Is it really likely? Experience would suggest not.




GregP said:


> I worry it can't perform in a political battle where we fly in and try to intimidate the enemy from 25 feet away, and who might turn out to not be what we expect as an opponent. If we think it's an airliner and it turns out to be a Sukhoi Su-37 ... or even maybe 4 of them in close formation, then the F-35 might be in some difficulty. The thing is, it ain't all that hard for a modern 4.5-gen fighter to fake an airliner's flight profile, and save fuel while doing it to boot.



Firstly, what would an airliner be doing pootling around in a combat zone? Secondly, have you heard of Non-Cooperative Target Recognition? Most data on the capabilities are classified but Wikipedia provides some of the concepts, essentially using radar to identify the aircraft type based on engine modulation. Again...it's all about information integration. If you have it, you can engage at longer range but without it you're blind. Western Coalitions certainly have the data whereas our opponents don't.




GregP said:


> That article above about the F-35 and horizontal turns is funny. NOBODY is worried about 77° versus 79° level turns. They are worried about vertical turn performance and instantaneous turn performance ... pulling 4.6 versus 5.whatever, not about level turns that are never used in combat. ALL jet fighter pilots know that. The author is throwing flak at the argument of taking issue with reducing the g-limit and is talking about level turns! It is classic misdirection ... get them focused away from the issues. Anyone else think that is just wrong?
> 
> He is perfectly correct in what he says, but combat isn't composed of level turns. If you split-S from 6,500 feet, you aren't turning level, but you DO need some good g-limits to make it at 450 knots. The g-limits COUNT. That's why even WWII fighters had a g-limit of about 8. Not so they could whip around in level turns, but to escape from vertical dilemmas at high speeds and make hard turns as required.
> 
> If the F-35 g-limit is 8 or more and we are talking only about "sustained g" at some altitude, then I retract my objection. It is an excess-power issue, not an airframe strength issue. I'm also teaching new courses right now and haven't read up on it. This may well have been addressed already, and I haven't seen a flight envelope curve set for it or noticed it if I did ... it SHOULD be classified at this time..



The problem here is you're mixing and matching terms inappropriately. By definition "sustained g" is a turn in which the g, speed and altitude are all constant. As you rightly point out, that's not a particularly useful measure of combat performance. However, sustained g is not a "g limit". The point of the article is that the anti-F35 crowd jumped on the lowering of sustained g and misinterpreted that to mean it can't dogfight as well as current platforms. It's bollox. As I pointed out earlier, instantaneous turn rate is far more relevant and in that area of performance, the F-35 beats the F-16, which is one of the most manoeuverable aircraft on the planet.




GregP said:


> I can agree that the difference between 4-point-something and 5-point something isn't much. That isn't the issue. I'm wondering why a military attack plane with the word "fighter" in the name, even if it is an "attack-fighter" or a "fighter-bomber" or a "stealth-fighter," can't sustain 8-g like they could 80 years ago, plus a 50% safety factor before failure.



There is no way on the planet that a WWII vintage aircraft could sustain 8g. That's absolute nonsense. They might have been able to achieve an 8g turn momentarily but not sustain it. Again, it's all in the language you're using. In terms of g, "sustain" doesn't equal "achieve", it means "remain at". Achievable g for the F-35 is, I believe, north of 10g with a safety margin on top of that.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 19, 2015)

GregP said:


> Joe, help me out here. You BELIEVE 10-g or you KNOW 10-g? Are we talking structural g-limits or sustained turn capabilities? If it's only sustained turn, I withdraw my objections. Otherwise ... they stand and I escalate the objections.



Actually 9.9Gs structural. I can't pull up the reference but it is mentioned in one of the articles I posted earlier


----------



## GregP (Nov 19, 2015)

I withdraw my objections and will await some operational info before continuing.

In several articles I read they were saying the g-limit was being lowered. Nobody mentioned sustained g. The articles I read also said the Naval version with the extended wings was structurally limited to 7 g. Perhaps that is wrong, too. I don't have time right now, but will pursue that as I get the time. Cheers.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 19, 2015)

One of the things about the F-35 is that it is an a/c designed to a spec that is quite unique. its designed to be both stealthy and also with decent to excellent performance. My guess is that in the future, where the scenario requires it, tactics will be worked out to maximise the F-35s chances of achieving a favourable attacking position and then finishing off its opponents with a final pass. Thats if its stand off weaponary hasnt already made you hit the silk beforehand.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 19, 2015)

GregP said:


> I withdraw my objections and will await some operational info before continuing.
> 
> In several articles I read they were saying the g-limit was being lowered. *Nobody mentioned sustained g*. The articles I read also said the Naval version with the extended wings was structurally limited to 7 g. Perhaps that is wrong, too. I don't have time right now, but will pursue that as I get the time. Cheers.


That was one of the huge dis-information flubs about this aircraft. The media also treats this aircraft as if was one version. The issues with the F-35B were being mentioned as if the problems existed across the board.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 19, 2015)

Here's a little issue with the F-35 that I know will be blown out of proportion as soon as news about ISIS subsides.

Test Uncovers Cracks on F-35 Test Plane

From the article...

_The military has certainty got a lot out of the test F-35C. In fact, the damaged article has been used for more than 13,700 test hours. DellaVedova told IHS that that amount of test hours is equivalent to 6,850 flight hours or more than 20 years of operational flying use. Those figures are especially whopping, considering that DellaVedova said all the F-35Cs that currently soar the skies have less than 250 flight hours.

It should also be noted that aircraft used for durability testing are purposefully pushed to the limit so that investigators can simulate operational flying, which makes it easier to spot flaws."_


----------



## GregP (Nov 20, 2015)

I think my biggest concern was price. But when they said the g-limit was put to under 6, I interpreted that to be structural. Apparently it isn't. It is an excess thrust limit. Naturally, if they configure one for air-to-air, it won't be carrying a full bomber load and the limits will change for the better. Of course, the test I saw quoted the F-16 p[ilot as saying the F-35, even light, couldn't fight, couldn't run, and couldn't disengage.

We'll find out soon enough.

I still have concerns because almost ALL of the *peacetime *kills that the F-15 achieved over it's lifetime were from WVR. I was not concerned about wartime ROE ... it's peacetime ROE that make me think that the vast majority of intercepts thus plane will have will be within 1,000 feet ... simply because you don't DO things in peacetime that you do in wartime. One of those things is attack without being SURE.

Again, we'll see. I have less concerns now than I did a few days ago.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 20, 2015)

GregP said:


> I still have concerns because almost ALL of the *peacetime *kills that the *F-15 achieved over it's lifetime were from WVR.*.



The F-35 will not (and should not) fulfill the role that an F-15 is currently employed in, that's what the F-22 is for. With that said, I'd like to know your source for that. Even if a contact is spotted WVR it's still tracked and locked on and the only really unique environment where VR combat can almost be assured is over Israel. Summary of F-15 Combat Action

I think everyone is concerned about the price but as previously shown, it's really in the ball park with some contemporaries and is actually cheaper than the F-22 in the "A" version.


----------



## Token (Nov 20, 2015)

GregP said:


> Of course, the test I saw quoted the F-16 pilot as saying the F-35, even light, couldn't fight, couldn't run, and couldn't disengage.



Tongue-in-cheek here, but hey, it plays into the conversation.

Viper drivers think their aircraft is the end-all, Eagle drivers think theirs is, and Hornet drivers think theirs is. And lets not even go where the elitist F-22 folks minds are centered.

It is pretty well laid out in this song (sung by F-16 pilots):

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXpyK26bwgk_

As for BVR vs WVR, another Dos Gringos song:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQAmvKMGUko_

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Nov 23, 2015)

UK To Buy 138 F-35s, Purchase P-8 Poseidon | Defense content from Aviation Week


----------



## rochie (Nov 23, 2015)

On P-8's there have been reports of a Russian sub off seen off scotland but guess what, this island nation i live in has zero maritime patrol aircraft !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 23, 2015)

rochie said:


> On P-8's there have been reports of a Russian sub off seen off scotland but guess what, this island nation i live in has zero maritime patrol aircraft !



Thats the Con-Lib cutbacks coming to haunt us. Now its just the Conservative cutbacks we need to worry about. 20,000 less troops 9,000 of whom have ended up living on the streets, 37,000 less Police, Police dog numbers cut by half and local anti terrorist intelligence funding cut, anti fundamentalist programs in known recruitment areas for terrorists not cutback just plain old gone. The list goes on and gets bloody scarier.

A Ruskie sub playing about in our territorial waters is the least you should be worried about. If Cameron gets his way and we go and start bombing the Daesh in Syria then people are going to die in Britain just so Osborne can say he's cutting the deficit (hes not by the way its higher than it has been since about 1950 as a percentage of GDP).

I am pretty apolitical and believe the only good politician is one torn apart by rabid dogs and then set on fire but endangering the security of the country for reasons of ideology is the work of madmen or idiots.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 23, 2015)

Makes you wonder where the tax money is spent. In our country we have a new scheme, the Disability Support Scheme, funding god knows what and soaking up something like 40% of our national budget. Meanwhile industries go to the wall, defences allowed to fall apart, border protection a joke. The other day a vessel full of skinnies came to within 200m of Christmas Is before being "spotted " by the Navy. Actually, they came close to the shore and just shouted across the water for sanctuary.


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 29, 2015)

GregP said:


> I can agree that the difference between 4-point-something and 5-point something isn't much. That isn't the issue. I'm wondering why a military attack plane with the word "fighter" in the name, even if it is an "attack-fighter" or a "fighter-bomber" or a "stealth-fighter," can't sustain 8-g like they could 80 years ago, plus a 50% safety factor before failure.



What 1935 aircraft could sustain 8g? What pilots could sustain 8g without a G-suit?


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 29, 2015)

I thought someone said the F35 didn't have guns?
See F-35 jet fire 3,300 rounds a minute from the air - CNN Video


----------



## GregP (Nov 30, 2015)

I should have said withstand, not sustain.

And I said it couldn't shoot, and I have been correct up until now. It is simply idiotic that we can't put a gun on a plane for 14+ years. The solution is simple. Put in the gun and work out the RAM gun cover issues while the pilots learn to shoot with armed aircraft. There is no excuse that makes an sense for not clearing it to shoot live ammo before now.

Yes, we have to work out the gun cover, but that can be done offline with an engineering prototype and have the solution retrofitted to armed aircraft in service. It's easy. Make a modular gun cover and simple remove and replace the non-RAM unit with the RAM unit when it gets developed. You can use the unarmed prototype for radar tests. Maybe a few bolts and/or some rivets? How tough can it possibly be?

Answer: Not very. It should have been child's play to come up with it before now. It is a classic example of stupid decisions in development.

Doesn't mean the aircraft is turkey; it means the decision process was fundamentally flawed and cost a LOT more than it needed to cost.

That is not an F-35 failure. It is a program failure by the manufacturer, pure and simple.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 30, 2015)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood the F-35 to have been designed from the onset to be armed with the GAU-22/A cannon instead of the traditional M61 20mm.


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 30, 2015)

GregP said:


> I should have said withstand, not sustain.
> 
> And I said it couldn't shoot, and I have been correct up until now. It is simply idiotic that we can't put a gun on a plane for 14+ years. The solution is simple. Put in the gun and work out the RAM gun cover issues while the pilots learn to shoot with armed aircraft. There is no excuse that makes an sense for not clearing it to shoot live ammo before now.
> 
> ...



Greg, I think you're getting worked up and letting yourself down a bit here.

You know as well as many of us do that designing a light-weight aircraft to withstand 10g is a whole lot different to designing a large aircraft to withstand those same forces. The bigger the aircraft the harder it is to strengthen it for those design limits. That's why airliners aren't designed to these limits.

And I think you know what is involved in any 'small' retrofit...


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 30, 2015)

rochie said:


> On P-8's there have been reports of a Russian sub off seen off scotland but guess what, this island nation i live in has zero maritime patrol aircraft !



You'll, sorry....we'll end up with a our own U-137!


----------



## Vanshilar (Nov 30, 2015)

GregP said:


> I should have said withstand, not sustain.
> 
> And I said it couldn't shoot, and I have been correct up until now. It is simply idiotic that we can't put a gun on a plane for 14+ years. The solution is simple. Put in the gun and work out the RAM gun cover issues while the pilots learn to shoot with armed aircraft. There is no excuse that makes an sense for not clearing it to shoot live ammo before now.



Um, or it simply isn't a high priority. The gun is a low enough priority that they're even making it optional for the B and C variants.

For example, the F-22 didn't test fire its gun until 2003:

F-22 Milestones, Part 2 | Code One Magazine

The F-22 is generally around 10 years ahead of the F-35; the F-22 winner was announced in 1991 while the F-35 winner was announced in 2001. So by your metric, it took 12 years for them to fire the F-22's gun, while it took 14 for the F-35 -- and this for a plane that is largely single mission (air superiority with missiles and gun) without having to worry about the ground until later in its development. Similarly, I couldn't find a record of when the Rafale first fired its gun, but final approval for operational use of its gun was granted in mid-2000, for a plane that first flew in 1986:

Fox 3 - 2 by avia lduo

Looking around, for the Eurofighter Typhoon, it seems to have first fired its gun in flight in 2004, and it's a contemporary of the Rafale:

https://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-events/2004/04/eurofighter-typhoon-guns-and-missiles

In all these cases, it seems like the gun is fired only around a year or two before the plane's IOC; the F-22 IOC'ed in 2005, the Rafale IOC'ed in 2002, and the Typhoon IOC'ed in 2005. So the F-35A is on-track, with a gun test in 2015 and a planned IOC of 2016.

Long story short, the timeline for the F-35 to fire its gun seems to be about average for modern fighter aircraft. If you think its first gun trials are unacceptably late, you should be similarly upset about those other aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2015)

GregP said:


> I should have said withstand, not sustain.
> 
> And I said it couldn't shoot, and I have been correct up until now. It is simply idiotic that we can't put a gun on a plane for 14+ years. The solution is simple. Put in the gun and work out the RAM gun cover issues while the pilots learn to shoot with armed aircraft. There is no excuse that makes an sense for not clearing it to shoot live ammo before now.
> 
> ...



Greg - once again I think your rant is misplaced. If this portion of the program is on schedule and on budget, its a non issue. Just because you think it's taken too long to get the gun operational doesn't mean squat - hell, I'm pissed off because it's taken so long to get a proton laser energizer particle beam cannon on the A-10!!!


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 30, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ...hell, I'm pissed off because it's taken so long to get a proton laser energizer particle beam cannon on the A-10!!!


Well Joe, hang in there! They're working on it! 

Turbulence-taming Turret: Lockheed Martin Prototype Expands Laser Performance at Jet Speeds · Lockheed Martin

U.S. Navy Tests Laser Weapons - US News

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2015)

Here's some more rumor mill...

Next Big Future: US Air Force Might Buy 72 new upgraded F-15 2040C or upgraded F-16 Fighter Jets

The U.S. Air Force “is struggling to afford 48 F-35s a year” for the first years of full-rate production *a senior Air Force officer told Aerospace Daily Defense Report.*

I like these articles that go on rumor and never names the actual person. Kind of funny that on the next line;
_
"Boeing is proposing an “F-15 2040C” series of upgrades that would extend the life of the fourth-generation F-15C air superiority fighter to complement the fifth-generation F-22 Raptor."_

More non-sense in the next paragraphs...

"Full rate-production is slated to begin in 2019 and the U.S. Air Force wants to buy 60 planes in 2020, and 80 F-35 per year after that. This year, the Air Force is to receive 28 F-35s, whereas in 2016 the number is slated to increase to 44. By 2038, the service wants to have 1763 F-35 aircraft in service. *However, this procurement schedule might not be financially feasible for the Air Force.*"

Again no references, no USAF or Pentagon officials verifying this.


----------



## Torch (Dec 5, 2015)

http://theaviationist.com/2015/12/04/first-italian-f-34-accepted-by-itaf/

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 10, 2015)

F-35: A Christmas Miracle for the Pentagon's Problem Child?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> F-35: A Christmas Miracle for the Pentagon's Problem Child?



"The blow was softened, however, the following month when the Pentagon received word that Canada will stand by its pledge to invest $150 million in the F-35 development, but will also hold a new fighter competition to examine alternatives."

Let's have our cake and eat it too! 

"On the technical side, F-35 engineers believe they have found a solution for the troubled ejection seat, which could kill pilots who weigh less than 136 pounds, Defense News reported. That solution has not been confirmed though."

Ahhh, the ole ejection seat problem that's from on several other aircraft using the same seat with no issues!


----------



## Token (Dec 11, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "On the technical side, F-35 engineers believe they have found a solution for the troubled ejection seat, which could kill pilots who weigh less than 136 pounds, Defense News reported. That solution has not been confirmed though."
> 
> Ahhh, the ole ejection seat problem that's from on several other aircraft using the same seat with no issues!



Hmmm...there are minimum height and weight requirements for pilots in all services. Since I am pretty sure the male weight requirement is something over 136 pounds (for USAF, not sure of the exact number but it was more than 136) this should be a non-problem....as long as they don't allow females to fly. DOH!

T!


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 12, 2015)

Just fit 'em with ballast. Simples.

(and, yes, I was only joking...a little).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 12, 2015)

Token said:


> Hmmm...there are minimum height and weight requirements for pilots in all services. Since I am pretty sure the male weight requirement is something over 136 pounds (for USAF, not sure of the exact number but it was more than 136) this should be a non-problem....as long as they don't allow females to fly. DOH!
> 
> T!



Got this from a career field website. I think the requirements are still the same;

_"Pilots have to meet the Air Force’s height, weight and physical conditioning requirements. They must be 64 to 77 inches tall when standing, and 34 to 40 inches tall when sitting. They must weigh *160 *to 231 pounds, depending on height. Depending on age, men cannot have more than 20 to 24 percent body fat, while women cannot have more than 28 to 32 percent body fat. Pilots also must be able to complete a minimum number of push-ups and sit-ups and finish a timed 1 ½-mile run."_


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 12, 2015)

Is that it, a mile and a half, I walk longer to my fridge!! 
In my Rangers days, we ran 3km, fired a salvo, another 3km fired a second salvo and then a third 3km and a final salvo, timed as well, with all the gear....surprised I got the gold medal for it, especially since my glasses kept steaming up....and I still have sore legs and catching my breath from it!!

I guess that's what you get, with an ex French Foreign Legion platoon leader...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 12, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Is that it, a mile and a half, I walk longer to my fridge!!
> In my Rangers days, we ran 3km, fired a salvo, another 3km fired a second salvo and then a third 3km and a final salvo, timed as well, with all the gear....surprised I got the gold medal for it, especially since my glasses kept steaming up....and I still have sore legs and catching my breath from it!!
> 
> I guess that's what you get, with an ex French Foreign Legion platoon leader...



 what they omitted that you have to do that mile and a half in a specified time.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 12, 2015)

I think Jan got off a little easy there...just imagine if the platoon leader was a cheerful USMC Gunny...


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 12, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> what they omitted that you have to do that mile and a half in a specified time.



Not at all young man, it was a time limit alright....only good thing was, that it was fresh, not freezing, it's fresh down to -25C, after that it's cold and below -40C, then it's freezing! 
Would like to see the UK handle a proper winter....on the other hand, maybe not! 



GrauGeist said:


> I think Jan got off a little easy there...just imagine if the platoon leader was a cheerful USMC Gunny...



Our platoon leader would've made a USMC Gunny look and sound like a Sunday school teacher, this one was, how should I put this nicely...._unique?_ 

Didn't even get a chance to get warm in our uniforms, before we were sent out on a week long march in the mountains, on the border to Norway....30km's a day, for a _week..._b*stards!

Wouldn't mind to be fit like that again! pmsl

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 15, 2015)

It isn't a rant, Joe, and it isn't misplaced. It's my opinion and I have it for several reasons. This is a discussion forum, right? I'm not happy with this program and you are, as far as I can see. I believe we're stuck with the F-35 and I hope it can be operated so as to be successful. It seems possible if we have the intelligence to do it. I'm less worried about it now that I know the low-g level is sustained turn, not airframe strength, and thanks for that.

Let's just say we all hope it lives up to the possible promise level. The gun still took too long to fit, unless we bought over 100 airplanes and never got them into a position where shooting the gun was on the test card. If we did that, then the people to slap are probably in the Air Force, and not working for the manufacturer.

Either way, you don't need 100+ airplanes to shoot the gun. 2 will do just fine, a test mule and a production-representative example for evaluation. Maybe 3. But we damned for sure don't need 100. If we did, we'd never have fielded a plane before in history. We certainly wouldn't have bought the B-2 if we needed 100 before seeing it's full potential. Or the B-1, F-15, F-16, etc. They bought the B-29 off the drawing board and it was in production before the first one flew.

The entire F-35 program has been riddled with poor decisions and I'm not the only one who thinks so or the program wouldn't be one of the sore spots in Military procurement and in Congress. So I'm in some good company with my doubts. The Generals who are touting it have to spout the company lime or they'll get reassigned or retired. I think we all know that.

Since it's so close to being operational, we'll know soon enough as I have pointed out before. Rough spots being what they are, I can allow we seem to over the worst part. Now we have to operate it correctly and achieve a successful program. I am with the people who want that outcome. We have too much money in it for me to really want it another way. I still don't and don't have to like the way we got here. It's water under the bridge now, but we shouldn't forget the issues we faced or we'll just do it again, possibly even worse, next time.

And that's precisely what I'm worried about ... the next one. This one has already cost more than was wise. We've all done a thing or two that was stupid and got away with it. The trick is not not do it again next time.


----------



## Torch (Dec 15, 2015)

Legacy, 5th-generation aircraft unite at Checkered Flag | Air Force Aerospace News at DefenceTalk

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2015)

GregP said:


> It isn't a rant, Joe, and it isn't misplaced. It's my opinion and I have it for several reasons. This is a discussion forum, right? I'm not happy with this program and you are, as far as I can see. I believe we're stuck with the F-35 and I hope it can be operated so as to be successful. It seems possible if we have the intelligence to do it. I'm less worried about it now that I know the low-g level is sustained turn, not airframe strength, and thanks for that.
> 
> Let's just say we all hope it lives up to the possible promise level. The gun still took too long to fit, unless we bought over 100 airplanes and never got them into a position where shooting the gun was on the test card. If we did that, then the people to slap are probably in the Air Force, and not working for the manufacturer.
> 
> ...


The fact is Greg is you are entitled to your opinions and I'll be the first to admit this program isn't perfect and neither was the development of the F-35's predecessors, but as stated I'll call you (or anyone for that matter) on media generated bullsh!t half truth and flat out lies, and it doesn't necessarily have to be about the F-35. We're not decision makers on this program and the development process is being done for a reason, like it or not and I could tell you those making decisions are a lot smarter than you and I. What is apparent is the total bullsh!t the press and detractors have come up with to demonize this aircraft. "Hot Fuel," ejection seats that won't support a 135 pound pilot, the F-35B burning up the tarmac and flight decks, the aircraft not being able to pull 9gs is just a few things that's been fed to the general public and those who can't grasp that what didn't work in 1970 can now work. People need to think outside the box and not hold on to outdated technology beliefs and nostalgia.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2015)

Torch said:


> Legacy, 5th-generation aircraft unite at Checkered Flag | Air Force Aerospace News at DefenceTalk



Saw that too - we'll know in a few weeks how it did.

In the mean time...

Revealed: Israel Wants the Lethal F-35B Stealth Jump-Jet | The National Interest Blog


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 15, 2015)

Time will soon tell, if it's a turkey or an eagle....  
I'm still waiting for the first jet developed, according to plans and on the money, maybe I missed it! pmsl...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> I'm still waiting for the first jet developed, according to plans and on the money, maybe I missed it! pmsl...



Me too...

Just read a portion of "Have Blue." Chapters 4 and 5 go into the issues with the F-117A. Tail redesign, fuel leaks, RAM coating failures, etc. I know for a fact that the F-117A had issues with it's landing gear supplier (Menasco) improperly heat treating some landing gear components. If the press knew some of these issues the F-117A would have never reached production.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2015)

For that matter, look into the development of the F-111...

The TFX project ruffled alot of feathers because it called for a joint project between the USAF and the USN, even though both wanted seperate aircraft. This fact doomed the project to infighting, arguing and all sorts of nonsense during it's entire development.

Then it was plagued by other problems, both paper and physical...causing delays, cost over-runs and a great deal of political posturing.

If that wasn't bad enough, when the F-111 finally took to the air, they discovered that the wing pivots suffered failures as well as a flaw in the horizontal stab, causing it to fail. This caused a serious sh!t storm, with people calling for congressional hearings and the usual angry mob rhetoric. It also halted the F-111's service for three years until the issues could be addressed.

However, once those problems were ironed out, it's service for well over 20 years was exceptional, even setting records in several cases.

Moral to the story here: it's always the same old story, just switch the aircraft's name and no one would notice

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> For that matter, look into the development of the F-111...
> 
> The TFX project ruffled alot of feathers because it called for a joint project between the USAF and the USN, even though both wanted seperate aircraft. This fact doomed the project to infighting, arguing and all sorts of nonsense during it's entire development.
> 
> ...



Spot on - the only thing I have to add to this is the fact that the F-111 went into service in 1967. Many people can't grasp the fact that we could make aircraft do things today that was deemed impossible 48 years ago and still believe that air combat, equipment and tactics haven't evolved since then. Call it stupidity, naivety, or a refusal to accept technology - I call it the "Flat Earth Society," with Pierre Sprey being the CEO!!!


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 15, 2015)

CEO seems such a bland title. I prefer "Grand Pontificator".

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2015)

lmao Joe!

There's actually people who believe we weren't smart enough to put men on the moon, because: we didn't have the technology, we would fry from the radiation, too hot, too cold, the Saturn couldn't possibly go that far (which it didn't, but it pushed them that far) and on and on and on. Therefore it's a fraud.

In regards to the F-111, yes, I should have mentioned it entered service in '67, suffered a series of catastrophic failures and was put on hold in '68 and resumed service three years later in '71 after the bugs were worked out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2015)

The media has made the F-35 look like that Lockheed built the thing on their own and then sold it to the DoD in the same manner as you would buy a car. What should have been done is the media, educating themselves about the nuts and bolt of the program and then questioning of the redundancy of flight testing, revealing that the majority of the cost over runs occurred with the approval of the government and that the whole concept of this aircraft derived from civil servants, not LMCO.

The F-117A was an unsolicited offering to the DoD that proved the stealth concept worked. The F-35 is 3 times the aircraft that the F-117A was, even with it's so-called performance liabilities, but again the media is there to sell stories and make the American public believe that air combat is exactly what was shown in the movie Top Gun.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Me too...
> 
> Just read a portion of "Have Blue." Chapters 4 and 5 go into the issues with the F-117A. Tail redesign, fuel leaks, RAM coating failures, etc.


The fuel leaks were due to the Merlin engines, they should have stuck with the Allison!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2015)

pbehn said:


> The fuel leaks were due to the Merlin engines, they should have stuck with the Allison!!!!!


But everyone knows it would have flown much faster with a Daimler-Benz!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 16, 2015)

Most of my opinions aren't bullshit and your job isn't to censor me as a moderator; it's to stop me from being uncivil, and I've tried not to be so. Otherwise, I am free to disagree with you ... in a civil manner. Doesn't mean either of us is right, but I'd lean towards you in a pinch out of experience with the F-35 program. Actually I HAVE. I don't quite feel so bad about it now as I did a month ago. I didn't buy any of the arguments you mentioned above except for the structural limits, that you have explained. Again, thanks for that. Nice to know. Placated on that score and happily so.

The matter of the gun is simple. If the electronics (including stealth) is falling behind, move that milestone back and the simpler ones forward. The gun should be VERY simple, perhaps except for the RAM door. In project management, PERT tasks are rearranged all the time to take advantage of slack time to move other tasks ahead with the eventual aim of bringing the project in on time and on budget if possible. If they aren't, someone is making mistakes. The gun should have been one of the easier nuts to crack.

The program was abysmal from a management standpoint. It may produce a decent aircraft anyway, but that is yet to be proved. We (U.S.A.) aren't the habit of fielding bad airplanes, so the F-35 may serve well and I admit that. I don't have to like how we got here and I don't. You've been involved and so probably know more about the airframe. I know way more about the actuators (issues a few years ago)/ lift fan (no real issues) and some of their ramifications. If the issues I DID know about have been fixed, they may do fine. If not we still may have a latent defect.

I'll assume they have been fixed and let that go.

That doesn't excuse a decade and more of publicly bad decisions to get us to this point. It means we finally may have gotten it under control and I can accept that. Perhaps you should accept that the program was and is fundamentally flawed in execution. That's what I hate ... bad management in the development stage. We had it in spades. Not because we had issues that needed to be solved ... that's engineering and is expected. It is because of how it was managed.

As a 25+ year department and project manager, I can't and don't approve of or forgive it. As a result, I would give serious thought to suing the manufacturer to recover some cost.

But ... as you so eloquently point out, I am not in charge. In fact, serious investigation MAY prove the departure from sanity was all caused by government meddling. They DO that.

If so, drop the case, clean house, and move on. If not, go for it. If the fault is about equally shared, let it go, chalk it up to the fates and consider it water under the bridge not to be repeated on my watch. Life happens.

I have no preconceptions about it at all; I dislike the way it happened; I am miffed at the expense for the results. Investigation may well prove your theory (primarily government meddling if I read you right) as well as mine (possible contractor mismanagement, and I DID say possible) and I can live with either result, really. Perhaps the manufacturer is blameless almost entirely. It would be nice to know one way or the other.

I don't have a vendetta with any manufacturer; I expect good management and good decision making when my money is involved ... most of the time. Sometimes it just goes wrong, and that is sometimes unavoidable. Sometimes it IS avoidable. The decisions MAY have BEEN good at the time. The press very certainly didn't paint it that way, not that they are all that believable on ANY subject including the weather. I simply have little other exposure to the insider F-35 facts after leaving Parker-Hannifin. I believe maybe you have. But one line answers with no background facts don't cut it with me or any decent manager. I want background data before I "go away."

Personally, I WOULD like to hear the STOVL version went supersonic and can regularly do so if desired ... and may well have missed it as I have been engaged in teaching new (to me) electronics courses for a college, so have little time for investigating it for now. We have a 3-semester electricity program and I just finished semester 2. Have to teach semester 3 starting in January and haven't really looked at Programmable Logic Controllers since 1990. Makes it, shall we say, interesting to say the least. I'll have a busy Christmas "off" time getting and staying ahead of the students.

Cheers, and Merry Christmas / Happy Hangover ... err ... Holidays.

I think I'll just bow out of this discussion since I seem to be the only reluctant participant. I STILL have concerns, but will stifle them and wait for some operational facts before returning except to read / troll. If the F-35 stubs it's toes in combat, you can bet on comments in here. If it doesn't, I'll be delighted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 16, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> However, once those problems were ironed out, it's service for well over 20 years was exceptional, even setting records in several cases.



I love the F-111. We nearly got a solid 40 years service out them!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Dec 16, 2015)

Moving right along ....First Japanese-built F-35 Begins Assembly

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2015)

GregP said:


> Most of my opinions aren't bullshit and your job isn't to censor me as a moderator; it's to stop me from being uncivil, and I've tried not to be so. Otherwise, I am free to disagree with you ... in a civil manner. Doesn't mean either of us is right, but I'd lean towards you in a pinch out of experience with the F-35 program. Actually I HAVE. I don't quite feel so bad about it now as I did a month ago. I didn't buy any of the arguments you mentioned above except for the structural limits, that you have explained. Again, thanks for that. Nice to know. Placated on that score and happily so.



Greg, for Christ's sakes, you keep saying the same thing over and over again and have provided little to back up your claims, with that said...



*I never censored your posts but called you on your bullsh!t. Now if you're going to be a f*#king baby, go play somewhere else!!!!*


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 16, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> But everyone knows it would have flown much faster with a Daimler-Benz!



Not as fast as it would've with a BMW!


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Not as fast as it would've with a BMW!


bahhh....radials are vastly inferior to liquid cooled engines!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> bahhh....radials are vastly inferior to liquid cooled engines!!



Only if they're from Pratt Whitney


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2015)

Torch said:


> Moving right along ....First Japanese-built F-35 Begins Assembly



A good chronology of Japan's F-35 purchase as well as other stuff.

Japan’s Next F-X Fighters: F-35 Wins Round 1


----------



## Greyman (Dec 20, 2015)

Year in Review - from Lockheed Martin:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npZGnStL6F0_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2016)

_"Physical

Pilots have to meet the Air Force’s height, weight and physical conditioning requirements. They must be 64 to 77 inches tall when standing, and 34 to 40 inches tall when sitting. *They must weigh 160 to 231 pounds*" _

Air Force Fighter Pilot Qualifications | Chron.com

Height Weight - airforce.com


_"Testing of the seat, built by UK company Martin-Baker, last August showed an “elevated” risk of injury for F-35 pilots weighing under 165 pounds, and an “unacceptable” risk for those under 136 pounds, according to the Air Force."_

F-35 Ejection Seat Fix Delayed to 2018; Pilot Restrictions Continue

Having worked on a USAF base since 2003 and meeting many fighter pilots, I could tell you I haven't met one under the noted weight/ height requirements, including women. 

And again, the same seat is in the T-6, T-38, Eurofighter and Rafale - NO ISSUES REPORTED THERE!!!!


----------



## GregP (Jan 16, 2016)

Regarding post 1062, I'd send a PM but don't know how in this new format that seems to be getting better by the hour. Not sure a "conversation" is the same thing. It might be public.

Sent email instead.

Cheers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 16, 2016)

GregP said:


> Regarding post 1062, I'd send a PM but don't know how in this new format that seems to be getting better by the hour. Not sure a "conversation" is the same thing. It might be public.
> 
> Sent email instead.
> 
> Cheers.


Greg, from what I can tell, "conversation" is the new language for Private Message.

I'm still trying to figure this mess out myself...


----------



## GregP (Jan 16, 2016)

Thought so, but didn't want my reply to go anywhere but the intended destination.

Thanks for your reply, Graugeist! You really SHOULD get over to Chino sometime on a Saturday. I'll show you around, buy you lunch, and we can talk.

But I know how far away it is ... maybe we could fly up and get you sometime, but it would have to be good VFR weather there and back. Not always the case. You're right at the limit for where the airlines are as fast as a Mooney 201.


----------



## Torch (Jan 16, 2016)

More on the ejection seat issue .JPO Accelerates Timeline for F-35 Ejection Seat Fix


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2016)

And regarding post 1062, if you don't have the balls to say something on here, then I suggest don't say it at all!!!!


----------



## GregP (Jan 19, 2016)

Saying it in language that you use in here to members usually gets people banned. I think not. I'd rather stay in the WWII forum, posting-wise, and just let it go. We'll only cancel the F-35 if Trump gets elected, and even I won't vote for him just for that result. We have more problems that that.

Out of curiosity, why are you continuing to bait me? I said I'd let it go and I won't take the "please ban me" bait with an acidic reply to give you a reason for it.

Can YOU let it go? One hopes so. I will not mention it again in here if you don't, even if the site owner asks. Consider it settled. Can we move forward without acrimony?

I won't ask anymore questions in here I see in Aviation Week & Space Technology or hear in the news, I promise. I'l stay mostly in WWII, where we all can verify it or it doesn't matter due to the time factor.

It would be nice to get a non-escalating reply, unless that's unreasonable?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2016)

Greg, I don't know if your memory is just short or you're having a comprehension issue, but I'm going to direct you here;

A few ground rules for the new folks

And specifically from that thread;

"The administrators and moderators run a fairly tight ship. We do let some banter go on for a bit, but when any one of us tells you to settle down, just do it. Do not pick a fight with any one of them, because they stand pretty united, and you WILL lose."

"Don't be thin-skinned."

I gave you a reply in your other post and you brought this up AGAIN! I am not going to tell you AGAIN to let it go, I hope I'm making this crystal clear!!!


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 6, 2016)

And here we go again: Still terrible: Pentagon releases new list of F-35 program issues

This latest article from Russian Trash...oops, I mean RT, is rehashing/regurgitating the same old garbage with a new spin and it's making the rounds in the media.

A few of my favorites from this "journalistic slurry":


> Now a new Pentagon report shows further issues that complicate *the ill-fated project*.





> Perhaps even more worrying is the fact that all versions of the F-35 had an ejection system that could kill pilots who weighed under 136 pounds.



And soon after RT posted this "latest" on the F-35, other "news" sites picked it up and ran with it, including Al-Jizzwad, which is another "trusted news source" that the ill-informed public slops at the trough for their information...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> And here we go again: Still terrible: Pentagon releases new list of F-35 program issues This latest article from Russian Trash...oops, I mean RT, is rehashing/regurgitating the same old garbage with a new spin and it's making the rounds in the media. A few of my favorites from this "journalistic slurry": And soon after RT posted this "latest" on the F-35, other "news" sites picked it up and ran with it, including Al-Jizzwad, which is another "trusted news source" that the ill-informed public slops at the trough for their information...



And Military.com picked up on the same ignorant trash! Brought up the friggin ejection seat non-issue, and of course every half-witted armchair general picks up on this trash and runs with it!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2016)

Which aircraft are most mission ready

Some good info about MC rates. The F-35 isn't listed here. But check this out...

F-35A cost and readiness data improves in 2015 as fleet grows...

*"The cost of operating the Lockheed Martin F-35A has come down 37.6% compared to last year and is now $17,000 cheaper to fly per hour than its fifth-generation cousin, the Lockheed F-22 Raptor."*







The F-35, despite the rubbish printed in the press, just keeps shutting up the nay-sayers! THE F-35A NOW HAS A HIGHER MC RATE THAN THE F-22!!!

_"The director of operational test and evaluation reported this week that F-35As located at Hill AFB maintain the highest aircraft availability rate, averaging 80% followed by F-35Cs at Eglin AFB at 79% — compared to the Lightning II fleet-wide average of 51%."_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2016)

Just a side not on all of this - sometimes the operator will establish an MC rate that is well below 100%, this would be your basic performance threashold. They may consider operations, aircraft maintenance and mission requirements, for example I think the B-2 is operated at a 50% MC rate on purpose. Where I work at many of our aircraft are only required to maintain a 75% MC rate although we frequently exceed 90%.


----------



## Torch (Feb 9, 2016)

Take a look at these fantastic air-to-air photographs of the F-35 during its first transatlantic crossing

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2016)

And the Italians crossed the Atlantic with their first F-35.

F-35 arrival at NAS Patuxent River after first transatlantic crossing B-roll and pilot interview


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 10, 2016)

Here's a cool video with an F-16 pilot talking about his move into the F-35

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## USAF SP VET 1972 1976 (Feb 18, 2016)

Pretty up close.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Mar 1, 2016)

Info from a Norwegian F-35 pilot....“Here’s what I’ve learned so far dogfighting in the F-35”: a JSF pilot’s first-hand account

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 1, 2016)

Aussie report into the status of the F-35 programme. Makes for interesting reading not least because of the balanced assessment of programme performance and remaining risks as they pertain to the RAAF:

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=13d32d90-5222-474b-a99d-9523fe223cff&subId=409757


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 1, 2016)

Torch said:


> Info from a Norwegian F-35 pilot....“Here’s what I’ve learned so far dogfighting in the F-35”: a JSF pilot’s first-hand account


A very informative and interesting review. This coming from an experienced F-16 driver, so he would know exactly how an F-16 would handle in a confrontation.

I also found his observations about the noise the F-35 makes during hard manouvers really interesting...something I hadn't thought about.

Thanks for sharing that link!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2016)

So much for the Pierre Sprey school for fighter assessment.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 1, 2016)

In the Aussie report, Sqn Ldr Andrew Jackson RAAF is quoted as saying that the F-35 performs better than a comparably loaded/equipped F/A-18. 

Of course the naysayers will claim that these military personnel are simply trotting out the party line...but I never experienced any pressure to make statements that were factually incorrect when I was in the Service. Indeed, when I worked on a major procurement effort, my analysis of flaws within the programme was very well received by my leadership chain. Ergo, I don't see Sqn Ldr Jackson putting his name to something that's factually incorrect.

Nice to see some of this stuff starting to emerge as the programme matures.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 1, 2016)

lol...the detractors get so entrenched in their convictions, they will use any tactic available to save face.

They'll first state that these pilots are "compensated shills on the government dole" and when that fails to hold up, will then exclaim that they are not actual people, but rather "made up" to "promote an agenda of the military industrial complex".

Of course, when that fails to hold up to the truth, they'll start cherry-picking, looking for any possible excuse to vindicate their cause...like the same nosewheel size happens to be identical to one used on a jet that crashed 10 years ago, the bulb in the landing lights were made in China, the camoflage color is the same shade as used on Hitler's staff car.

And when these last-ditch efforts come up short and it becomes clear they have nothing, they'll start hurling insults

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 1, 2016)

Or they hit the reset button. "But it's so expensive and we don't need it...blah, blah, blah".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Catch22 (Mar 1, 2016)

What I don't understand about a lot of the detractors within Canada is that they whine and complain about the money spent on the program (not the cost of the airframes themselves so much anymore since the cost has come way down), but we didn't spend all that money on the program. I can understand why a US taxpayer would be annoyed, but Canadians haven't been spending their money on it, so the cost of the program is irrelevant.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2016)

Catch22 said:


> What I don't understand about a lot of the detractors within Canada is that they whine and complain about the money spent on the program (not the cost of the airframes themselves so much anymore since the cost has come way down), but we didn't spend all that money on the program. I can understand why a US taxpayer would be annoyed, but Canadians haven't been spending their money on it, so the cost of the program is irrelevant.


All true - and what's missing is if Canada did buy the F-35, be rest assured that as a program partner, there would be offset in the form of placing subcontract work in Canada. It was done on the CF-18 and on the CP-140 program.


----------



## Token (Mar 1, 2016)

Lots of interesting information in that Australian report, and very current, at 26 Feb, 2016.

I particularly like the bit on Page 18, Annex A, "The United Sates (US) F-35 Program has identified an increased risk of neck injury to light weight pilots during low speed ejection. In August 2015, the US Services restricted F-35 pilots weighing less than 136 pounds (6s kilograms) from operating the aircraft. Currently, no F-35 pilots, including Australian pilots, are impacted by this restriction".

From the noise being made about this issue in some media you would have thought at least some pilots ended up not being able to fly.

T!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2016)

Token said:


> Lots of interesting information in that Australian report, and very current, at 26 Feb, 2016.
> 
> I particularly like the bit on Page 18, Annex A, "The United Sates (US) F-35 Program has identified an increased risk of neck injury to light weight pilots during low speed ejection. In August 2015, the US Services restricted F-35 pilots weighing less than 136 pounds (6s kilograms) from operating the aircraft. Currently, no F-35 pilots, including Australian pilots, are impacted by this restriction".
> 
> ...


As mentioned in earlier posts, the same seat (MB Mk 16) is in the T-6 Texan II, the T-38 (put in during upgrade PDM) and the Eurofighter, not a peep from the operators of those aircraft which in the case of the T-38 includes NASA and AETC.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 2, 2016)

Torch said:


> Info from a Norwegian F-35 pilot....“Here’s what I’ve learned so far dogfighting in the F-35”: a JSF pilot’s first-hand account



So...can we finally lay to rest this mistaken idea that the F-35 can't survive a close-in knife fight? People have demanded operator-driven comparisons to prove that the F-35 can/can't dogfight. Here we have an experienced F-16 driver saying he can be more aggressive and engage adversaries from a wider range of positions than is possible in the F-16. We also have the Australian report where an experienced F/A-18 pilot notes that, when comparably loaded and kitted out, the F-35 outperforms the F/A-18. 

To me, these reports mark "EndEx" for the "F-35 can't dogfight" argument. As others have noted, no doubt the criticisms will continue but they increasingly ring hollow as the true capabilities of this platform emerge. Now if they'd just get rid of the B-variant and deploy F-35Cs on the RN carriers, I'd be ecstatic!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Mar 2, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As mentioned in earlier posts, the same seat (MB Mk 16) is in the T-6 Texan II, the T-38 (put in during upgrade PDM) and the Eurofighter, not a peep from the operators of those aircraft which in the case of the T-38 includes NASA and AETC.



The issue is not the seat alone, but the seat in combination with the Gen 2 helmet for the F-35. Those other platforms share the seat, but not the helmet and seat combination. Apparently this issue is partially addressed in Gen 3 helmets, and later Gens are not supposed to be an issue.

T!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 2, 2016)

Token said:


> The issue is not the seat alone, but the seat in combination with the Gen 2 helmet for the F-35. Those other platforms share the seat, but not the helmet and seat combination. Apparently this issue is partially addressed in Gen 3 helmets, and later Gens are not supposed to be an issue.
> 
> T!


But of course that's never mentioned by most of the media


----------



## Torch (Mar 22, 2016)

What’s Left on the Air Force Checklist To Make F-35s Operational?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2016)

"We are more and more operationalizing the airplane, and getting the airplane into the hands of more and more airmen that are gaining a greater appreciation for *how lethal the airplane is, how survivable it is and some of the different missions that we can execute with the airplane*,” Harrigian said. “I think it’s healthy to have this discussion.”


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 23, 2016)

A thing that I d notice from some time now ...is very difficult to obtain balanced information about the F35, some sources say is a dollar eating disaster , other say is all great, i suppose the truth must be in the middle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2016)

Charles, you got it right, some of the early criticisms of this aircraft were made by the uninformed to sell press to the ignorant. The only way this aircraft will shake off all the bad press is to prove itself in combat.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 25, 2016)

Interesting comment from Lt Gen Bogdan in the AF Magazine Daily Report about the gap between perception and reality on the F-35 programme, and his plea for the press to accurately report this story:


*F-35: Adding Years to Your Life*
_
—John A. Tirpak

The F-35 performed well in 2015, but total program operating costs rose because the services extended the jet's expected service life, according to annual Pentagon numbers released Thursday. In base year 2012 dollars, procurement costs on the F-35 program in 2015 were down $7.5 billion. Research, development, test, and evaluation expenses were unchanged since the previous year, and operating and support costs were down between two and four percent across all F-35 variants, the system program office announced. However, the services have reduced annual operating hours of the F-35 from 300 to 250, according to system program office chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan. The change extended the F-35 fleet's operations by six years, to 2070, inflicting a net increase of $35 billion to the program's then-year dollar cost. He told reporters he couldn't say why the change, "which the program office has no control over," was made. Nevertheless, it indicates the services have "good confidence" in the longevity of the jet. However, it also "masked" the actual decrease in O&S costs this year, making it seem like the F-35 got more expensive, he said. Bogdan urged reporters to "tell the real story" on the program. After a grilling on Capitol Hill this week, he said, "I have never seen a larger gap between reality and what people believe" about the F-35. Bogdan also said the figures for 2070 are "completely meaningless to me," since any predictions of fuel and inflation costs even a year from now are pure fiction. "You will all be dead when that assumption plays out," he told reporters._


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 25, 2016)

buffnut453 said:


> ..._"I have never seen a larger gap between reality and what people believe"..._


Exactly!!


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 25, 2016)

Why would you lower the operating hours?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2016)

Lucky13 said:


> Why would you lower the operating hours?



A number of reasons - flight hour funding, attrition calculation (to include calculated MC rates), pilot availability, airframe availability to name a few. This is a planner's projection game and could increase or decrease in time.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 25, 2016)

Cheers buddy!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 25, 2016)

Lucky13 said:


> Why would you lower the operating hours?



As Joe said, the reasons are many and varied. Lower annual hours rates may increase the longevity of the platform. Equally, if you don't have enough maintainers (a current issue for the USAF) then you simply can't get enough aircraft airborne to meet higher flight hours goals. 

Joe's also correct that this is a forecasting numbers game to help USAF senior leadership and Congress budget for future operational needs. Equally, these plans are seldom implemented because something always comes up to throw them into disarray (eg another war, early retirement of another platform that saves costs and frees manpower etc etc etc).


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 26, 2016)

Cheers pal!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 14, 2016)

F-35's International Debut Will Be in the Netherlands

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Apr 14, 2016)

Ah finally. I'm still annoyed that we can only afford 37 of the aircraft. Seems like 1939 all over when we only had 36 of our only modern aircraft. 
I still believe no matter how good the jsf is, we had better bought more of a less capable aircraft. I believe the lessons of 1940 are still valid.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 15, 2016)

I think one difference is with NATO you would not fight alone.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 15, 2016)

With 37 aircraft we would be hardly fighting.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 15, 2016)

wouldn't fight alone with the EU either....I'd like to think!  

So....with the EU, is the NATO really necessary now?


----------



## Marcel (Apr 15, 2016)

Eh, don't know if they still will have us after the referendum last week...


----------



## Torch (Apr 20, 2016)

Progress..First Light F-35 Helmet Test A Success

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 20, 2016)

"... So....with the EU, is the NATO really necessary now?"

They don't see the EU defending anything ... except their bureacracy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Apr 27, 2016)

Maybe we will finally find out.....F-35 to Go Up Against A-10 in 'Common Sense' War Scenario Showdown | Military.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 27, 2016)

I am really looking forward to this.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 29, 2016)

Congress to Air Force: You Can't Retire the A-10 Until the F-35 Proves It's Better


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 29, 2016)

Changing tack slightly, this came out in this morning's AF daily news bulletin:

*Expecting less of ALIS*
_—John A. Tirpak_
The Air Force is looking to see if it really needs the F-35's Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) to do everything it was originally planned to do right away, Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski said Thursday. The system is "almost as challenging" as developing a fifth-generation fighter, and while the concepts involved in ALIS are all great, "we have to see … how much is enough, now that we see how challenging it is," she told reporters in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. Pawlikowski stopped short of saying USAF would relax its ALIS requirements—which might not even be possible, since it is a multi-service, multi-nation program. However, for purposes of initial service, USAF might think about "how much of the original vision is realistic" and "what's the real savings if I get it to do a little less?" she said. Closing in on initial operational capability, USAF may "adjust its expectations" for the system, she said. Asked to comment on whether the F-35 could fly missions without plugging into the internet—a question posed recently because of concerns about ALIS' cyber vulnerabilities—Pawlikowski made an analogy to a laptop computer. It can work without connecting to the internet, she said, but "sooner or later … there are things you want to buy" or upload, or to get updates, so a connection is ultimately inevitable.


In the same bulletin, and sticking with the non-airframe side of things:

*The Private F-35 Fix Is In Beyond 2020*
—_John A. Tirpak_
It'll cost the Air Force "tens of millions" per year out of hide to hire contractors to do F-35 maintenance through at least 2020, because the service doesn't have enough people to do the work, Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski said Thursday. While Congress "restored" some money to keep A-10s in service—after rejecting USAF's plan to retire the jet and transition A-10 maintainers to the F-35—"that took care of the flying hours [but] … would not have included money to do contract maintenance … So we've had to carve that out of all the other O&M [operations and maintenance]" accounts. The situation won't be fixed quickly, either, because even though USAF is looking to grow by several thousand airmen, it can't simply put new people to work on the F-35. The jet is too complex for newbies, and it takes "seven to nine years" to "grow" a maintainer to a high experience level, she said. Using contractors will "give ourselves time to build the organic workforce" needed, she said. Blue-suiters don't seem to be quitting to take higher-paying contractor jobs—yet—she said, but it's a concern. (Read the full report.)


There's a lot more to combat capability than just an airframe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 29, 2016)

buffnut453 said:


> *The Private F-35 Fix Is In Beyond 2020*
> —_John A. Tirpak_
> It'll cost the Air Force "tens of millions" per year out of hide to hire contractors to do F-35 maintenance through at least 2020, because the service doesn't have enough people to do the work, Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski said Thursday. While Congress "restored" some money to keep A-10s in service—after rejecting USAF's plan to retire the jet and transition A-10 maintainers to the F-35—"that took care of the flying hours [but] … would not have included money to do contract maintenance … So we've had to carve that out of all the other O&M [operations and maintenance]" accounts. The situation won't be fixed quickly, either, because even though USAF is looking to grow by several thousand airmen, it can't simply put new people to work on the F-35. The jet is too complex for newbies, and it takes "seven to nine years" to "grow" a maintainer to a high experience level, she said. Using contractors will "give ourselves time to build the organic workforce" needed, she said. Blue-suiters don't seem to be quitting to take higher-paying contractor jobs—yet—she said, but it's a concern. (Read the full report.)
> 
> ...



What's not said is just about every airframe in the USAF inventory at one time or another is maintained by civilian contractors. Line maintenance and some intermediate maintenance functions may be done by enlisted personnel, but some of the heavier maintenance and major modifications are done by civilians, either direct DoD employees or contractors.

For example;

B-1 receives upgrade at MROTC

and,

Tinker partners with Boeing on rare bomber fix

At Tinker, they do B-1, B-52 and KC-135 work (at least they did the last time I was there)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 29, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What's not said is just about every airframe in the USAF inventory at one time or another is maintained by civilian contractors. Line maintenance and some intermediate maintenance functions may be done by enlisted personnel, but some of the heavier maintenance and major modifications are done by civilians, either direct DoD employees or contractors.
> 
> For example;
> 
> ...



Yep...exactly correct. Many seem to think that all our aircraft are maintained purely by blue-suit personnel and that's simply not the case. The same is true in the UK where contractor staff provide all sorts of logistics, sustainment and maintenance services.

I posted the bulletins to illustrate that, while so many are focusing on the aeroplane, military capability is much broader, with far more challenges to manage. Simply ensuring you have the right numbers of military personnel is a tough nut to crack as budgets go up and down, almost with the seasons. There is a massive shortfall at present across the USAF for aircraft maintainers, which will impact operational effectiveness and, of course, costs. However, it's not a programmatic issue for the individual platform - it's a Service-wide challenge that needs to be addressed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (May 10, 2016)

A Day in the Life of an F-35 Test Pilot


----------



## buffnut453 (May 10, 2016)

Latest on the program - the Block 3i software has been cleared to reach IOC (Source: Air Force Magazine daily digest):

*Air Force's F-35 3i Software Cleared for IOC*

The F-35 Joint Program Office has completed development of the software the Air Force will use to declare initial operational capability of its Joint Strike Fighter variant. Glitches in an earlier version of the Block 3i software had caused the jet's radar to shut down once every four hours, but according to the May 9 release that announced the completed development, aircraft have flown more than 100 hours with the updated software, and its stability is three times greater than the original version's. The JPO is beginning to upgrade the F-35 fleet with the Block 3i software this week, according to the release. The Air Force is expected to declare IOC with the F-35A closer to Oct. 1, rather than the desired August 1, due to difficulties with the Autonomic Logistics Information System.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (May 11, 2016)

Watch the video of the F-35 flying in formation (at high AOA) with the Thunderbirds

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 11, 2016)

Excellent!

Very interesting sound it made when he pulled out, too.


----------



## Torch (May 12, 2016)

Air Force Pilots, Maintainers on F-35 Pros and Cons

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2016)

"For day-to-day operations, the airmen and Lockheed Martin contractors here generally agree ALIS has made their lives easier.

“It tells you everything you need to know instantly,” Vernon said. “ALIS reduces our troubleshooting drastically, it makes my job very easy.”

AF-3 crew chief Staff Sgt. Cody Patters, who previously worked on A-10s and F-16s, agreed, saying the F-35 is significantly easier to take care of than legacy systems. The only thing he does not like is the lag time as he waits for the computer to load a new task.

The system is also very user-friendly, Patters said.

“We could teach you in 15 minutes,” he told Defense News."

Although I'm a supporter of this aircraft, my only concern is how easy this aircraft would be to repair* "if"* it took any battle damage.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 16, 2016)

Very good video, beautiful bird, I hope they bolted some armor on the USAF F-35s if they plan to use them as ground strafers like the A-10.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2016)

Denmark just issued a glowing review of the F-35

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (May 19, 2016)

Next week we get our first f35. It will fly from Leeuwarden and from Vokel, close by.


----------



## Marcel (May 24, 2016)

First two F-35 jets landed on Leeuwarden Yesterday

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (May 24, 2016)

Good vid!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 24, 2016)

It is a sweet looking plane!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 13, 2016)

Nice...

Canadian F-35 contracts in peril if Ottawa buys elsewhere

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 13, 2016)

"...Nice..."

... and _only _our Canadian 'experts' and liberal politicians know how truly, deeply. absolutely flawed this AC really really is .... they'll send the troops to Hong Kong in _wool_ again ... and to Afghanistan in northern woodland camouflage again cause .... well ... they know what's best.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2016)

I'm guessing that Trudeau will come around when he realizes that most of the negative press about the F-35 is dated BS and when he also sees how much direct procurement and "offset" Canada will lose if Ottawa decides to go with another aircraft, especially if its not from the US. The other day I met a friend at happy hour (I'm in California) who is close to the program, a lot of progress has been made and continues to be made. His biggest chuckle (as he puts it) is some of the rumors of the F-22 line being started again. People are bitching about the F-35 cost, the F-22 will be over 200 mil a copy not including the cost to restart the production line!


----------



## Marcel (Jun 14, 2016)

You know Joe, as good as the F35 may be, the aircraft is so expensive that my country will only buy 35 of them. Given that 1/3rd will be in maitenance a any given time, some will stay in the US and a flight will be on oversea missions, that doesn't leave us much to defend our own country. And almost nothing as a reserve. As most of those oversea missions can easily be pulled off by less capable aircraft, I still wonder if the government was right in buying this aircraft. A lesser capable, but cheaper aircraft could have been bought in greater numbers, giving us more reserve. Apart from the fact that we now buy this in the US (no offence) while an aircraft like the Grippen would have been bought within our own economical EU zone. 
I am not opposed to the aircraft persee, fully aware of the capabillities of this aircraft, but giving our own situation, it just might not have been the best option to buy.

This weekend, during the airforce days at Leeuwarden, the two F35's were demo'ed. I think it has neve been as crowded on those days as this time. Almost 300000 people went there, giving the north of the country a trafic infarct of 2 days. Obviously, the aircraft is very popular here.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 14, 2016)

Why did they stop the production of the F-22?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 14, 2016)

"... I'm guessing that Trudeau will come around when he realizes that most of the negative press about the F-35 is dated BS".

$$$$'s_ do_ talk .... but he's delusional about so much stuff. I sent Marcel's F-35 arrival video link to my Liberal MP by email and suggested that perhaps the consortium of "early adopter" nations know something that Mr. T and his caucus don't. No soup for Trudeau!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 14, 2016)

If you guys don't want it, I'm sure there's a few companies down here that want the business!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 14, 2016)

Marcel said:


> You know Joe, as good as the F35 may be, the aircraft is so expensive that my country will only buy 35 of them. Given that 1/3rd will be in maitenance a any given time, some will stay in the US and a flight will be on oversea missions, that doesn't leave us much to defend our own country. And almost nothing as a reserve. As most of those oversea missions can easily be pulled off by less capable aircraft, I still wonder if the government was right in buying this aircraft. A lesser capable, but cheaper aircraft could have been bought in greater numbers, giving us more reserve. Apart from the fact that we now buy this in the US (no offence) while an aircraft like the Grippen would have been bought within our own economical EU zone.
> I am not opposed to the aircraft persee, fully aware of the capabillities of this aircraft, but giving our own situation, it just might not have been the best option to buy.
> 
> This weekend, during the airforce days at Leeuwarden, the two F35's were demo'ed. I think it has neve been as crowded on those days as this time. Almost 300000 people went there, giving the north of the country a trafic infarct of 2 days. Obviously, the aircraft is very popular here.



Good points Marcel, and I'm sure your leaders looked at that was well as what other NATO support would come your way in time of crisis. The 1/3 (a 66% MC rate) is a guess right now, personally I think your country will be operating closer to an 80% MC rate, but this is a guess until the aircraft is fully deployed and the supply system fully matured.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 14, 2016)

Lucky13 said:


> Why did they stop the production of the F-22?


Obama....

Cut the production short by about 100 aircraft


----------



## Greyman (Jun 14, 2016)

Marcel said:


> You know Joe, as good as the F35 may be, the aircraft is so expensive that my country will only buy 35 of them. Given that 1/3rd will be in maitenance a any given time, some will stay in the US and a flight will be on oversea missions, that doesn't leave us much to defend our own country. And almost nothing as a reserve. As most of those oversea missions can easily be pulled off by less capable aircraft, I still wonder if the government was right in buying this aircraft. A lesser capable, but cheaper aircraft could have been bought in greater numbers, giving us more reserve.



My thoughts keep going back to capability/survivability. 

Do we want 30 aircraft that can compete in a real fight - or 100 aircraft that are in deep trouble vs. a capable opponent.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 14, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Obama....
> 
> Cut the production short by about 100 aircraft



Cheers Joe!


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 14, 2016)

Latest article from Australian Aviation RE the RCAF and the Super Hornet/F35.
Canada to bridge fighter gap with interim Super Hornet acquisition? | Australian Aviation


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 14, 2016)

That's the way I would have gone in the first place. Canada does not need "stealth" to sneak up on a boat trying to smuggle human cargo in from Asia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jun 15, 2016)

Greyman said:


> My thoughts keep going back to capability/survivability.
> 
> Do we want 30 aircraft that can compete in a real fight - or 100 aircraft that are in deep trouble vs. a capable opponent.


The question is what they will be used for. How big is the chance that our superb F-35 aircraft will meet a worthy opponent? Its great capabilities will be wasted on bombing those Isis a'holes.

Don't get me wrong, the F-35 is the best aircraft we can buy. I just hope we'll either buy a cheap type or maintain and upgrade a couple of F16's for missions where we don't want to risk one of those few F-35's.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jun 15, 2016)

The aircraft does look impressive. This is the demo at Leeuwarden, this weekend:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2016)

Marcel said:


> The question is what they will be used for. How big is the chance that our superb F-35 aircraft will meet a worthy opponent? Its great capabilities will be wasted on bombing those Isis a'holes.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, the F-35 is the best aircraft we can buy. I just hope we'll either buy a cheap type or maintain and upgrade a couple of F16's for missions where we don't want to risk one of those few F-35's.



There might be a time when the F-16 is too risky to use _period_. People that scoff at 'stealth' blow my mind. As if it's a binary quality. Imagine scoffing at 'speed' or 'firepower' ...

I don't know much about modern threats and their countermeasures ... but I wonder if current fighters will just be glorified COIN aircraft in the near future with more advanced systems getting into the hands of more and more factions all the time.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLXjfYDdYUo#t=0m56s_


----------



## Marcel (Jun 15, 2016)

Greyman said:


> There might be a time when the F-16 is too risky to use _period_. People that scoff at 'stealth' blow my mind. As if it's a binary quality. Imagine scoffing at 'speed' or 'firepower' ...
> 
> I don't know much about modern threats and their countermeasures ... but I wonder if current fighters will just be glorified COIN aircraft in the near future with more advanced systems getting into the hands of more and more factions all the time.
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLXjfYDdYUo#t=0m56s_


On the other hand, the F-35 is only stealthy when it doesn't use the points on the wing, so only carying 2 bombs in the inner bay. When you use external points for carrying additional bombs, the advantage for stealth is gone. So stealth is not an issue in these missions. or you have to fly 3 times as often as the F-16, or have 3 times more aircraft to deliver the punch. As it will be now, we only have 3 times less F-35's as we have F-16's so the that won't work. External carying it should be then, making the F-35 about as vulnerable as the F-16, but much more expensive.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2016)

Marcel said:


> On the other hand, the F-35 is only stealthy when it doesn't use the points on the wing, so only carying 2 bombs in the inner bay. When you use external points for carrying additional bombs, the advantage for stealth is gone. So stealth is not an issue in these missions. or you have to fly 3 times as often as the F-16, or have 3 times more aircraft to deliver the punch. As it will be now, we only have 3 times less F-35's as we have F-16's so the that won't work. External carying it should be then, making the F-35 about as vulnerable as the F-16, but much more expensive.



I'm no expert but I'd bet money that that is a gross oversimplification of all the systems that make the F-35 more survivable than the F-16. The purpose of the F-35 with internal-only ordnance is to give you the option of hitting a target that the F-16 can't. 

F-35: two bombs.
F-16: zero bombs (read: zero F-16. No chance of penetrating modern air defence network)


----------



## Marcel (Jun 15, 2016)

Greyman said:


> I'm no expert but I'd bet money that that is a gross oversimplification of all the systems that make the F-35 more survivable than the F-16. The purpose of the F-35 with internal-only ordnance is to give you the option of hitting a target that the F-16 can't.
> 
> F-35: two bombs.
> F-16: zero bombs (read: zero F-16. No chance of penetrating modern air defence network)


But I am not talking about a modern air defence system. I am talking about the low-tech wars we have been fighting the last few decades. Yougoslavia, Afghanistan, Syria.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2016)

I think it would be very, very unwise to tailor one's armed forces towards battle with third-rate opponents. Especially when there is no guarantee the technology (threat) level of opponent X will stay at level Y forever.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 15, 2016)

Ah, explain the use of an A10 then.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2016)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 15, 2016)

A10, simple aircraft, no fancy stuff, but carries a big punch.
All depends on the mission: do you have to sneak in or do you want to deliver a big punch seems to be the question at the moment. Do you allow for losing an aircraft? How much use is stealth when doing close support? I have my doubts on that. It doesn't deliver a big punch when stealth and when not stealth it is no better than an upgraded F-16. Why risk a 100 milion euro aircraft while a much cheaper one could do the same?


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2016)

Well the A-10 is probably already a glorified COIN aircraft I'm afraid. It was demonstrated to be too vulnerable to the Iraqi air defences in _*1991*_ and pulled out in favour of the F-16.

EDIT: _Not quite the correct picture. The A-10 was pulled back from going up against the Republican Guard units - it still went after regular Iraqi units._

Buying all kinds of aircraft to suit all kinds of roles doesn't seem to be the reality in the near future. Especially for countries with small militaries.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2016)

There was some A-10 discussion way back on page 31 of this thread, but this was a bit I found interesting.

*Interview with Lieutenant General Charles A. Horner, Central Air Forces commander
June 1991*

*Q:* Did the war have any effect on the Air Force's view of the A-10?

*A:* No. People misread that. People were saying that airplanes are too sophisticated and that they wouldn't work in the desert, that you didn't need all this high technology, that simple and reliable was better, and all that.

Well, first of all, complex does not mean unreliable. We're finding that out. For example, you have a watch that uses transistors rather than a spring. It's infinitely more reliable than the windup watch that you had years ago. That's what we're finding in the airplanes.

Those people ... were always championing the A-10. As the A-10 reaches the end of its life cycle--and it's approaching that now--it's time to replace it, just like we replace every airplane, including, right now, some early versions of the F-16.

Since the line was discontinued, (the A-10's champions) want to build another A-10 of some kind. The point we were making was that we have F-16s that do the same job.

Then you come to people who have their own reasons-good reasons to them, but they don't necessarily compute to me-who want to hang onto the A-10 because of the gun. Well, the gun's an excellent weapon, but you'll find that most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs. So the idea that the gun is the absolute wonder of the world is not true.

*Q:* This conflict has shown that?

*A:* It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-10. The Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.

The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's (less formidable) front-line units. That's fine if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.

*Q:* At what point did you do that?

*A:* I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day, and I said, "I've had enough of this." It was when we really started to go after the Republican Guard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 15, 2016)

Marcel said:


> On the other hand, the F-35 is only stealthy when it doesn't use the points on the wing.



Not true - it is still stealthy but its RCS is increased and detectable on radar, but compare that RCS with an F-16 with wing stores and its a lot less


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 15, 2016)

Gentlemen, you have to understand with the F-35 you're looking at a whole new concept in combat system integration. Start thinking outside the box. We've been programed to believe that most if not all aerial combat is close in VR engagements or where you have to get right on top of a ground target to take it out with a precision strike. For the past 25 years there have been systems developed where you could place a bomb within feet of a target from 30 miles away, or take an aerial target out BVR from 40 miles away, but in many cases you had a 285 computer "doing the math" contained in a first generation stealth aircraft or within a platform loaded with bulky ECMs to blind the enemy. We are now loading up a small, fast combat aircraft with supercomputers capable of full scale battlefield integration rather than just concentrating on several targets within a limited combat situation, coupled with stealth capability. Also conceptualize smaller more lethal weapons that may use a fraction of explosive force that we are so accustomed to, and will have twice the killing power. I believe we are on the verge of seeing a combat aircraft that will finally negate "strength in numbers" providing our adversaries don't acquire similar or better technology.

Leave the nostalgic air warfare thinking behind - if this thing pans out it will be able to take out targets with greater precision than anything we've ever seen coupled with the ability to communicate and coordinate attacks with other aircraft as well as land and sea weapons systems.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Jun 15, 2016)

Marcel said:


> On the other hand, the F-35 is only stealthy when it doesn't use the points on the wing, so only carying 2 bombs in the inner bay. When you use external points for carrying additional bombs, the advantage for stealth is gone. So stealth is not an issue in these missions. or you have to fly 3 times as often as the F-16, or have 3 times more aircraft to deliver the punch. As it will be now, we only have 3 times less F-35's as we have F-16's so the that won't work. External carying it should be then, making the F-35 about as vulnerable as the F-16, but much more expensive.




A couple of points.


Even if what you are saying is 100% correct (and it’s not, more on that later) then the F-35 would deliver two types of capability. Stealthy when needed, or not stealthy if stealth is not required. One aircraft with two very distinctly different operating capabilities, in the past that was the task of two different airframes, with associated duplication of costs. Specifically lets compare that to the F-117 and the F-16 working together.


From one operational unit you could configure the aircraft as needed for the task at hand, the first set of aircraft on target in stealthy mode, internal weapons only, to reduce air defense systems, the following aircraft, from the same unit, with external stores to handle everything else.


But the rest of it is that your statement of “When you use external points for carrying additional bombs, the advantage for stealth is gone” is not quite correct.


Reduced RCS is always reduced RCS, and lessens detection range. RCS is the sum of the parts.


Way over simplified here, but the basics are something like this: If the external stores on a specific aircraft angle (example on the nose) increases the RCS by 30 dBsm then it is the sum of the aircraft plus stores that make up the total RCS. If the basic airframe is 20 dBsm and the stores add 30 dBsm then the total is 50 dBsm. But if the basic airframe is 3 dBsm and the stores are still the same 30 dBsm then the total is 33 dBsm. The advantage in reduced detection and survivability is still to the stealthier aircraft.


Lets talk about that example in real world application, what does it mean, even though those are obviously not real world numbers. The exemplar 17 dBsm reduction would reduce maximum detection range significantly, the detection of the reduced RCS aircraft, even with external stores, would happen at much less than half the range of the non-RCS reduce platform with the same external stores. There would also be a REAL advantage to active countermeasures used by or to assist the lower RCS platform. The J/S (jammer to signal) ratio of a self protection jammer would increase by 17 dB, or the ratio would improve by a factor of 50. The same would apply to stand off jamming in support of the strike mission, there would still be a 17 dB improvement in J/S. This is like the jammer being used having 50 times as much power as it does. That is pretty significant.


So the lower RCS platform, with external stores and when compared to a non-RCS reduced platform with the same external stores, will be detected later on an ingress, and any supportive active countermeasures will be significantly more affective.


But survivability is not just about getting to the target, it is also about getting away. Once the weapons are away the pylons still increase the platform RCS, but the stealthy bird is now much more stealthy than the aircraft designed without RCS reduction in mind.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 20, 2016)

I must have written the following (in varying forms) a dozen times now in different forums. 

The F-35 will be in service for at least 40 years, and so it was designed with the best estimates available of likely threats that it may have to face over that lifetime. Preparing any military force for low-intensity/COIN warfare is great if you can absolutely guarantee that those are the only adversaries you will face. Unfortunately we can't guarantee such a state of affairs given a resurgent Russia (from 2 perspectives: national politico-military AND commercial arms sales to any country that the West won't deal with) and China flexing its growing military muscle in the Pacific. It's a case of hope for the best but plan for the worst.

As to stealth or not stealth, that's clearly a mission-specific decision. Stealth will typically be required for pinpoint targets such as key IADS or C2 nodes where elimination of the target is vital to prosecution of the rest of the air campaign (perhaps involving non-stealthy platforms - think of punching a hole in a SA-10 defensive ring so that non-stealth platforms can attack a broad range of targets). That's an entirely different mission, requiring different tactics and weapon loads, than cab-rank CAS missions in low-threat environments where the aircraft must carry as many bombs as possible in order to maximize mission duration. As we are learning from current operations, one of the best platforms for the latter mission is the good ol' B-52. 

Now...to the question of F-16 vs F-35 load capacity, the F-16 can carry 17,000lb of external stores whereas the F-35 can carry 15,000lb external and 3,000lb internal for a total of 18,000lb. That doesn't seem like much of a delta...so no reason why the F-35s couldn't satisfy the same mission as today's F-16...but the F-35 can do things the F-16 could never accomplish, like deep strike into airspace defended by modern surface-to-air weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 22, 2016)

Some more good news for the F-35 programme - seems like the worst of the software issues have been mitigated, as demonstrated on this operational deployment to Mountain Home AFB:

F-35 Software Runs Smoothly During Mountain Home Deployment

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jun 22, 2016)

buffnut453 said:


> Some more good news for the F-35 programme - seems like the worst of the software issues have been mitigated, as demonstrated on this operational deployment to Mountain Home AFB:
> 
> F-35 Software Runs Smoothly During Mountain Home Deployment


----------



## Torch (Jun 22, 2016)

Sorry screwed up previous post but Lockheed Martin has officially unveiled Israel’s first F-35

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jun 27, 2016)

F-15E Strike Eagles unable to shoot down the F-35s in 8 dogfights during simulated deployment


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2016)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 27, 2016)

Not bad stats. I'd be interested to learn about the ROE and scenarios for the engagements with the F-15Es.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jun 29, 2016)

[Photos] Eurofighter Typhoons escort three British and American F-35Bs arriving in the UK for the first time

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jul 11, 2016)

F-35 pilot explains how he dominated dogfights against multiple A-4 aggressors. Every time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2016)

Vindication is near!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 12, 2016)

And the cost savings are coming!!!
DoD, Lockheed Eye F-35 Program Savings Through 2 Cost Reduction Strategies

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 12, 2016)

Maybe the name should be _*F-35 Vindicator*_

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2016)

Say what you will about the F-35, but it has the world's most advanced engine


----------



## Greyman (Jul 14, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Maybe the name should be _*F-35 Vindicator*_



It would have to be _Vindicator II_.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jul 14, 2016)

Hmmm a twin engine version? 80000lbs of thrust? yeeeeehaaa


----------



## jtm55 (Jul 15, 2016)

Torch said:


> Hmmm a twin engine version? 80000lbs of thrust? yeeeeehaaa



Hi All

Could the Air Frame handle that much Thrust?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Say what you will about the F-35, but it has the world's most advanced engine


Joe, did you catch the article/video at the bottom of the page, captioned: "America's $400 Billion Warplane Has Some Major Flaws"?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Joe, did you catch the article/video at the bottom of the page, captioned: "America's $400 Billion Warplane Has Some Major Flaws"?


Yep - one minute praise, the next minute condemnation!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 16, 2016)

Probably the best part of concept the design of the F35 is that is the only fifth/sixth generation fighter with a single engine, I dont understand why the ruskies with their tradition of budget jagers didnt produce any design yet to compite with the F35 with that same concept.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 18, 2016)

'Cos Russian combat aircraft need 2 engines so that, if one engine fails, the second can carry the aircraft to the scene of the crash?

Sorry...couldn't resist. In reality, I think Russian engines are improving, reliability-wise, compared to where they once were.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jul 18, 2016)

To install twin jets it would have to be totally redesigned, different concept, different plane


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 18, 2016)

buffnut453 said:


> 'Cos Russian combat aircraft need 2 engines so that, if one engine fails, the second can carry the aircraft to the scene of the crash?
> 
> Sorry...couldn't resist. In reality, I think Russian engines are improving, reliability-wise, compared to where they once were.



The russians were extremely succesful in the Cold war with the single engine MIG 21 and lesser degree with the Mig 23 , also in the export market. Considering the high price of the F35 probably they could sell some single engine competitor cheaper than the Mig-35, Su-30, Su-35 family. For most countries the new generation twin engine fighter is too costly to maintain.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 18, 2016)

True enough, Charles. But since then, the Russians have focused on twin-engined combat aircraft. There's no direct equivalent to the F-16, the nearest in capability terms being the MiG-29. Engine technology (lack of thrust, lack of reliability or both) has to be a factor in the decision-making that led to every modern Russian combat aircraft having 2 engines.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2016)

CharlesBronson said:


> The russians were extremely succesful in the Cold war with the single engine MIG 21 and lesser degree with the Mig 23 , also in the export market. Considering the high price of the F35 probably they could sell some single engine competitor cheaper than the Mig-35, Su-30, Su-35 family. For most countries the new generation twin engine fighter is too costly to maintain.


Most first generation jets had two engines because of low thrust-to-weight and reliability issues.

During the cold war, the U.S. had extremely powerful and successful single engine types.

As technology improved, it allowed more fuel efficient and light weight engines that have a tremendous thrust-to-weight ratios, so installing two engines in an airframe allows for increased performance over a single engine.

With the introduction of the F-35's engine, I think we're going to see a trend in single engined warplanes becoming mainstream once again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ww2restorer (Jul 19, 2016)

Whatever happened to the royalty dispute that was between Yak and the F35 programme on the vectoring thrust nozzle? Just interested


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> Whatever happened to the royalty dispute that was between Yak and the F35 programme on the vectoring thrust nozzle? Just interested


What dispute was that?


----------



## ww2restorer (Jul 20, 2016)

On the thrust vectoring nozzle design. The Yak 141 had the system in 1989 and is almost identical to the F35, I have some pics somewhere.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2016)

ww2restorer said:


> On the thrust vectoring nozzle design. The Yak 141 had the system in 1989 and is almost identical to the F35, I have some pics somewhere.


The main component of the F-35B's V/STOL ability is a engine powered lift fan. If you compare the thrust vectoring nozzle of both aircraft, they are very different in design.











Yak 141 
_"All three engines were controlled through an interlinked digital system, which was capable of controlling both engine start-up as well as modulating the thrust of all three engines during landing and hovering flight. Twin tandem reaction control jets were positioned at the wingtips, while a swiveling yaw jet was positioned under the nose"
_
F-35B

_"While the lift fan is providing downward thrust near the front of the aircraft, an amazing assembly called the "three-bearing swivel duct" produces another 20,000 pounds of downward thrust from the engine's exhaust at the rear of the aircraft, and controls the aircraft's pitch attitude.


The swivel duct is composed of several attached, overlapping pieces that swivel at angles to each other with the aid of ball bearings. It can direct the engine's exhaust air anywhere in a 105-degree continuous range from straight back through directly down to slightly forward. Pointed downwards, the duct looks like a stubby elephant's trunk."_


----------



## ww2restorer (Jul 20, 2016)

Thanks FlYboyj, I am very aware of the system.





this is the Yak141 Nozzle 1989.





this is the F35B nozzle, current day.






Comparison of the two aircraft. You can see clear the fan of the F35 and the thrust turbines of the Yak.

From my old memory, at the collapse of Russia in 1992, Yak was in negotiations with Northrop for the system and progressing well until the issue of royalties for the design surfaced. My original question was, what happened to this issue, apparently resolved.

_
_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2016)

I have many friends (including a former room mate) who was on the X-35 program and went on (briefly) to the F-35 production program. I'll ask them about Northrop's piece of the F-35 and see if it involves the nozzle.

Great info!


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 20, 2016)

Using wedge-shaped pieces of duct to alter angles is hardly an original concept, even in the 1980's.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 20, 2016)

The first successful vectored thrust aircraft was the Bell X-14 which first flew in 1957 and was used as a testbed for data and engine tests through 1981.


----------



## ww2restorer (Jul 21, 2016)

*Correction*!!! Should have stated Lockheed Martin. Sorry, my bad. Also found the below article on the net.

Published on Aug 2, 2013

The Yakovlev Yak-141 (NATO reporting name Freestyle), also known as the Yak-41, is a supersonic vertical takeoff/landing (VTOL) fighter aircraft designed by Yakovlev. It did not enter production.[1]

Following the announcement by the CIS on September 1991 that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev immediately entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program (a tactic they were also pursuing for development of the Yak-130 trainer, which was eventually developed in partnership with Aermacchi of Italy). Lockheed Martin, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the US Joint Strike Fighter program, quickly stepped forward, and with their assistance 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Air show in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed-Martin for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow air show. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed-Martin until June 1994.[1]

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, fifth generation multirole fighters under development to perform ground attack, reconnaissance, and air defense missions with stealth capability.[7][8] The F-35 has three main models; the F-35A is a conventional take off and landing variant, the F-35B is a short take-off and vertical-landing variant, and the F-35C is a carrier-based variant.

The F-35 is descended from the X-35, the product of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. It is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin. The F-35 took its first flight on 15 December 2006. The United States plans to buy 2,443 aircraft. The F-35 variants are intended to provide the bulk of its tactical airpower for the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy over the coming decades.

JSF development is being principally funded by the United States with additional funding from partners. The partner nations are either NATO members or close U.S. allies. The United Kingdom, Italy, Israel, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and Turkey are part of the development program; Japan has ordered the F-35, while Singapore may also equip their air force with the F-35


----------



## ww2restorer (Jul 21, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> Using wedge-shaped pieces of duct to alter angles is hardly an original concept, even in the 1980's.


Depends what you are doing and if it has a patient.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 21, 2016)

The Yak-141 nozzle certainly has a more agricultural look to it. Or is it steampunk...?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 21, 2016)

_Steampunk_ - had to look that one up.
Learn something new every day.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 29, 2016)

Recent test with the GAU-22/U gunpod.



Just for comparison: GAU-12/U gunpod test some 36 years ago.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2016)

The F-35 has hit another snag — this time because it is just too good

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 2, 2016)

That has to be worth at least two congressional investigations


----------



## Torch (Aug 3, 2016)

Air Force Declares F-35A Ready for Combat

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 4, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The F-35 has hit another snag — this time because it is just too good




Interesting , that could allow the F35 to fly high without fear of medium range missiles, in that way the could drop ordenance above the efective ceiling of tipical low intensity conflict flak like the 23 mmm twin mounting so fashionable with the islamic army.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2016)

CharlesBronson said:


> Interesting , that could allow the F35 to fly high without fear of medium range missiles, in that way the could drop ordenance above the efective ceiling of tipical low intensity conflict flak like the 23 mmm twin mounting so fashionable with the islamic army.


Exactly! This is an argument for replacing the A-10, many people can't grasp the leap in technology. There's a misconception that its ok to send pilots into combat with an aircraft that flies low and slow and can get down in the dirt - what's missing is he's in an aircraft DESIGNED to get shot at. If it was me I'd rather not go into combat knowing that I'm a collateral target, regardless of the tub of armor protecting my butt!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2016)

Dunno Joe...perhaps I am old school or maybe just not right in the head (or both?), but if I had a choice between the two, I'd opt for the A-10 because it's a beast and scours the earth at will.

This is not to say the F-35 is not a capable platform, but the A-10 was designed to violently tear things on the ground apart with extreme prejudice.

And I like that...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 5, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> ... it's a beast and scours the earth at will.



Only against a 2nd-rate (or worse) air defense.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2016)

Greyman said:


> Only against a 3rd-rate (or worse) air defense.


LMAO...yeah right...they took point-blank AA hits from soviet equipped Iraqi defenses and kept going.

Try again.


----------



## Greyman (Aug 5, 2016)

That's the point. They kept taking hits.

Modern air combat is in no way my 'thing' but the eye opener for me was the interview I was referring to back on posts 1158 and 1159 ... hopefully this link goes to the individual post:

some F35 info


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 5, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> LMAO...yeah right...they took point-blank AA hits from soviet equipped Iraqi defenses and kept going.
> 
> Try again.



But that's the whole point...the F-35 doesn't NEED to take hits because it isn't operating in the environment where AAA is a threat. It's at higher altitude, "unseen" by SAM radars (the quotes are deliberate because, as we all know, stealth doesn't make an aircraft invisible...just much harder to engage with radar) hitting heavily defended targets almost at will. At least that's the evidence from the Mountain Home deployment. 

I love the A-10. it's a great looking aircraft. Always enjoyed hearing them whistling overhead when I lived and worked near RAF Alconbury. However, they were designed against 70s era threats that have been eclipsed by more modern alternatives. Yes, the older AD weapons are still in some inventories but those will increasingly be retired and replaced. Looking at just MANPADS alone, the A-10 started with the SA-7 which wasn't that challenging to defeat...but nowadays it's the SA-18 with multiple detectors that's much harder to defeat. 

The goal today is not to go "tank plinking" but to take out operationally significant targets like C3 and air defences so that our ground and air forces have freedom of manoeuvre while any adversary scuttles around unable to operate cohesively as a major force package (and hence can be defeated piecemeal).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Dunno Joe...perhaps I am old school or maybe just not right in the head (or both?), but if I had a choice between the two, I'd opt for the A-10 because it's a beast and scours the earth at will.
> 
> This is not to say the F-35 is not a capable platform, but the A-10 was designed to violently tear things on the ground apart with extreme prejudice.
> 
> And I like that...



I like that too but I'd rather do it in an aircraft that has a design aspect NOT to take hits while it's completing its mission. I've been shot at once, there's nothing more unnerving like the sounds small arms peppering 2024 aluminum!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 5, 2016)

I like the concept of the F35, I guess the problem is many people want that this machine could fullfill the most spectacular role of the A-10, that is a powerful strafer, certainly the 25mm gun is enough but the ammo capacity is much smaller and the "low altitude battlefield survivality" (damn...that was a good one) is much less, but the F35 was never projected fro that aniway.
The *USAF does need* a supersonic, stealthy derivate of the A-10, but after the volume of money expended on F35 programm...is very dubious we will ever see a warplane like that.


----------



## Token (Aug 5, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Dunno Joe...perhaps I am old school or maybe just not right in the head (or both?), but if I had a choice between the two, I'd opt for the A-10 because it's a beast and scours the earth at will.
> 
> 
> This is not to say the F-35 is not a capable platform, but the A-10 was designed to violently tear things on the ground apart with extreme prejudice.




Don’t get me wrong, I love the A-10. I get to see them often, and they are one of my favorite aircraft…but that does not mean I am blind to the future.


As long as the A-10 is used in permissive combat airspace or in lightly contested combat airspace (as was primarily seen in Iraq / Afghanistan after the first week or so of the fight) then it will/has done fine. But it has never had to work in heavily contested combat airspace or in denied-access combat airspace, and in either of those it would take devastating losses.


Let me put it another way, although the A-10 has faced small arms, AAA, and uncoordinated, older generation, short range SAM opposition, it has never operated in an environment were it faced advanced short, medium, or long range SAMs, or SAMs and directed AAA, in an operating integrated air defense system. To the best of my knowledge the A-10 has never been shot at by anything more capable than the SA-13 or SA-18, the -13 is a system originally put in service in 1976 and the -18 went into service in 1981, and that only a few times. It has also never been in an environment with enemy aircraft attempting to interdict its CAS operations.


The F-35 may not be as good at shredding tanks with the gun (hard to imagine it could be) but short of that it can do any tasking the A-10 currently does and be MUCH more survivable in conditions the A-10 has, luckily, never had to face, but which are inevitable in any future symmetrical warfare situation.


The A-10 can’t live in the medium and up altitude world of short to medium range SAMs or large caliber directed AAA, so it has to be low to survive. This forces it into the world of MANPADS, smaller caliber AAA, and small arms. This means it is not a matter of it might get hit, but rather it WILL get hit, so it has to be able to take the punch and keep going.


When the low altitude threat is high the F-35 has the option of attacking at higher altitudes where the A-10 could not survive. The F-35 can select its operating parameters to try and ensure it will not get hit.


Personally, I would rather try and not get hit, than to rely on robust structure to protect me if my only option is to almost certainly get hit. The threat has evolved a lot in the last 45+ years since the A-10 was specified. Some of the systems of the A-10 have also evolved, but not enough by far. The F-35 is designed with the current and some projected threat environment in mind. Further, the F-35 is not tied to ONLY that role. Maybe, just maybe, it can’t do what the A-10 does as well as the A-10 does it, that remains to be seen, but it can absolutely do so much more that the A-10 community only wishes they could try … and live.


T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 5, 2016)

Good summary, T. 

The A-10s proponents will say that the grunts want the A-10 but that's often a safety blanket issue of needing to see your air support. I'm reminded of the soldiers coming back from Dunkirk who claimed the RAF abandoned them because they couldn't see the fierce air battles that were raging away from the beaches.

A-10 proponents will also cite the psychological effect and that's absolutely valid for certain missions within a permissive air threat environment. Unfortunately, there's nothing like buoying the enemy's morale like sending in aircraft that get shot down before they do any damage. I definitely feel the A-10 falls into this category.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2016)

Interesting summary, but let's not forget that the A-10's primary mission was to enter Soviet held territory and kill Soviet tanks.

Which means it was also designed with light, medium and advanced Soviet air defenses in mind.

It was also designed to work in conjunction with the modular battlefield component system, not as a stand-alone weapon platform.

It was introduced about the same time the F-15, F-16 and just a little ahead of the F-18 which are all "aging" but atill very formidible aircraft. Aircraft of which, were also built with Soviet countermeasures in mind.

During the Gulf War, the A-10 did encounter coordinated AA defenses ranging from small arms, to various grades of the SAM systems the Iraqi were equipped with. On the otherhand, we can also look at the list of fighter aircraft that were downed by Iraqi AA defenses, too. So arguing that the A-10 is overly vulnerable to AA doesn't hold much weight - especially if we go forward the the Kosovo action, where no A-10s were lost, but two fighters, an F-117 and an F-16, were each lost to an SA-3.


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 5, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting summary, but let's not forget that the A-10's primary mission was to enter Soviet held territory and kill Soviet tanks.
> 
> Which means it was also designed with light, medium and advanced Soviet air defenses in mind.
> 
> ...



Lots of generalizations in your post, Grau. Yes, A-10 was designed with light, medium and "advanced" Soviet air defences but the the capabilities of those defences were pretty basic compared to the modern battlespace. SA-7 is no match for SA-18. Similarly SA-6 relative to SA-11...and that's before we get into SA-10 or SA-20 territory. 

Yes, the A-10 was supposed to operate as part of a wider capability package but that package included aircraft like Wild Weasels and EF-111s, neither of which are still in service. SEAD is a far more challenging function in a modern battlespace, primarily because modern, long-range SAMs can out-reach HARMs and so make the launch platform highly vulnerable...unless the launch platform is a stealth aircraft.

F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 are still viable platforms but they typically operate in a very different environment from that envisaged for the A-10. Certainly the F-16 and F-15 pootle around at medium altitude, well out of AAA range. The only reason they've been able to do even that is because they haven't faced an adversary with modern capable SAMs. Put those same assets into a Ukraine/Russia environment and the tactical situation would be markedly different.

Per one of my earlier posts, the whole concept of "tank plinking" isn't really valid. For the most part, it's a waste of time and resources and is only embarked upon when there aren't any other more worthwhile targets to go after. Even then, existing assets can do the same job as the A-10 from higher altitude. The A-10's much-vaunted gun, while impressive, isn't particularly useful against modern armour. The main anti-armour weapon today is Maverick which can be launched from many airborne platforms.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2016)

Token said:


> Personally, I would rather try and not get hit, than to rely on robust structure to protect me if my only option is to almost certainly get hit.



I think this sums it up!


----------



## Token (Aug 5, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting summary, but let's not forget that the A-10's primary mission was to enter Soviet held territory and kill Soviet tanks.




I think it was more envisioned that it would be engaging those tanks at the forward edge of the battle space, rather than truly Soviet held territory with prepared air defenses in place. Remember what the perceived threat of the day was, what the NATO forces were preparing for, thousands of Warsaw Pact tanks rolling across the Iron Curtain into Western Europe. A fight on the move, until the speed bumps could slow the advance, and Operation Reforger could marry troops up to prepositioned equipment to kill the Soviet advance after they had run down troops and supplies.


What is the difference? The AD systems it would face would be mobile, short to medium range, systems that were designed to keep up with or slightly behind the tanks. While the systems were capable, the integration of the AD effort would be minimal.




GrauGeist said:


> Which means it was also designed with light, medium and advanced Soviet air defenses in mind.




I would agree with the exception of the "advanced" systems. The A-10A originally did not have a great suite of equipment to counter any AD systems (this was later partially corrected, never a "great" suite, but eventually not too bad). For the first 5 years of its life it had no really affective self protection jammers that could be used on the line and had limited RAW gear. The original ALR-69 was reasonably capable, for the day, but the installation on the A-10A had issues. 


The A-10A had no MAWS to indicate to the pilot he was being engaged by an IR guided missile. Its only countermeasures with regards to MANPADS and SA-9/13 class weapons were the Mod 1 Mk 0 pilots eyeball. See the launch/missile, maneuver, deploy chaff/flares. It worked OK for forward quarter encounters...not so much for tail shots.


When it was specified the A-10 really had no need for a lot of fancy gear to defeat AD systems. The updated and modified spec that eventually became the A-10 went out in 1970, based on original specs from a couple years earlier. The Soviets did NOT have quick reaction mobile RF SAMS, like the SA-8, in use yet. The SA-8 entered service in 1971, although not in numbers for a few years. So the only missile threats the A-10 was going to face (at the time the spec was written) at the front was SA-7 and possibly SA-6. Of course there was an advanced RF guided mobile gun system, the ZSU-23-4. Everything else it was probably going to face at that time was direct fire, visually directed, weapons.


The "medium" and "advanced" Soviet AD systems would be well to the rear of the fight. Even the SA-6, being thin skinned, would be several km, or more, behind the tanks the A-10 was attacking.


The techniques the A-10 was originally expected to use for RF threats were pretty simple. It was low and maneuverable, so the exposure time for RF threats was short. RF threats, particularly Soviet systems designed in the 1960's, were very manual in nature. An RF threat had to find the target (acquire), establish a track (track), and get a missile off (engage). Each of these steps can take several seconds, with the acquisition taking the longest. Over the target, engage, off the target, before the AD systems can get a lock. With such a flight profile if they get a shot at you it will likely be on the outbound. So as you roll in on the target you punch the ALE-40 into automatic and chaff and flares are dispensed based on the timing selected. And you kill the AD systems you find on the early passes, because the tanks, BMPs, BTRs, troops, etc, have a much harder time hurting you.


The SA-7 could NOT shoot you in the face, it had to see your tailpipes. By the time the A-10 was in full production the SA-14, with a forward aspect capability, was in use...but the A-10 still had nothing for it other than the same thing it planned for the SA-7.


The SA-6 was well behind the line, and had limited possibility to engage something low over the line.


The ZSU-23-4 Shilka was as likely to be optically aimed as RF tracking, particularly so if the fight was on the move.


And other than verbal queuing none of these systems would be working in any "integrated" way.




GrauGeist said:


> It was also designed to work in conjunction with the modular battlefield component system, not as a stand-alone weapon platform.




Yes, it needed the other aircraft to support it. It was easy meat for fighters, so there had to be some suppression of enemy fighters. The afore mentioned SA-6 would be killed by SEAD aircraft, like the Wild Weasel.


But then no one fights in a vacuum. Lets look forward to a notionary time after the A-10 has been retired, and the F-35 has picked up some of its tasking. F-35's configured for SEAD can kill the SAMS, F-35's and F-22's on CAP can keep the enemy air off the CAS configured F-35's backs. And CAS F-35's working with attack helos can kill the forces on the ground.




GrauGeist said:


> It was introduced about the same time the F-15, F-16 and just a little ahead of the F-18 which are all "aging" but atill very formidible aircraft. Aircraft of which, were also built with Soviet countermeasures in mind.




But all these other aircraft were envisioned from day one to have to stay alive in an advanced air defense environment, and had at least a smattering of the gear on board to do it, if for no other reason than the Air Intercept radars of the fighters they would face had to be handled/detected similarly to the ground based air defense systems. Going to the Notch on a PD radar works the same, be that radar airborne or ground based, and you have to know the same basic information, no matter the source of that radar. So from a hardware aspect the same equipment that helps defend you in Air to Air also can help you in SAM defended air space. But also all of these platforms would be up in the envelope of the SA-2, SA-3, SA-4, SA-5, and SA-6, from the day the first spec for those aircraft was written.


Ideally someone should have already killed the SA-2/3/4/5/6/11/17 before the A-10 is in the area. Even today, if the A-10 is facing an SA-10/20, someone already screwed the pooch. 


And then there is the difference in job today from 1970. Today the A-10, close to the ground and over the tanks, has to deal with the SA-8, SA-15, 2S6, SA-16/18/24, etc. Threats that have advanced a long way since the A-10 was first fielded, categories of threats that did not exist when the A-10 was proposed.





GrauGeist said:


> During the Gulf War, the A-10 did encounter coordinated AA defenses ranging from small arms, to various grades of the SAM systems the Iraqi were equipped with. On the otherhand, we can also look at the list of fighter aircraft that were downed by Iraqi AA defenses, too. So arguing that the A-10 is overly vulnerable to AA doesn't hold much weight - especially if we go forward the the Kosovo action, where no A-10s were lost, but two fighters, an F-117 and an F-16, were each lost to an SA-3.




I would argue that after the first 2 days of the fight there was no modern Air Defense system in the Gulf War. First remember it was 25 years ago, and although probably one of the top 10 AD zones in the World then it was not really modern by todays standards. And then look at the course of events, other platforms killed the C^2 nodes before the A-10 ever went into those kinds of areas, killing all but local coordination. Sure, the A-10 did face opposition, but not very "coordinated", other than at a local, and probably verbal, level.


The only comment I can really make about losses during OAF is that the A-10's flew a fraction of the sorties that the other aircraft did in zones or envelopes covered by SAMS, and for the F-117 and F-16 losses, even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut.


Regardless, I don't really think that events of 25 and 17 years ago supply an indicator of how the A-10 would fair today.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 6, 2016)

If its any interest the USAAF has started the process to replace the A10 with a new aircraft designed to do the job, not using the F35 or any other aircraft as the long term solution.


----------



## Token (Aug 6, 2016)

Glider said:


> If its any interest the USAAF has started the process to replace the A10 with a new aircraft designed to do the job, not using the F35 or any other aircraft as the long term solution.



They have been looking for several years at aircraft like the A-29 / Super Tucano or the AT-6 to fill portions of this role, in fact at one time they placed a contract for 100 aircraft, but that got killed. Further, the A-X2 program would be based on a new design aircraft, instead of repurposing an existing airframe. I really think they are going to have problems getting that funded.

The existing aircraft approach would only fill part of the need, and would require an F-35/F-18/mystery aircraft combination to completely cover the tasking. The A-X2 program might actually replace the A-10 with a capable, modern, survivable aircraft...if it ever happens.

T!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2016)

And in the mean time...
Here's what pilots who've flown the F-35 have to say about the most expensive weapon's project in history

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 6, 2016)

Excellent article on the A-10/A-X2 subject:
(my apologies if this has already been posted)
It’s Not About the Airplane: Envisioning the A-X2

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 6, 2016)

Very interesting article you linked, Flyboyj - not necessarily the piggy-backing businessinsider.com blog post - but the actual PDF it's based on. I downloaded and attached it off of scribd to save everyone else the trouble.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 6, 2016)

Lockheed promo video on becoming operational.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ybNtp2Wlgw_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 10, 2016)

Ok, Lockheed posted a video for the US Marines too. 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2Ou_1VGbxQ_


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 11, 2016)

Maybe soon we'll get to see Arnold Schwarzenegger attack a skyscraper with it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2016)

From an internal AF Source;

The current acceptable Mission Capable Rate (MC) established for the current USAF F-35 fleet operated under AETC (Air Education Training Command) is 60%. Right now the current average is 54.5%. The two bases I have data from is Luke and Eglin. The Eglin F-35s are running 41.2 MC, the Luke birds are running 60.6. Again, this is data from training units so I would expect the MC rates to be on the low side. 

In comparison, F-16s under AETC operate between 79-83% with MC standard at 78%


----------



## aurora-7 (Aug 11, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And in the mean time...
> Here's what pilots who've flown the F-35 have to say about the most expensive weapon's project in history



It made an interesting comparison between the F-35 and F-22. I hadn't realized the F-35 is apparently more robust in its actual 'skin' noting:

"The skin for the F-35 is way ahead of that. You don't have to park these aircraft in hangars and you could even try and take your heel and dig it into the skin of the F-35 and it won't harm the plane."


----------



## Torch (Aug 14, 2016)

Cool little video........Take a look at the hovering F-35B through a high definition thermal imager

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 16, 2016)

AIM-9X missile tests : USAF test fires AIM-9X Block I missile from F-35A aircraft

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Aug 22, 2016)

Nice pics and video.We have been aboard USS George Washington during F-35C’s latest carrier trials

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 22, 2016)

I love a comment from the piece...

*"This is a bigger jump than the 1930's mono-wing was over the biplane!"*

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Sep 28, 2016)

*Japan Rollout*

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Sep 29, 2016)

A good news. Thanks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 30, 2016)

A little fly by today at work

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Oct 9, 2016)

Interesting promo video from Lockheed:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Oct 25, 2016)




----------



## gumbyk (Nov 22, 2016)

For those decrying its payload capabilities....
The F-35B Just Got A Lot Deadlier



> Imagine you’re a radar operator in a country that has just declared war on the United States. Your country has been moving missiles and radars around on the ground, hoping to dodge American satellite cameras before you can get your shots off. You hear a whoosh overhead, a squadron of F-35s electronically surveying the landscape for appropriate targets to take out, and behind them, huge SM-6 missiles are flying at supersonic speeds to hit those targets. The F-35 has become a sort of fighter bomber hybrid.
> 
> “Aegis cruisers bring a weapons payload that you just couldn’t fit on an airplane. We’re talking about dozens and dozens of Standard Missiles, SM-6s, that can be targeted by airborne platforms at a much longer distance,” said Col. George “Sack” Rowell.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 22, 2016)

And Canada has just announced it's buying 18 SuperHornets as an 'interim' solution ... but is committed to staying in the F-35 development program.


----------



## Crimea_River (Nov 22, 2016)

My question is a solution to what? A solution to the inability to make up their mind?


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 22, 2016)

According to the BBC, the Canadian government has NOT announced it's buying F/A-18E/F SuperHornets. What it has announced is the start of discussions with the US Govt and Boeing on the potential to buy those aircraft as an interim gap filler because the current Canadian F/A-18 fleet is unable to meet NATO and national defence commitments. Assuming the procurement does proceed, there will be a 5-year procurement process starting in 2017 to identify the final replacement for the F/A-18 fleet, with F-35 being one of the contenders...although not sure how that will play out given Canada's commitment to the F-35 programme.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 23, 2016)

"....A solution to the inability to make up their mind?"

Exactly that ....

So Buffnut _what_ the BBC has reported is "... the start of discussions with the US Gov't and Boeing on the potential to buy those aircraft as an interim gap filler because" it, the Liberal gov't, can't make up its mind.

The BBC report is splitting hairs. _The _story is that in the recent Federal election the Liberals committed to canceling the F-35 for a cheaper solution. There not being a "cheaper solution" the Liberals are faced with a 180 degree turn on the F-35 -- it's proven its worth already with NATO allies. They can't pull this policy switcheroo off until _after_ they win another mandate .... so they will spend billions _now _to avoid breaking an election promise that no one asked them to make in the first place. 

That's politics at its crudest IMO, and the men and women who defend Canada have to live and die with this Sh*t 'leadership'


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 23, 2016)

michaelmaltby said:


> "....A solution to the inability to make up their mind?"
> 
> Exactly that ....
> 
> ...



They were elected with this promise, and you're complaining that they are keeping it? Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, they are doing what they said they'd do. Usually the complaint is that politicians don't do what they promise, I guess they can't win.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 23, 2016)

"...they are doing what they said they'd do"
They promised a competition - a fly-off - and a transparent process to determine the appropriate choice before purchase .... buying on impulse to avoid political embarrassment is hardly the promise that they promised to keep. But if it makes you happy ..... whatever.


----------



## Crimea_River (Nov 23, 2016)

They will buy the Superhornet, and now that they've tipped their hand to say it will be sole sourced, without yet talking dollars, you can imagine how good a deal we're going to get on those.

My point is why the F!ck it takes 5 years, starting NEXT year, in addition to all the foot-dragging that has already occurred, to identify which of TWO aircraft we will the START to buy! It's ridiculous!!!!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Nov 23, 2016)

Crimea_River said:


> They will buy the Superhornet, and now that they've tipped their hand to say it will be sole sourced, without yet talking dollars, you can imagine how good a deal we're going to get on those.
> 
> My point is why the F!ck it takes 5 years, starting NEXT year, in addition to all the foot-dragging that has already occurred, to identify which of TWO aircraft we will the START to buy! It's ridiculous!!!!


I have to agree but it happens every time, no matter what you are buying. In the first Gulf War by the time the UK troops had desert boots the war was nearly over.
However given their head things can happen. During the Falklands the first Sea King AEW prototype was flown from a standing start in an almost stupid time if memory serves me right three or four months.


----------



## Crimea_River (Nov 23, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> They were elected with this promise, and you're complaining that they are keeping it? Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, they are doing what they said they'd do. Usually the complaint is that politicians don't do what they promise, I guess they can't win.



A government gets elected after making hundreds of promises. That doesn't mean that an entire country agrees with each of those promises just because they got elected. Not even those who voted for them could possible agree with every promise.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Nov 23, 2016)

Glider said:


> I During the Falklands the first Sea King AEW prototype was flown from a standing start in an almost stupid time if memory serves me right three or four months.



Don't get me started on Sea Kings!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 23, 2016)

Lockheed's new video really seems to be nudging a certain country ...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 24, 2016)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 24, 2016)

The bigger picture of whats being missed by a Canadian procurement is how much offset work will Canada receive by procuring F-35s. It's obvious the Superhornet will be cheaper (upwards to 30 mil a copy) but how much of that production "pie" will be offered to Canada and how many years will it produce Canadian jobs? Canada is and maybe now "was" a partner on an aircraft that could see over 3000 units produced world wide - is the Trudeau government willing to give that up on the premise of saving money on the short term???

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 25, 2016)

_Two_ stories this morning .... 

Trudeau government to contribute another $36 million to F-35 fighter jet program

Good, and:
Liberals order 235 military personnel, bureaucrats to take fighter jet details to the grave

WTF?


----------



## Old Wizard (Nov 25, 2016)

By now, no one wonders why I hate politicians.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 25, 2016)

Just follow the RAAF's lead - buy both!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 25, 2016)

I don't disagree .... the RAAF has a_ strategy_ and have acquired the wild weasel version of the SuperHornet F-18 which I think will be a very useful asset for the F-18s in the mix.


----------



## Greyman (Nov 27, 2016)

Very interesting interview here:

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Nov 28, 2016)

Israeli Government Approves Purchase of 17 more F-35s bringing the total to 50 stealth jets

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 1, 2016)




----------



## Old Wizard (Dec 1, 2016)




----------



## Torch (Dec 5, 2016)

Check Out This Photo of an F-35 Thundering Through The “Star Wars” Canyon With Visible Shock Waves


----------



## Torch (Dec 8, 2016)

Four of the most experienced USMC F-35B pilots speak about their aircraft. And they say it’s exceptional.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 12, 2016)

And the dance continues:

Lockheed Martin shares suffer after Trump F-35 tweet - BBC News


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 12, 2016)

buffnut453 said:


> And the dance continues:
> 
> Lockheed Martin shares suffer after Trump F-35 tweet - BBC News

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 12, 2016)

Wouldn't mind the tweeting so much if the info imparted was even remotely accurate - maybe a bit more "ready" and "aim" before the "fire" (or should that be "tweet"....then again, "ready, aim...tweet" just doesn't have the right ring to it).

While it's fair to say the F-35 program has suffered from cost control issues in the past, I don't think that's the case today, indeed expenditure seems to be under pretty tight control these days (from my layperson's perspective). Unfortunately, this will likely launch another round of bad news stories that rehash outdated and/or incorrect info.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Dec 12, 2016)

Israel just got their first two.


----------



## aurora-7 (Dec 13, 2016)

He tweets like it's a reflex and he's also shown that he'll back away from previous statements. It's possible when it's 'explained' to him what the F-35 means in terms of jobs and a military requirement he'll avoid pursuing any program cuts.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 13, 2016)

.... it's Trump 'declaring'himself .... _policy_ will be pragmatic. He ain't a fool. The F-35 programing is/has proven itself. Most telling is how the F-35 _enhances_ allied F-15s/16s/18s etc. In market-speak the F-35 adds value ..... language Mr. Trump understands .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2016)

Once "Mad Dog" sits is ass down and tells him to STFU, he'll see the light! I don't want to get political here but the man's mouth is nuclear powered.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Dec 13, 2016)

Yup, that is why I was hoping he would surround himself with good people, Not saying anymore..


----------



## Torch (Dec 16, 2016)

Italy has become the first country to operate the F-35 outside of the U.S.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jan 26, 2017)

U.S. F-35 Update: F-35A to Red Flag, Navy F-35Cs Experience Problems, Marine F-35B Leads

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 26, 2017)

Very interesting, thanks for posting that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2017)

Torch said:


> U.S. F-35 Update: F-35A to Red Flag, Navy F-35Cs Experience Problems, Marine F-35B Leads



Amazing that the F-35B is doing so well, I would have thought that it would have been the real problem child. IMO the issues with the F-35C are fixable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2017)

Its also worth noting that the F35 has already begun integration testing for the RN's new carriers based on a land based ramp which is of the same configeration as the carriers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Feb 6, 2017)

F-35’s kill ratio with Aggressors stands at 15:1 during Red Flag 17-1 (most probably thanks to the supporting F-22…)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2017)

"They have not lost a single sortie to a maintenance issue and have a *92 percent mission-capable rate*, said 1st Lt. Devin Ferguson, assistant officer in charge of the 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit. Legacy aircraft average 70 to 85 percent mission-capable, according to the U.S. Air Force."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 6, 2017)

I'm really confused by the heading to that article. Clearly there are questions about how the kill ratio was calculated but that's a long way from "most probably thanks to the supporting F-22". The article suggests that the ratio may be a team score with F-22s providing OCA while the F-35s are in a ground attack role ("the F-22s take care of the aggressors whilst the F-35s slip undetected through the surface-to-air defenses until it reaches the position to drop munitions at the target"). Then, a couple of paragraphs later on, the article quotes Lt Col Watkins, 34th FS/CC saying "“The first day we were here, we flew defensive counter-air and we didn’t lose a single friendly aircraft,” Now, last time I checked, one didn't have escorts when flying DCA missions. Am I the only one picking up (yet again) the negative bias in this reporting?


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 6, 2017)

Red Flag debrief for the press...if anyone's interested:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm really confused by the heading to that article. Clearly there are questions about how the kill ratio was calculated but that's a long way from "most probably thanks to the supporting F-22". The article suggests that the ratio may be a team score with F-22s providing OCA while the F-35s are in a ground attack role ("the F-22s take care of the aggressors whilst the F-35s slip undetected through the surface-to-air defenses until it reaches the position to drop munitions at the target"). Then, a couple of paragraphs later on, the article quotes Lt Col Watkins, 34th FS/CC saying "“The first day we were here, we flew defensive counter-air and we didn’t lose a single friendly aircraft,” Now, last time I checked, one didn't have escorts when flying DCA missions. Am I the only one picking up (yet again) the negative bias in this reporting?



I saw that too - I guess we'll have to see in what scenarios this kill ratio was established. Did the F-22s "allow" the aggressors to penetrate their CAP or was this a joint F-22/ F-35 action, or did the F-35 defend itself alone? To be honest I'm more impressed about the FMC rates, these days keeping these aircraft MC is more difficult than dealing with the "enemy."

To come out with these scores during Red Flag is a testament of the progress made by the F-35 program. Little is said about this in the news, because it now contradicts the negative media bias that was blatantly directed against this aircraft, now I hope the nay-Sayers, especially Pierre Sprey will finally STFU and go sit in a corner.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 7, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ...To come out with these scores during Red Flag is a testament of the progress made by the F-35 program. Little is said about this in the news, because it now contradicts the negative media bias that was blatantly directed against this aircraft, now I hope the nay-Sayers, especially Pierre Sprey will finally STFU and go sit in a corner.


Good luck with that...they'll just spin it a different way (or many different ways) because they'll fight to the death supporting their position before they would even consider the thought that they may have been wrong.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 7, 2017)

Well you can't let facts and data get in your way!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 7, 2017)

vikingBerserker said:


> Well you can't let facts and data get in your way!


Absolutely!


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 7, 2017)

You can have all the facts necessary...just make sure they're "alternative facts" and you can present any story you like!

And I'll leave that one right there....

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Feb 8, 2017)

Some exciting news for us guys downunder..
RAAF F-35, Growler to make Avalon debuts | Australian Aviation

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 9, 2017)

Very cool!


----------



## aurora-7 (Feb 18, 2017)

Program is bieng leaned on to bring the price down. Being threatened with the F-18 as an alternative.

F-35 program head pressed on Trump call as fighter cost 'on track' to fall 15 percent


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 18, 2017)

.... this is bloody _politics_. The only way to substantially lower costs is to build lots more of them .... and it's become a 'confidence' item ... for nay-sayers and media would-be sleuths.

There is no doubt in my mind that this platform is a game-changer but .... it's time to get the platform blooded ... Israel anyone? They have _confidence_


----------



## Greyman (Feb 18, 2017)

I realize this is in poor spirit of the thread and I wont keep on it - but I'm sure the Russians don't want Trump to want the F-35 ...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2017)

I think "Mad Dog" slapped Trump around a few times and told him to sit in the corner and color, let those who REALLY know this aircraft's capability make the decisions.

Boeing will continue to try to pump the F/A-18 as an F-35 alternative, in reality anyone who buys this BS is delusional. Although a great aircraft the F/A-18 is a generation behind the F-35 in many areas and as one of my British friends used to say "you could only pump so much soup into Superman"! Newer Superhornets will complement the USN and USMC F-35 fleet beautifully, but in the end the future of manned fighter aircraft in the US armed forces lies with the F-22 and F-35 IMO, however I still see an argument for an A-10 type aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Mar 1, 2017)

“Red Flag confirmed F-35 dominance with a 20:1 kill ratio” U.S. Air Force says

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2017)

_*"At Red Flag 17-1 the F-35A also included additional roles previously reserved for air superiority aircraft like the F-15C Eagle and heavy strike capability from large bombers while even performing “light AWACS” duties.*_


_*“I flew a mission where our four-ship formation of F-35A’s destroyed five surface-to-air threats in a 15-minute period without being targeted once,” Major James Schmidt, an F-35A pilot for the 388th Fighter Wing from Hill AFB told the Air Force Times.*_


_*“After almost every mission, we shake our heads and smile, saying ‘We can’t believe we just did that’ Schmidt told reporters.*_


_*Major Schmidt went on to highlight the multirole capability of the F-35A in a non-permissive environment when he recalled, “After taking out the ground threats the multirole F-35A is able to pitch back into the fight with air-to-air missiles, taking out aircraft that don’t even know we’re there.”*_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Mar 1, 2017)




----------



## parsifal (Mar 2, 2017)

Andy has already posted on this, but the first two F-35s are due to go on public display today at the Avalom Air show.

5000 local jobs are now touted as likely to arise in the support and update programs.....by 2023....we will have to wait and see about that.

Prices per copy were dropped after Trump entered the White House, to just over $80 million per copy with strong possibilities they will drop even further. I am loathe, and very doubtful that Trump was responsible for that discount. The man is not trusted here in oz.


I think we need to start thinking about a new Australia/Japan/Indonesian Axis focussing on the Sth China sea where over 40% of the worlds seaborne trade is focussed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Mar 3, 2017)

I saw one of the F-35's fly over a couple of days ago on its way to Amberley! Cool! Looking at the new aircraft the RAAF is debuting at Avalon one can't help but being impressed with the new capabilities the Air Force is acquiring. The RAAF truly is building into a crack force not to be taken lightly. The current fleet and those just entering service include - F/A18A's & B's. F-18F's, F-18G Growlers. F-35A's. C-17's, C-27's, AP-3C, P-8 Poseidon, E-7 Wedgetail AEW&C, C-130J's, KC-30A, Hawk127 and now the PC-21.
Not bad for a small Air Force!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Mar 9, 2017)

Meet The First Female F-35 Pilot

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 9, 2017)

Very cool!


----------



## Old Wizard (Mar 9, 2017)




----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 6, 2017)

Trust the Marines on this ..... Canada should take note

Marines: Troubled F/A-18 Hornet jet fleet has got to go


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 6, 2017)

This DOT&E report for FY16 shows there are still considerable issues to be overcome, to include some unsatisfactory transonic handling traits (although I'm sure they can be readily fixed by tweaking the FCS). It does seem that the ejection seat problems for lightweight pilots has been largely resolved.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf


----------



## Torch (Apr 14, 2017)

The U.S. Air Force is deploying the F-35A Lightning II aircraft to Europe this weekend


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 15, 2017)

Apparently 6 have already arrived at RAF Lakenheath.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (May 3, 2017)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrnkmjxiEdY_
F35 mach loop

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (May 4, 2017)




----------



## Wildcat (May 5, 2017)

Awesome!


----------



## Torch (May 5, 2017)

First F-35B Assembled Internationally Rolled Out of Cameri FACO Production Facility


----------



## buffnut453 (May 6, 2017)

Dumb question...can anyone confirm whether the F-35B has any wet pylons on the wings?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2017)

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--33N8NlAh--/pujspar6aax3vdft8iz3.jpg

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (May 7, 2017)

Thanks Joe. There are a few rumours bouncing round the interwebby-thingy regarding issues with the external tanks as well as questions about whether they can be fitted to all variants or just the A/C beasts. The added complexity of dry pylons only for the F-35B would probably drive up costs and logistic challenges...but, equally, there seems to be little definitive and up-to-date info out there on the topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2017)

An F-35 pilot explains why Russia and China's counterstealth can't stop him

An F-35 pilot explains how the stealth fighter can have a crushing psychological effect on the enemy

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (May 16, 2017)




----------



## Greyman (May 16, 2017)

Video about gun pod air testing complete.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (May 17, 2017)

Cool vid!


----------



## buffnut453 (May 17, 2017)

Yep...those are some pretty long bursts being fired (clearly for test purposes).


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 17, 2017)

.... the more I see that bird in flight the more I believe  .... quite a package

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jun 1, 2017)

Pratt & Whitney pitches souped up version of the F-35 engine

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 1, 2017)

Hmmm...pay for operationalizing and testing and then it's a no-cost upgrade that can be slotted into the existing production line? Gives 10% more thrust and 6% better fuel economy? Seems an absolute no-brainer to me (which is why it will probably add another $1B to the cost of the programme and not happen for a decade...or am I a bit cynical about Government procurement processes?).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2017)

This "option" and others like it are one of the reasons why the cost of this program is so high. The government (US) will keep adding on to this platform but when the press gets a hold of it they play it off as an "over run."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 1, 2017)

Don't disagree, Joe. Have to say, though, that the bang-for-buck quotient on this particular "option" looks pretty good to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2017)

OUCH! Eh!

Boeing Sues Canada. Is It Making a Huge Mistake? -- The Motley Fool

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 5, 2017)

Homer Simpson had a great word to describe this situation - DOH!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Jun 5, 2017)




----------



## Greyman (Jun 5, 2017)

Maybe they know what I've always suspected - that the whole 'interim F-18' thing was always face-saving show instead of a serious course of action.

Trudeau made a big deal about the F-35 in his campaigning, so even if he and his people eventually realized it was the best plane for the job by a long shot, he painted himself into a corner.

That said, I don't think he's ever straight-up said 'F-35 bad!' it was more pointing the finger at the lack of a proper evaluation/competition of competing fighter types. So for rational people it would seem fine to simply still go ahead with the F-35 after having the good, hard look at everything else.

But I suppose in politics rationality takes a back seat to whatever team you're on.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 6, 2017)

The first Japanese-assembled F-35A was unveiled out of the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

First Japanese-assembled F-35 | Combat Aircraft

EDIT: video

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Jun 6, 2017)




----------



## Greyman (Jun 19, 2017)

Most of us can't make the Paris Air Show - but here's the F-35's routine for us anyway:

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Jun 19, 2017)




----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 19, 2017)

Haven't seen the F-35 perform in-person but, based on this video, the nose authority on the beast looks pretty impressive to my eyes. Take-off straight into quarter roll and then looping off the top isn't too shabby either.


----------



## Torch (Jul 13, 2017)

Marine Corps, Air Force F-35 Jets Take Part In Red Flag Exercise Together For The First Time


----------



## Greyman (Jul 29, 2017)

Very interesting debate (of sorts) between a prominent F-35 critic and a former F-35B and F-22 pilot.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-f-35-crossfire-part-1
http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/podcast-f-35-crossfire-part-2

Each part is about 30 min. Interested to hear what everyone thinks.


----------



## Greyman (Aug 14, 2017)

UK launches externally loaded F-35B from 'ski jump' for first time | Jane's 360

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Aug 14, 2017)




----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 14, 2017)

Greyman said:


> Very interesting debate (of sorts) between a prominent F-35 critic and a former F-35B and F-22 pilot.
> 
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-f-35-crossfire-part-1
> http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/podcast-f-35-crossfire-part-2
> ...



Funny how the former F-35 pilot said a lot of the things I've been saying about the whole environment of operational testing and the attitudes of both op test and operational pilots. Sprey just wasn't accepting any discussion and just continued trotting out the same misinformation, even when the pilot directly contradicted him.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2017)

Sprey had his moment in the sun, I'm sorry but the old fart needs to go away and watch Top Gun while reminiscing about VR dogfights. The man is clueless with regards to the technology backing up the F-35 airframe.


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 14, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sprey had his moment in the sun, I'm sorry but the old fart needs to go away and watch Top Gun while reminiscing about VR dogfights. The man is clueless with regards to the technology backing up the F-35 airframe.



Amen brother!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 15, 2017)




----------



## Greyman (Aug 17, 2017)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Aug 17, 2017)




----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 14, 2017)

Fake or real?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 14, 2017)

Lucky13 said:


> Fake or real?



This has been around for a while

As stated, Sprey is a has-been, locked in a cathode tube/ Top Gun/ Polyester era and has no concept of the systems that are on modern combat aircraft. Berke made him look like an idiot. As 3 F-35 production lines pump out aircraft and the first aircraft are being operationally deployed its time for Sprey to stay in the geriatricians ward!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 14, 2017)

Cheers Joe....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Sep 14, 2017)




----------



## Greyman (Dec 21, 2017)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jan 4, 2018)

Take A Look At This Video Filmed From A Helicopter Of Four F-35s Doing The Fiesta Bowl Parade 2017 Flyover

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jan 22, 2018)

U.S. Approves Possible Sale of 34 Lockheed F-35s to Belgium; Japan Deploying First F-35 to Misawa; India Allegedly Enters Conversation.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 22, 2018)

Is it me or has much of the negative reporting on the F-35 evaporated? Seems like it's been a while since I heard about or read a "Chicken Little/Sky is Falling" article about the jet. 

Are my perceptions correct or am I sailing along in blissful ignorance of continued vitriolic undermining of what seems, to me at least, to be a pretty successful introduction into service?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 24, 2018)

Harder to complain when it does what it says on the tin. It works, is reliable, it meets its performance criteria and everyone recognises its potential. I take particular reference to the Indian Air Force expressing an interest. That's a country that has no political limitations in what it can buy and is recognised as being a very professional airforce

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 24, 2018)

India? That is an interesting twist I did not see coming.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jan 26, 2018)

https://theaviationist.com/2018/01/...pan-about-to-launch-without-radar-reflectors/

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jan 28, 2018)

“Red Flag confirmed F-35 dominance with a 20:1 kill ratio” U.S. Air Force says

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jan 28, 2018)

_View: https://youtu.be/HXRjNtpjb2Y_

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 28, 2018)

I'm always struck by how small the F35 is

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fritzthefox (Mar 22, 2018)

I think I would like it more if it was available in more colors.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 28, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Is it me or has much of the negative reporting on the F-35 evaporated? Seems like it's been a while since I heard about or read a "Chicken Little/Sky is Falling" article about the jet.
> 
> Are my perceptions correct or am I sailing along in blissful ignorance of continued vitriolic undermining of what seems, to me at least, to be a pretty successful introduction into service?



Ok...sad of me to be quoting my own post but it seemed appropriate.

Just saw this Bloomberg article on the escalating costs of sustaining the USAF's F-35 fleet. Is this the new axis of attack for the F-35 haters? Conversely, if these numbers are remotely accurate, then clearly there are sustainment issues to resolve...and quickly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Ok...sad of me to be quoting my own post but it seemed appropriate.
> 
> Just saw this Bloomberg article on the escalating costs of sustaining the USAF's F-35 fleet. Is this the new axis of attack for the F-35 haters? Conversely, if these numbers are remotely accurate, then clearly there are sustainment issues to resolve...and quickly.


Interesting article. It almost seems that those controlling the purse stings gave little consideration for fleet sustainment, but it does not surprise me.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 22, 2018)

First blood .... same story with the F-15, IIRC
Israel says it is the first country to use U.S.-made F-35 in combat

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (May 22, 2018)

Yeah...similar story here from the BBC, although the "defence correspondent" (quotations are deliberate!) just can't resist a little sting in the tail of his/her article referring back to negative stories that are 3 years old! This is the gift that keeps on giving...or, perhaps, the gripe that keeps on griping!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (May 23, 2018)

Yeah read the BBC version, still had to go back to the old F16 vs F35 story,

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (May 23, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Is it me or has much of the negative reporting on the F-35 evaporated? Seems like it's been a while since I heard about or read a "Chicken Little/Sky is Falling" article about the jet.
> 
> Are my perceptions correct or am I sailing along in blissful ignorance of continued vitriolic undermining of what seems, to me at least, to be a pretty successful introduction into service?



Actually given the current administration most critics have surrendered to the corruption that will ensure it goes forward no matter what and we will simply see what really happens when they aren't in the tests that are rigged (See "Sgt York") to ensure their success and when people aren't willing to pay for the infrastructure and parts to support them.

In the long term, the best we can really hope for is as short a service life as the Gutless Cutlass and a quick transition to a drone replacement to prevent the loss of too many crew.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (May 23, 2018)

Where's your evidence that tests are rigged? Also, if the low-observable characteristics of a manned aircraft result in an expensive maintenance chain, how will drones be any different? Surely they, too, will have to be low-observable or they'll just get shot down?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 23, 2018)

wlewisiii said:


> Actually given the current administration most critics have surrendered to the corruption that will ensure it goes forward no matter what and we will simply see what really happens when they aren't in the tests that are rigged (See "Sgt York") to ensure their success and when people aren't willing to pay for the infrastructure and parts to support them.
> 
> In the long term, the best we can really hope for is as short a service life as the Gutless Cutlass and a quick transition to a drone replacement to prevent the loss of too many crew.


Once again your assertions are baseless and without merit, just short of babbling conspiracy theory BS. Please post viable and credible data with no political overtones or I can assure you your life span on here will be short.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 23, 2018)

Yea, I'm curious as to your support as well.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 23, 2018)

wlewisiii said:


> *Actually given the current administration* most critics have surrendered to the corruption that will ensure it goes forward no matter what and we will simply see what really happens when they aren't in the tests that are rigged (See "Sgt York") to ensure their success and when people aren't willing to pay for the infrastructure and parts to support them.


The bold portion is absolutely laughable at best, considering that the JSF contract was signed in 1996. Let's see...who's administration was it at that time? Hmmm...

In regards to the M247 "Sergeant York" SPAAG battlefield component system, they tried to pack far too much tech into a single platform as well as constantly changed specs/requirements mid-project. The Soviets weren't helping by introducing new hardware, either.
There was no "rigging" or conspiracies...the M247 project simply became far too bloated to succeed and the project was axed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 30, 2018)

Canada ... the dithering continues
https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2...g-hedges-on-fighter-competition/#.Ww88ohkh1jp


----------



## Greyman (May 30, 2018)

I admire your restraint/diplomacy in limiting yourself to the word 'dithering'.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 10, 2018)

Khamenei Fires Air Force Chief over Israeli F-35 Deep Penetration of Iran’s Sky

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 11, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Khamenei Fires Air Force Chief over Israeli F-35 Deep Penetration of Iran’s Sky


Two things come to mind as I read this article.

First, when they say that they fired Brigadier General Ismaili, does that mean he put all his stuff in a box and was escorted out of the building or was in front of a pockmarked wall late one evening?

And the other thing, the bit about the Russians giving Israel access codes, is highly questionable.


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2018)

It's my guess that the Israeli authorities let the Iranians know what they did. There are few better ways of putting a potential aggressor on hold than by letting them know that you can get them, any time, any place, without any warning

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 11, 2018)

My guess about the Israeli/Russian SAM access code bit, was someone's trying to save face (or their ass).

All of Russia's customers are Israel's enemies, giving out access codes is bad for business

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2018)

300 AND COUNTING!!!!

Pentagon And Lockheed Martin Deliver 300th F-35 Aircraft | F-35 Lightning II

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Jun 17, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> My guess about the Israeli/Russian SAM access code bit, was someone's trying to save face (or their ass).
> 
> 
> All of Russia's customers are Israel's enemies, giving out access codes is bad for business




Primary radars don't have "secret codes" that allow a target to turn them on or off. Secondary radars (not really radars at all, but beacon tracking systems such as IFF) might fit such a description. No SAM I have ever heard of uses a secondary radar to track the non-cooperative target, they use primary radar for skin track of a target, although they may use a beacon system associated with the missile after they have fired it.


Monostatic primary (skin track) radar works as a stand alone system. It emits a pulse of energy and looks for the return of that energy from a reflective target. While radar pulses may be coded for a variety of reasons the "code" does not make or stop the pulse from reflecting. So "having the code" would not make your aircraft undetectable or make the radar not see a skin return, I have never seen a "code" that a target could have that would turn off the radars ability to see it. To have such a feature, no matter how closely guarded, would be asking to have it exploited.


The article says "the Russians gave Israel the secret code of the Russian radar in Iran". If there is any truth to that at all, even the slightest sliver, it would probably be the codes to the IFF, Identification Friend or Foe, system. I see no reason the Russians would do such a thing. Also, why would the Russians even have that code? The key probably changes on a regular cycle, and there is no need for the Russians to be involved in such changes, the Iranians themselves would most likely handle that aspect of things. While the Russians may have supplied a lot of the IFF systems in Iran (or may not, I don't know) why would they be involved in day-to-day code changes?


And even if the Israelis had the IFF codes, IFF does not prevent primary radars (skin tracking radars, essentially all SAMs) from seeing targets, it only allows a primary radar to correlate a skin tracked target to a known, or unknown, aircraft.


And to top it all off, while Russia has provided a lot of the radar systems in Iran, Iran has also made great claims of indigenously developed systems, including HF and VHF radars (Sepehr, Nazir, and BSR-1, among others) specifically optimized to defeat the current state of LO technology. Even assuming disabling "codes" existed, why would Russian even have access to the "codes" to such radars?


Don't get me wrong, if the Israelis had the IFF codes that would be a huge plus for them. Enter the airspace from another direction, get pinged, get IDed as a friendly, and go about your business. If no one on the ground questioned why that aircraft was doing what it was then that is just too bad. But why would the Russians need to give the Israelis such a code? _Surely_ the Israelis might have heard of SIGINT/ELINT/MASINT on their own? (Just in case someone missed that, that last sentence was sarcasm, take a look at the state of Israeli EW.)

And just for the record, I think any mention of Russians supplying "codes" is bunk. I also doubt the Israelis diddled with the IFF, although that is possible. It is far better to remain undetected than to advertise your position by spoofing someone elses IFF.


T!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 21, 2018)

Air Force F-35 Fleet Facing Low Availability, Logistics Limitations

The F-35 Hits A Key Developmental Milestone, But With Watered-Down Requirements

Here's A Handy Inventory List Of USAF Aircraft And Their Mission Capable Rates

The F-35 Still Has a Long Way to Go before It Will Be Ready for Combat

I'll let you guys tear these apart


----------



## Glider (Jun 21, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Air Force F-35 Fleet Facing Low Availability, Logistics Limitations
> All the new aircraft have the 3F software which is doing well and is acknowledged in the paper its the older ones with old software which have the problem which shouldn't be a shock to anyone
> 
> The F-35 Hits A Key Developmental Milestone, But With Watered-Down Requirements
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Air Force F-35 Fleet Facing Low Availability, Logistics Limitations
> 
> The F-35 Hits A Key Developmental Milestone, But With Watered-Down Requirements
> 
> ...



Some good info, some dated some not true.

MC rates - what not shown is the accepted threshold. I'm seeing mid 60% for the F-35A. Considering its a new production aircraft that might me the accepted threshold. You'll always have some aircraft down for maintenance, mods or repairs and you never fly 100% of your fleet (except in war time).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Some good info, some dated some not true.
> 
> MC rates - what not shown is the accepted threshold. I'm seeing mid 60% for the F-35A. Considering its a new production aircraft that might me the accepted threshold. You'll always have some aircraft down for maintenance, mods or repairs and you never fly 100% of your fleet (except in war time).


Even in wartime, any air service will be hard-pressed to be at 100% strength due to various reasons.

But 60% is still a solid number.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2018)

From a defence position not political, I admit to getting a little nervous about some of the decisions President Trump is making. When Turkey is getting so close to Russia, to sell them the F35 could be a huge mistake. Russia would give almost anything to have access to an F35 just for a couple of days

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2018)

Unfortunately, the previous administration opened the door for sales to Turkey back in 2011.

So now, seven years later, it's going to be a diplomatic can of worms, especially since the relationship between Turkey and the U.S. has changed a great deal.

So the questions that arise, are:
Does the U.S. continue sales to appease Erdogan?
Do they sell Turkey a dumbed-down F-35 platform?
Do they risk upsetting other nations like Saudi Arabia, Israel and several European nations by continuing sales to Turkey?
Or should they stop sales to Turkey altogether and further alienate Erdogan and push him further into Putin's fold?

It's really a diplomatic nightmare...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Unfortunately, the previous administration opened the door for sales to Turkey back in 2011.
> 
> So now, seven years later, it's going to be a diplomatic can of worms, especially since the relationship between Turkey and the U.S. has changed a great deal.
> 
> ...


i certainly agree that there are no easy answers but at the end of the day security should come first. Should Russia get hold of the F35 and its secrets it would make the British decision to give Russia the latest jet engine in the late 1940s look like a minor hickup

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 13, 2018)



Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2018)

Greyman said:


> View attachment 501725


OUCH!


----------



## Greyman (Jul 18, 2018)

Marines' F-35B Fighters Headed to Middle East for the First Time

_About 5,000 U.S. troops are sailing toward the Middle East with an F-35B detachment, marking the first time the American Joint Strike Fighters are likely to conduct real-world combat operations._


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 18, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Marines' F-35B Fighters Headed to Middle East for the First Time
> 
> _About 5,000 U.S. troops are sailing toward the Middle East with an F-35B detachment, marking the first time the American Joint Strike Fighters are likely to conduct real-world combat operations._



Looks like sh!t is about to get real...

Mind you, I'm a hard-core A-10 fan from way-back, but the F-35 has the ability to scour the earth clean of anything that walks or crawls. So this should be interesting...


----------



## Token (Jul 18, 2018)

I have talked with many F35 drivers. They have had various levels of enthusiasm for the aircraft, from love to meh, but until today I never talked with one who actually bad mouthed it.

Most of the drivers I have talked with have been A and C folks, and in general, at least verbally, they have like it. Today I talked with an F35B pilot, a former F-18 guy, and he literally had nothing good to say about the B. Short legs, only one engine (that counts), too much extra weight (second engine you use less than 3% of the time, but carry around 100% of the time), too expensive, etc. I swear, it sounded like some of the posters online 

I asked him what he thought of the A and C models, and he said the A was OK, because those pukes are over land and a one engine condition is not an automatic emergency.

However, of note, this opinion does appear to be the minority of people with first hand knowledge that I have had contact with.

T!


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 18, 2018)

Token said:


> I have talked with many F35 drivers. They have had various levels of enthusiasm for the aircraft, from love to meh, but until today I never talked with one who actually bad mouthed it.
> 
> Most of the drivers I have talked with have been A and C folks, and in general, at least verbally, they have like it. Today I talked with an F35B pilot, a former F-18 guy, and he literally had nothing good to say about the B. Short legs, only one engine (that counts), too much extra weight (second engine you use less than 3% of the time, but carry around 100% of the time), too expensive, etc. I swear, it sounded like some of the posters online
> 
> ...



The issue with single-engine combat aircraft should be as prevalent to the Navy as to the Marines, so I'm not entirely sure what to make of that comment. Frankly, if Marines don't like the B-variant then they only have themselves to blame 'cos they're buying more than anyone else.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2018)

Token said:


> I have talked with many F35 drivers. They have had various levels of enthusiasm for the aircraft, from love to meh, but until today I never talked with one who actually bad mouthed it.
> 
> Most of the drivers I have talked with have been A and C folks, and in general, at least verbally, they have like it. Today I talked with an F35B pilot, a former F-18 guy, and he literally had nothing good to say about the B. Short legs, only one engine (that counts), too much extra weight (second engine you use less than 3% of the time, but carry around 100% of the time), too expensive, etc. I swear, it sounded like some of the posters online
> 
> ...


So was he a Marine and is he active duty?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 18, 2018)

Not sure why the Navy dwells on twins as being better than singles.

They operated the A-4 (and various iterations) from '56 through '03 (Marines was '98) and it wasn't an issue then.
We can also add the F-8 Crusader served from 1957 through 1976 (through '87 as PRU) and the A-7 Corsair had a good run from '65 through '93.

It seems to me that this "One if by and land and two if by sea" thing really got started in '76 when the Navy was trying to decide between the F-16 and the F-18 for it's VFAX program.


----------



## Token (Jul 20, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So was he a Marine and is he active duty?



Yes.

T!


----------



## Greyman (Jul 20, 2018)

Check out the moves at 3:42 and 3:52.

Is it just me or _is that a lot of Gs?!

_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 20, 2018)

The two vs one argument always amuses me. 

The USN and Marines did pretty well with the F8, A4, A7 and Harrier. The F4 needed two engines to get the required power not because of the advantages of having two engines. In fact the early F4's didn't have fire extinguishers so I doubt the additional engine would have helped much in a real life situation. This was one of the few (make that very few) advantages of the UK Spey versions as they insisted on extinguishers. 
The F14 had two engines for the same reason as the F4 they needed the power not for safety reasons and the loss rate of the early F14 versions where engine problems were fairly common would imply that two engines didn't help much

I think its fair to say that the F18 is the only real example where there was a single engine alternative and they went for two engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 20, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Check out the moves at 3:42 and 3:52.
> 
> Is it just me or _is that a lot of Gs?!
> 
> _




Same-same at 1:40. It's not just pulling a lot of g, it's also the rate at which the direction of the nose is changing. Pretty impressive IMHO, although to pull off that manoeuvre, the aircraft did seem to scrub off a lot of speed and on at least one occasion seemed close to a departure (but, then again, I'm not overly familiar with how the F-35 "looks" when it's manoeuvring).


----------



## Token (Jul 20, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Check out the moves at 3:42 and 3:52.
> 
> Is it just me or _is that a lot of Gs?!
> 
> _




That last turn looks like about 180'ish degrees in under 6 seconds. That is pretty sporty.

T!


----------



## Torch (Aug 14, 2018)

_View: https://youtu.be/aXhbi-aEBas_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Aug 15, 2018)

Saw the F35 flying at Duxford last month. Quite impressive.


----------



## Torch (Aug 16, 2018)

President Trump Blocks Sale of F-35s to Turkey, Deepens Rift in Turkish/U.S. Relations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 16, 2018)

Saw a good article in the 'related' section:
Why Does the Public Have Trouble Understanding the F-35? Air Force Reserve Pilots Tell Us Why the F-35A is a Powerful Force Multiplier

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Saw a good article in the 'related' section:
> Why Does the Public Have Trouble Understanding the F-35? Air Force Reserve Pilots Tell Us Why the F-35A is a Powerful Force Multiplier


Excellent article! I've been trying to say this for years but many folks think modern aerial warfare is what was seen in TOPGUN

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Aug 31, 2018)

F-35 Achieves Milestones Amid Setbacks And Criticism

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Sep 9, 2018)

I love her call sign.Meet the U.S. Air Force Reserve’s First Female F-35A Lightning II Pilot

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 23, 2018)

Having seen F-35s in the flesh for the first time this July, I can say that they look pretty neat in a display. The F-35B is a noisy beast, harking back to the days of Harriers beating up your eardrums regularly during airshow season.

RAF F-35B




1407 RIAT RAF F-35

USAF Heritage Flight F-35A and two friends.




1507 Flying Legends USAF Heritage Flight

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Sep 28, 2018)

First blood??U.S. F-35B Joint Strike Fighters Perform Their First-Ever Air Strike On Targets in Afghanistan

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 28, 2018)

Torch said:


> First blood??U.S. F-35B Joint Strike Fighters Perform Their First-Ever Air Strike On Targets in Afghanistan


Doesn't Israel get "first blood" bragging rights?


----------



## Torch (Sep 28, 2018)

jetcal1 said:


> Doesn't Israel get "first blood" bragging rights?


LOL, forgot about Israel...Ok, US then..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 28, 2018)

F-35B jet crashes in Beaufort County, South Carolina - CNNPolitics

Thankfully, the pilot ejected.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 29, 2018)

It is fortunate the pilot is safe.

And now the media and detractors will have a field day with this...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 30, 2018)

downward pricing ...
F-35 price falls below $90M for first time in new deal


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 30, 2018)

michaelmaltby said:


> downward pricing ...
> F-35 price falls below $90M for first time in new deal


Still 2x the cost of a Harrier adjusted for inflation. It's a shame our acquisition system has turned into a monster.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 30, 2018)

Technology isn't cheap.

The B-29 was one of the most expensive aircraft for it's time, costing nearly $640,000 per unit, but the next step in technology, the B-36 eclipsed that with it's several million per unit price tag.
Then came the B-52, who's unit cost of roughly $14 million each would have bought you 56 B-17s just ten years earlier...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Sep 30, 2018)

Or, as Ike noted, 30 modern schools per bomber. There is a point where the cost/benefit ratio hurts a nation rather than helps it. The F35 blew past that mark a long time ago.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 30, 2018)

Really?

Meanwhile Russia and China both are developing new weapon platforms and the U.S. should take it's defense budget and divert it to build new schools?

And since when did the Federal government build schools when each school district comes under the jurisdiction of their respective county within that particular state.

I would love to buy a brand new car at 1990's pricing, but reality dictates otherwise...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 30, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Really?
> 
> Meanwhile Russia and China both are developing new weapon platforms and the U.S. should take it's defense budget and divert it to build new schools?
> 
> ...


I adjusted for inflation.
A lot of the problem is in procurement regulations and the DFARS. I also happily acknowledge the airplane is much more than an AV-8B


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 30, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Technology isn't cheap.
> 
> The B-29 was one of the most expensive aircraft for it's time, costing nearly $640,000 per unit, but the next step in technology, the B-36 eclipsed that with it's several million per unit price tag.
> Then came the B-52, who's unit cost of roughly $14 million each would have bought you 56 B-17s just ten years earlier...


Agree. I took the numbers you provided for the B52 ,14 million, and factored in in inflation(which is actually currency devaluation i.e.prices in aggregate don't go up its that the currency looses its value over time due to increase in the money supply at a greater rate than increases in goods and services) at 3.5%( the long term average in the US )and today that B52 would cost about 163 mllion if my couculations are right( always a big if) so that F35 at under 90 mill sounds like a bargan to me and all the more so when you factor in the dramatic advances in technology.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 30, 2018)

Something also to take into account is the life of the current weapon systems. The B-17 was obsolete 12 years as a first world front line bomber, whereas the B-52 has been going strong for 63 years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Sep 30, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> Something also to take into account is the life of the current weapon systems. The B-17 was obsolete 12 years as a first world front line bomber, whereas the B-52 has been going strong for 63 years.



Sure, the B17 was obsolete by 1946. However its replacements were already in hand by then. There was no need to breath life into the old aircraft because the replacements were planned almost from the day the new aircraft were actually operational. And the B17 timing was such that by the time it was obsolete the day of the reciprocating engine heavy bomber was just about done. The B-24, B-29, B-50, and B-36 carried on until jet bombers like the B-47 and B-52 were ready. The plans to build the B-36 go back to before the US was actually in WW II, and the letter of intent to build the B-36 was in mid 1943, or a bit over half way through the B17 operational life cycle, and shortly after the first flight of the B-29.


The B-52 is an anomaly, not only the length of service of the aircraft but also in what has been expected out of it over the years. Although several replacements for the B-52 were discussed or proposed at one time or another, none ever got any real traction, and so the B-52 has had to continue, or the tasking would not be supportable.


It was not originally designed for the service life it has delivered, but through various service life extension programs it has lasted far beyond its original design goals. I can find no service hour specification for the original design, however it was common at the time to design for 5000 - 10000 flight hours with a 2.0 factor. After the latest batch of updates the calculated life is now on the order of 35000 flight hours.


Out of the 744 B-52 airframes produced we have what, 76 in service today? The B-52H was the last variant produced, and the last 52H airframe rolled out in 1962. The B-52H is the only model used today. However, little of the original aircraft remains. The wings have been modified, the aircraft reskinned, the motors replaced, the avionics replaced, the weapons systems replaced, the ECM systems changed at least 3 times, the combat load expanded, then expanded again, then again, etc, etc. None of these kinds of things were foreseen when delivered.


The B-52B as flown in 1956 shares little with the B-52H as flown today.


And then there is the whole way the B-52 has been used. Asymmetric warfare has been the name of the game for the last 30'ish years.


The last time the B-52 faced an air defense system that was even remotely modern or complete was over Vietnam, in 1973 and before. The B-52 losses in Vietnam were pretty significant, and although thought of as well defended air space it was a second rate air defense system compared to say the Russians at the time. The Vietnamese had the SA-2 at the time the Russians had the SA-3 and -5. The early model Spoon Rests and Flat Faces used in Vietnam were in reserve / 2nd string use in Russia.


Since that time the B-52 has faced nothing more advanced than Vietnam was, and even then only after the airspace was no longer contested. In a modern, symmetrical, fight the B-52 just could not survive in hot air space. It has lasted this long, and been useful to the US as a bomb truck since the late 1980's because it has been able to be used in uncontested environments. If a heavy lift bomber was needed in numbers in contested airspace the B-52 would have been replaced by now.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Oct 16, 2018)

https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/...al-landing-during-hms-queen-elizabeth-trials/


----------



## Torch (Oct 23, 2018)

Belgium Reportedly Chooses F-35 Stealth Jets over Eurofighter Typhoons To Replace Its Aging F-16s

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 23, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> Something also to take into account is the life of the current weapon systems. The B-17 was obsolete 12 years as a first world front line bomber, whereas the B-52 has been going strong for 63 years.


That's because there hasn't been a peer to peer conflict since 1945.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2018)

jetcal1 said:


> That's because there hasn't been a peer to peer conflict since 1945.


The Tu-95 has been in service for the same length of time...


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 23, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The Tu-95 has been in service for the same length of time...


And in the event of a peer to peer the TU-95 and the H6 will suffer as well.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2018)

The mission profile has changed considerably since these ships were on the drawing board.

The last great hurrah of Strategic bombing would have been in the 70's with Linebacker, etc.


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 23, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The mission profile has changed considerably since these ships were on the drawing board.
> 
> The last great hurrah of Strategic bombing would have been in the 70's with Linebacker, etc.


Regrettably, I suspect there will be another great hurrah, but to send the B-52/TU-95/H6 into contested airspace will be a replay of the Polish cavalry against the panzers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2018)

The Polish Cavalry never charged German armor.


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 23, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The Polish Cavalry never charged German armor.


Metaphorically speaking. 
How about Dutch B-10's against Japanese Zeros?
How about Taffy 3 against the IJN Combined Fleet?
The point is, using any of the aforementioned bombers in a peer to peer battle is suicide.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2018)

And like I mentioned earlier, their mission profile (as well as countermeasures) have changed considerably since their inception.

We won't be seeing these bombers striking at targets en-masse anymore. Additionally, free-fall bombs is no longer a primary warload, either. Nowdays, it's smart-bombs, cruise-missiles and other stand-off ordnance.

In a modern conflict, we'll see a composite effort, where, for example, the F-35 will eliminate AAA & SAM sites while the F-22 maintains top cover, followed by elements such as the B-2 for precision target elimination - once the lead elements have successfully neutralized threats, then the B-52 will conduct deep cleaning.

And to be entirely honest, the B-17, B-24 and B-29 operated in hostile airspace and still acheived success. There was a price to be paid, of course but again, that was a different time and a different strategy.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 23, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> And like I mentioned earlier, their mission profile (as well as countermeasures) have changed considerably since their inception.
> 
> We won't be seeing these bombers striking at targets en-masse anymore. Additionally, free-fall bombs is no longer a primary warload, either. Nowdays, it's smart-bombs, cruise-missiles and other stand-off ordnance.
> 
> ...



The only way the older aircraft will survive to be used as a standoff delivery vehicle or as a bomb truck will only after there is complete control of the air and a reduced possibility of MANPADs and other portable anti-air weapons. Decades ago my CV participated in a two CV COMPTUEX that utilized the predecessor of the current cooperative engagement capacity. Using "rings" (Think of Okinawa Radar Pickets.) we killed the B-52 and B-1's that were targeted against us. And, please consider that the last major upgrades have mostly been airframe/weapons integration, with the upgrades over the last few decades mostly geared towards airframe modernization. 

Based on the results of a decades old exercise and the current state of the B-52 stand-off systems? IMO, any type of layered/defense in depth deployed to defend a target that can reach out to a point more than 90 NM (Conservatively small distance.) from the intended impact point will put a B-1 at risk and will most likely kill a B-52. (Also, consider that any continuous use of a B-52 at low altitude with wartime loadouts will probably render any surviving aircraft structurally unairworthy within a few weeks. (That might as well be a shoot-down.)

The problem with the enmasse bombing compared to today is that each "Strategic Bomber" has become a "Strategic Asset" almost as valuable as a CV.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 31, 2018)

Playing _politics_ with defense .... oh Canada 
Ottawa changes requirements for new fighter jets to help European firms to qualify


----------



## Greyman (Oct 31, 2018)

_“The bottom line should be what is best for our Air Force and get on with it,” he said._

Amazing how hard this is for so many governments.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 31, 2018)

What I find interesting, is that the Canadian government has already entered into an agreement with the F-35 program. This latest "change" will not only cause delays, but create additional costs while adding even more chefs to the kitchen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 31, 2018)

... all true but our current PM _CAMPAIGNED_ against the F-35 in 2015 and then further muddied the procurement picture by declaring war on Boeing over the Bombardier Regional Jet, having _just _announced that the PM's gov't was prepared to buy SuperHornets from Boeing, full, un-negotiated price, which was then cancelled in favor of well-used RAAF Hornets. 

IMO, when acquiring weapons there is really only _one _competition that matters .... WINNING with them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2018)

https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/...b-deal-with-most-of.html?ana=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Nov 23, 2018)

F-15E Strike Eagles unable to shoot down the F-35s in 8 dogfights during simulated deployment

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 10, 2018)

'Lethal' Joint Strike Fighters touch down in Australia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 10, 2018)

Greyman said:


> 'Lethal' Joint Strike Fighters touch down in Australia


Good article that puts the F-35 acquisition into perspective.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jan 7, 2019)

Digging around the 72 pages and couldn't find what I was looking for - so just reposting:


----------



## Torch (Jan 14, 2019)

some video..Instagram Videos of USAF F-35 Demo Team Practice Leak Some New Maneuvers.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 14, 2019)

Yeah...cos the deadbeat F-35 has such poor manoeuverability! 

I remain impressed at the ability of this jet to point it's nose in unusual directions while still staying in the air.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 15, 2019)

Had to share this because it's just too damn funny.

Upgraded J-20 fighter jet ‘overwhelmingly superior’ to US F-35: analysts - Global Times

I particularly like the bit about the F-35's radar absorbent surface coating having to be replaced after every flight.

But it's on the internet so it must be true....and this could never be Chinese propaganda, could it?😆

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 15, 2019)

Considering that Global Times is the internet outlet of the People's Daily News, which is the official newpaper of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China...


----------



## Torch (Jan 16, 2019)

Video Surfaces of F-35 Hitting Five Precision Targets at Once, Including Moving One.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 16, 2019)

WOW!


----------



## Torch (Feb 5, 2019)

Interesting Images Show U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Launching From USS Wasp In “Beast Mode”

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 10, 2019)

worth noting ....
German F-35 decision sacrifices NATO capability for Franco-German industrial cooperation


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 10, 2019)

michaelmaltby said:


> worth noting ....
> German F-35 decision sacrifices NATO capability for Franco-German industrial cooperation



Yeah...saw this and really laughed at some of the points being made. For example "The Luftwaffe without F-35s would be hard-pressed to fight alone in a contested air environment." Where on earth would the Luftwaffe ever go it alone? I mean, really? For decades after WW2, Germany was prohibited from operating overseas. Now there are (rightly, IMHO) calls for Germany to be more active militarily on the world stage. But does anyone seriously envisage Germany "going it alone" anywhere in the world? 

Unsurprisingly, the article is written by 2 Americans and, frankly, I'd have expected better analysis from 2 alleged experts. Sadly, this just reads like a sales job on behalf of Lockheed Martin (shades of the F-104 sales pitches of the past, perhaps?).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 10, 2019)

Interesting, so if Germany buys the F-35, it will take jobs away from Europeans?
I didn't realize the European aerospace industry was so small and fragile.

Also love the dig at the current President, never mind that the F-35 project was started two Presidents back...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Feb 16, 2019)

The First Reports Of How The F-35 Strutted Its Stuff In Dogfights Against Aggressors At Red Flag Are Starting To Emerge

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 17, 2019)

Torch said:


> The First Reports Of How The F-35 Strutted Its Stuff In Dogfights Against Aggressors At Red Flag Are Starting To Emerge



Back in 2017, the naysayers were inferring that the F-35 was given "easy" ROE that resulted in the positive combat assessments. Reading this article in detail, it seems pretty clear that Red Flag scenarios have actually become harder in the past decade, not easier. 

I guess the last bastion of defence for the naysayers is that all these Lt Cols are in on the conspiracy and are being ordered to tell lies. The "F-35 is crap" school of thought is rapidly approaching, if not already at, the untenable state.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting, so if Germany buys the F-35, it will take jobs away from Europeans?


I think that was the basis of the multi-nation partnering where each participating nation would build a piece of their aircraft, offsetting some of the costs. There are production lines set up in Japan and Italy aside from the one in Fort Worth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Feb 17, 2019)

Whilst we don't have a [roduction line the UK does have a good sized stake in the aircraft. It's one of the often missed benefits of a situation like this. Should god forbid tensions rise quickly it would be much easier to ramp up production


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think that was the basis of the multi-nation partnering where each participating nation would build a piece of their aircraft, offsetting some of the costs. There are production lines set up in Japan and Italy aside from the one in Fort Worth.


The deal with Germany is, they and France are trying to come up with a next-gen fighter and the F-35 will certainly cut into their hopes of peddling their project to NATO countries.
No one is going to go hungry if the F-35 is purchased by Germany...it's just posturing by the Kaiser and her French minions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 18, 2019)

*Meanwhile in Canada ...*
... the bungling continues. It makes me so proud.
RCAF welcomes first 2 used Australian F-18 jets
I love F-18, but .... I hope they like the snow


----------



## Token (Feb 18, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Back in 2017, the naysayers were inferring that the F-35 was given "easy" ROE that resulted in the positive combat assessments. Reading this article in detail, it seems pretty clear that Red Flag scenarios have actually become harder in the past decade, not easier.
> 
> 
> I guess the last bastion of defence for the naysayers is that all these Lt Cols are in on the conspiracy and are being ordered to tell lies. The "F-35 is crap" school of thought is rapidly approaching, if not already at, the untenable state.



As long as there is one less than perfect reporting factor the "F-35 is crap" school will have ammunition to argue on. And the only way a report will be all glowing is if someone sanitizes it, honest and unbiased reports always have lessons learned, nothing is perfect and so everything can be improved. In order to improve you must highlight deficiencies, no matter how few or small. So the nay sayers will always have ammo.

And no matter how good the F-35 is, the haters will always be able to find other platforms that do any one little thing better. If you cherry pick your data you can prove anything you want.

It is becoming apparent the F-35 is a good addition to the US inventory, with a probably long future of support.

People who claim "stealth" is useless or has been rendered obsolete have no concept of the modern battlespace. People who claim the F-35 is too expensive have not done an honest, unbiased, assessment of what any new development competitive fighter would cost. The F-15X is touted by some as a "less expensive" fighter option, obviously those people have not looked at the projected flyaway cost of that aircraft. At one time there was talk of a "reduced cross section Super Hornet" as an F-35 alternate option, but the existing F-18F's are only ~15% under the F-35A cost, is there any doubt reducing the RCS of the Hornet would not raise the cost up into the same price point as the F-35?

There is no doubt, the F-35 has been an expensive program. It has been a long project. The individual unit cost is high. But the reality is that it is unlikely a competitive aircraft could be developed and built for significantly less than what it has taken. Could China do it for less? Sure, with workers earning a fraction of the pay, MUCH fewer legal restraints and regulation to deal with, and huge portions of the development budget being obscurated or unaccounted for as part of other projects.

The eventual replacement for the F-35, or the F-22, or the F-18, will be an even more expensive project, with a longer time line. Of course, it is likely to be a UCAV, so these may be the last of the fully manned fighters.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 18, 2019)

michaelmaltby said:


> *Meanwhile in Canada ...*
> ... the bungling continues. It makes me so proud.
> RCAF welcomes first 2 used Australian F-18 jets
> I love F-18, but .... I hope they like the snow



Sheesh...I'd have asked them to throw in a new paint job with the purchase. Those birds look rather tired and tatty. Then again, they've been manhandled by Aussies for a fair few years...

Yeah...coat time again!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 18, 2019)

... I think they are probably well-maintained ... that is not my fear. We repeatedly elect governments in Canada who are afraid to make expensive decision about DEFENSE on the basis of defense needs.
We continue to pay our dues $$$$ on the F-35 development account and that is right and proper ... yet we dither on buying the aircraft.
It's like the Simpsons.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 18, 2019)

The complexities of politics versus defense hardware is perhaps the closest that humanity will ever come to a perpetual motion machine.

Let's spin the "way back" wheel to summer of 1984 and have a look see at the hand-wringing of the day over new fighters and thier costs...

The Airplane That Doesn’t Cost Enough - The Atlantic

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 27, 2019)

This is an older article, not sure if it's been posted before or not, but there's so much wrong going on, I'm not sure where to start.

In the article, they go on to say that the Super Tucano is a superior support platform because it's "a WWII fighter"and it can "fly low and slow enough, that the pilot can see friendly troops and their puffs of smoke from their guns, avoiding friendly fire..."
Wait, what? There are countless instances in WWII where Allied troops were attacked by Allied aircraft in "low and slow" ground attack missions (friendly fire by fighters during ground attack even happened in WWI, by the way) - so where does this author come up with the idea that a pilot in a WWII fighter can see ground units with such clarity?
Anyway, here's the article:
The WWII-Era Plane Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> so where does this author come up with the idea that a pilot in a WWII fighter can see ground units with such clarity?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 27, 2019)

Ahh right, my bad...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 9, 2019)

*The F-35 gets a side-kick*

Air Force offers glimpse of new, stealthy combat drone during first flight

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Mar 9, 2019)

Another interesting article in the sidebar:
Air Force chief defends F-35A against critics, boasting kills at Red Flag

Interesting line that hit me:

"_The F-35 ... should be thought of as “quarterback of the joint team," and not simply another stealth fighter, said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein ..._"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 9, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Another interesting article in the sidebar:
> Air Force chief defends F-35A against critics, boasting kills at Red Flag
> 
> Interesting line that hit me:
> ...


This is the point that every mis-informed detractor of the F-35 misses. It's a flying supercomputer

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 11, 2019)

Looks like the A-10's back...
The US Air Force Just Announced the A-10X Warthog ll - Aviation Humor

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 12, 2019)

And obviously A-10-X's immediate adversary will be the Imperial TIE/ln heavy fighter, who's job will be to deny them the ground attack mission

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Apr 3, 2019)

Here’s What Three Italian F-35 Instructor Pilots With 62nd FS Have To Say About Their First Red Flag With The Lightning II

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 9, 2019)

First loss.... Missing Japanese F-35 poses major security headache for US if it falls into Russian or Chinese hands


----------



## Greyman (Apr 9, 2019)

At least it seems they found the wreckage. No pilot though :/

Japanese F-35 fighter crashes into Pacific


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 9, 2019)

gumbyk said:


> First loss....


This makes the second.
The first was last September near MCAS Beaufort, SC.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 22, 2019)

Somewhere over the South China Sea ...
[Air Force Times]

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 30, 2019)

Practicing inter-action over Korea [Air Force Times]

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Apr 30, 2019)

U.S. Air Force’s F-35A Jets With Radar Reflectors And External AIM-9X Missiles Carry Out First Airstrikes In Iraq

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (May 5, 2019)

Torch said:


> U.S. Air Force’s F-35A Jets With Radar Reflectors And External AIM-9X Missiles Carry Out First Airstrikes In Iraq



They are not likely to encounter any RF threats in that theater that matter, so it makes a lot of sense to carry reflectors and external stores. On the other hand, their sensor fusion and network centric capabilities are still force multipliers that can be leveraged in theater.

T!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 10, 2019)

'You Haven't Seen Us:' Norway Kicks Tires on Stealthy F-35s as First Exercise Begins

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 29, 2019)

[Source: Air Force Times]

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (May 31, 2019)

Looks so effortless!!!!!!Watch This Cockpit Video Of F-35 Demo Pilot Capt. Andrew “Dojo” Olson Performing Demo Routine Over Miami Beach

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 4, 2019)

*EDIT:* note this is a '360' video, so you can use the mouse to 'grab' the camera view and pan it around to look at the pilot, his presentation screens, or the parked fighter. Gets a bit confusing because sometimes the screens are displaying info and sometimes bits of the parked aircraft itself are being highlighted - but a neat gimmick nonetheless.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 28, 2019)

PICTURES: UK F-35s make operational debut

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 28, 2019)

Continuing with an RAF point of view:

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 28, 2019)

Every time I look at the F35 I still find it amazing just how small it is, and how much capability is packed into that airframe. Stunning achievement.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 29, 2019)

Esp when you compare it to WW2 aircraft.


----------



## Glider (Jul 29, 2019)

Just compare it to a Hawk. 10ft longer, wingspan 2 1/2 ft wider, about a foot taller and no one would call the Hawk a big aircraft.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 18, 2019)

[Source: Air Force Times]

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Oct 1, 2019)

Let’s Talk About The Story Of A German Radar Vendor That Claims To Have Tracked Two F-35s With Passive Radar

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:

1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 1, 2019)

This is way out of my area of any expertise but during the US air strikes in Bosnia in I believe 95 the Serbs were able to use something like that to shoot down an F 117. I've always found this incident a little worrisome.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 1, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> This is way out of my area of any expertise but during the US air strikes in Bosnia in I believe 95 the Serbs were able to use something like that to shoot down an F 117. I've always found this incident a little worrisome.


The F-117 that was shot down in Bosnia, was detected only when it opened it's bombay.

Conversely, the F-35s "spotted" by the German passive radar, were not using stealth, but rather had their emitters in place because they were operating in civil airspace and wanted to be seen (i.e.: ATC radars, etc.)...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Torch said:


> Let’s Talk About The Story Of A German Radar Vendor That Claims To Have Tracked Two F-35s With Passive Radar


What happens to passive radar when all the transmitters are shutdown or jammed?


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 1, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> What happens to passive radar when all the transmitters are shutdown or jammed?


Then I guess it really is passive


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 1, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Then I guess it really is passive



Except then there would be no signals for it do it's magic calculations.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 1, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Except then there would be no signals for it do it's magic calculations.


That's what I meant; passive as in like a papper wieght.


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 1, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> That's what I meant; passive as in like a papper wieght.


Please excuse my 







moment

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 1, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Please excuse my
> 
> View attachment 554972
> 
> ...


I've been know to have those moments myself occasionally..............although I'm sure there are those that would question the occasionally part

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 1, 2019)

I got to see an F-35 at the St. Louis airshow a few weeks ago. Gotta say she is one ugly looking beast. 

That 22 though...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Oct 1, 2019)

Could have been worse ...


----------



## Torch (Oct 2, 2019)

Seen a couple up close taking off at Buckley, thought they looked pretty cool......


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 2, 2019)

Vermont ANG just got some .... folks in Burlington think they're LOUD, I've read


----------



## Torch (Oct 2, 2019)

michaelmaltby said:


> Vermont ANG just got some .... folks in Burlington think they're LOUD, I've read


I've heard a ton of f-16s,some f-15s taking off. F-35 seemed about the same to me..

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2019)

Torch said:


> Seen a couple up close taking off at Buckley, thought they looked pretty cool......



To me something just seems off, unlike the 22 which seems beautiful.


----------



## Torch (Oct 2, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> To me something just seems off, unlike the 22 which seems beautiful.


Kinda like a P-47 to a P-51

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 2, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> To me something just seems off, unlike the 22 which seems beautiful.


How does this sound to you?
The shape and placement of the vertical tails detract from what appears to already be a short coupled airplane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> How does this sound to you?
> The shape and placement of the vertical tails detract from what appears to already be a short coupled airplane.



Could be...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 3, 2019)

michaelmaltby said:


> Vermont ANG just got some .... folks in Burlington think they're LOUD, I've read


I was at a used car lot in Williston when the first pair hit the break overhead for Rwy 33 at KBTV. LOUD, no kidding! And that was with no afterburner action. Don't know if it's the thrust vectoring feature or the IR image suppression bit, but the tailpipe has a piercing, high pitched, torchy sound to it reminiscent of short pipe straight turbojet engines like the pre-fan 707s and DC8s. Anybody remember those? The general public has certainly forgotten. They've been lulled by three decades of F16s tippy toeing around. It's been 32 years since the F4s went away and an entire generation has grown up with no frame of reference for LOUD.
I think we dinosaurs who've sacrificed most of our high frequency hearing to the song of the sky might find F35s less annoying than those with sharper ears would. I suspect the irritating, jaw clenching nature of the sound might make the perceived loudness of it greater than the actual decibel count would indicate, thus rendering all those carefully contrived "noise footprint" maps moot.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Oct 4, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> What happens to passive radar when all the transmitters are shutdown or jammed?



Think about that just a second. A jammed transmitter does not matter, since the jammer is now an illumination source.

Passive radar is simply a bistatic radar application using separated and possibly non-cooperative transmitters to illuminate the target.

Bistatic has an obvious advantage when dealing with stealth technologies. Stealth is not a Klingon Cloaking device, it does not make any aircraft invisible and there is no one thing it does. Instead it is the fusion of many different functions to reduce or control the reflected energy from a platform. At the most basic level you reduce the reflections as much as you can, and then you redirect the remaining reflections in any direction but back towards the source. But, if the tracking system, passive radar, transmitter and receivers are not in the same directions (from the protected platform) then this is much harder to do.

So you can shut down the transmitters used. They can, of course, be hard killed. They might be reduced in capability by soft kills if you hit the infrastructure. But, if you have jammers active for any reason then your own jammers, on other aircraft / platforms, have just become illuminators for possible passive radar exploitation. Or your own AWACS, sweeping the airspace to maintain control of the battle space might be providing the illumination needed.

Passive radar, optimized to use non-cooperative sources, is a hard nut to crack.

T!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 4, 2019)

Token said:


> Think about that just a second. A jammed transmitter does not matter, since the jammer is now an illumination source.
> 
> Passive radar is simply a bistatic radar application using separated and possibly non-cooperative transmitters to illuminate the target.
> 
> ...



Agreed....although passive bistatic systems depend on those non-cooperative sources which may not be in the right place at the right time to provide the necessary inputs. That's a risky proposition. Also, getting a firing solution using bistatic systems is incredibly challenging. Yes, you can vector an aircraft into the area but the aircraft must still acquire the LO platform, and do that without being shot down itself. This may be tricky depending on the scenario given airspace control and GBAD free-fire limitations.

It doesn't matter if an adversary can see you if they can't get a good enough solution to engage weapons. In such cases, all the adversary can do is watch while you conduct your operations.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Oct 4, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I was at a used car lot in Williston when the first pair hit the break overhead for Rwy 33 at KBTV. LOUD, no kidding! And that was with no afterburner action. Don't know if it's the thrust vectoring feature or the IR image suppression bit, but the tailpipe has a piercing, high pitched, torchy sound to it reminiscent of short pipe straight turbojet engines like the pre-fan 707s and DC8s. Anybody remember those? The general public has certainly forgotten. They've been lulled by three decades of F16s tippy toeing around. It's been 32 years since the F4s went away and an entire generation has grown up with no frame of reference for LOUD.
> I think we dinosaurs who've sacrificed most of our high frequency hearing to the song of the sky might find F35s less annoying than those with sharper ears would. I suspect the irritating, jaw clenching nature of the sound might make the perceived loudness of it greater than the actual decibel count would indicate, thus rendering all those carefully contrived "noise footprint" maps moot.
> Cheers,
> Wes


F35 does not have thrust vectoring,,,,F22 does


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 4, 2019)

Torch said:


> F35 does not have thrust vectoring,,,,F22 does


Actually, the F-35 does have it too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Oct 4, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Actually, the F-35 does have it too.


Had my mind on the land version not the VTOL model, I stand corrected.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 4, 2019)

Torch said:


> Had my mind on the land version not the VTOL model, I stand corrected.


However, since these were the USAF version, not USN/USMC, maybe Torch is correct? I'm not an X-spurt on these.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 4, 2019)

Token said:


> Think about that just a second. A jammed transmitter does not matter, since the jammer is now an illumination source.
> 
> Passive radar is simply a bistatic radar application using separated and possibly non-cooperative transmitters to illuminate the target.
> 
> ...



Agree with 99% of what you said. But if the receiving passive radar is being jammed............
(In other words the someone has made the whole spectrum in nothing but hash. Think something like chaff.)

Stealth has never been a guarantee of risk free operations. It does nothing but reduce the response time to react once the stealthly object has been detected.


----------



## Token (Oct 4, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Agreed....although passive bistatic systems depend on those non-cooperative sources which may not be in the right place at the right time to provide the necessary inputs. That's a risky proposition. Also, getting a firing solution using bistatic systems is incredibly challenging. Yes, you can vector an aircraft into the area but the aircraft must still acquire the LO platform, and do that without being shot down itself. This may be tricky depending on the scenario given airspace control and GBAD free-fire limitations.
> 
> It doesn't matter if an adversary can see you if they can't get a good enough solution to engage weapons. In such cases, all the adversary can do is watch while you conduct your operations.



This is why I have always laughed, or at least snickered, when various "information" outlets have screamed how stealth is useless because old VHF and UHF Russian radars can "see right through it". Detecting the target is present is not the same as being able to shoot the target.

However, look closely at passive systems and what is in the development pipeline today. They are really starting to get good these days, and depending on a lot of variables, sensor location geometry, signal being used to detect, etc, you can indeed get tracking accuracy on airborne targets measured in 10's of meters. Sure, not most systems, and not most events, but the potential is there and they are getting better all the time. This is a maturing technology that is going to be a major threat in the next few years, we are still pretty early on the curve today.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Oct 4, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Agree with 99% of what you said. But if the receiving passive radar is being jammed............
> (In other words the someone has made the whole spectrum in nothing but hash. Think something like chaff.)



If you make "the whole spectrum nothing but hash" then you also deny your own use of the spectrum. EA just does not work like that.

Chaff does not jam anything, although it does deny / degrade track of some radars (not all radars are impacted significantly by chaff) by seducing the tracking systems to it or by masking the real targets in the false targets. "Jamming" most often implies active systems, an active jammer that radiates, not a passive system like chaff (although chaff and similar false target reflectors are sometimes called mechanical jamming).

Any energy you use to actively jam will be reflected off everything in the sky to some extent, and can become a potential illumination source to actually help the passive system track targets. The jamming platform itself becomes a beacon, and easily tracked by passive systems. You can, of course, increase the impact of chaff by combining jammers and chaff, using the jammer (or some other active source) to illuminate the chaff bundles, corridors, or clouds.

But chaff is basically just another target to track. It does not prevent passive systems from seeing things, it only increases the number of items to be tracked. Think of passive systems as similar to TWS radars, they can do multiple things that appear, to the human time frame, to be simultaneous, but are really sequential at a fast rate. Where chaff can be extremely effective against radars that can only look at one target at a time, it tends to be less useful to defeat radars that can, in the human time frame reference, do many things at a time. Take either classic conical scan or monopulse tracking radar. These kinds of systems can only track (develop correction errors or operator indications) one target at a time. So properly deployed chaff tends to be "better" against many of those systems because it puts two targets at one time into the track gates (angles / range / Doppler) of the system. As the targets (real and chaff) separate, the radar, or radar operator if he is in the loop, has to decide which to track. By knowing how the radar works you can develop chaff techniques that increase the probability that the radar will select the chaff over the real target. Defeating the operator can be tougher, once he is properly trained and can visually identify chaff on his scopes he is quite often harder to beat than the automated systems of the radar.

But for systems that can see and track multiple targets at one time it is just a situation of "there was one target, now there are two, one has motion that could possibly match the original, the other does not". Chaff, discounting kinematic countermeasures, tends to not act like aircraft or missiles.

Basically, I can't really think of too many situations where chaff might actually work against passive systems other than to confuse the air picture by increasing the target count. And if you discriminate non-moving targets then the chaff quickly falls out of the picture.

T!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 4, 2019)

Token said:


> If you make "the whole spectrum nothing but hash" then you also deny your own use of the spectrum. EA just does not work like that.
> 
> Chaff does not jam anything, although it does deny / degrade track of some radars (not all radars are impacted significantly by chaff) by seducing the tracking systems to it or by masking the real targets in the false targets. "Jamming" most often implies active systems, an active jammer that radiates, not a passive system like chaff (although chaff and similar false target reflectors are sometimes called mechanical jamming).
> 
> ...


_Chaff was a merely a suggestion to illustrate the poin_t. Also keep in mind that many war-gaming scenarios include denying/closing down the entire US electronic warfare spectrum. 
Watching the 70th anniversary parade the other day, gyrocopters were also on parade in Bejing. Why would an army rely on gyrocopters? shutdown the entire EM/RF spectrum and now that gyrocopter makes sense. 

Assuming that modern aircraft are still operable, I guess the mission planning and execution will have to rely on the same techniques the Germans used for Riesenflugzeuge raids over London 100 years ago.


----------



## Token (Oct 4, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> _Chaff was a merely a suggestion to illustrate the poin_t. Also keep in mind that many war-gaming scenarios include denying/closing down the entire US electronic warfare spectrum.
> Watching the 70th anniversary parade the other day, gyrocopters were also on parade in Bejing. Why would an army rely on gyrocopters? shutdown the entire EM/RF spectrum and now that gyrocopter makes sense.



We may have shifted position in the discussion here  Not sure, but always up for a discussion.

I have to ask, as either a defending or attacking (different answers to those two situations) force, how do you "deny/close down the entire US electronic warfare spectrum" and what does that gain you? What US systems are being attacked, and how? How does that prevent an enemy from using passive systems, including passive bistatic radars, detecting or tracking US stealth aircraft? If they shut down the entire EM/RF spectrum (not really possible) how does the enemy, presumably defending, coordinate defense without access themselves to the EM/RF spectrum?

T!


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 5, 2019)

Token said:


> We may have shifted position in the discussion here  Not sure, but always up for a discussion.
> 
> I have to ask, as either a defending or attacking (different answers to those two situations) force, how do you "deny/close down the entire US electronic warfare spectrum" and what does that gain you? What US systems are being attacked, and how? How does that prevent an enemy from using passive systems, including passive bistatic radars, detecting or tracking US stealth aircraft? If they shut down the entire EM/RF spectrum (not really possible) how does the enemy, presumably defending, coordinate defense without access themselves to the EM/RF spectrum?
> 
> T!


I agree I might have inadvertently shifted the discussion. Perhaps our views differ because I expect the environment to get real quiet due to attacks on both terrestrial and space-borne C4ISR assets along with active attempts to passively track and destroy radiating transmitters. The PLAN Counterintervention defense network is supposedly robust enough to work in a completely degraded EM/RF spectrum that also has degraded their own cyber assets while supposedly shutting down those of their opponents. This would still leave various tracking technologies available (Long range optical, aural, passive IR, etc.) The Chinese believe they can do it. And claim to be practicing it.

A recent PLAN journal discussed completely "blinding" US assets as a prelude to sinking 2 US CVN prior to invading Taiwan (Admiral Lou Yuan, Chinese Academy of Military Sciences.).


----------



## Token (Oct 5, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> I agree I might have inadvertently shifted the discussion. Perhaps our views differ because I expect the environment to get real quiet due to attacks on both terrestrial and space-borne C4ISR assets along with active attempts to passively track and destroy radiating transmitters. The PLAN Counterintervention defense network is supposedly robust enough to work in a completely degraded EM/RF spectrum that also has degraded their own cyber assets while supposedly shutting down those of their opponents. This would still leave various tracking technologies available (Long range optical, aural, passive IR, etc.) The Chinese believe they can do it. And claim to be practicing it.
> 
> A recent PLAN journal discussed completely "blinding" US assets as a prelude to sinking 2 US CVN prior to invading Taiwan (Admiral Lou Yuan, Chinese Academy of Military Sciences.).



Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face, or maybe the Moltke version sounds better to your ears (paraphrased) "no plan of operations survives with any certainty beyond the first contact with the enemy".

So the basics of what you are saying: the PLA has a plan to leverage the US reliance on technology by denying much of the advanced sensor networks and technologies developed over the years. They believe they can reduce the US capability to perform to near useless levels while still having an ability to complete their desired objectives themselves. Sounds ambitious to me.

And of course, the US has not considered this, weighed the real demonstrated capabilities of the enemies defenses, and has made no plans to operate under such attempts....

I think the PLA could maybe achieve (assuming they can at all, I have doubts) such control over the spectrum only for a limited time, and then in limited regions. And that still leaves the "holes" they have left for themselves to use, which can be used by an attacking force. Day 1, maybe, Day 3, not so much, Day 5, they better have a new plan. And they better be willing to take losses in regions not so reduced.

Sinking 2 US CVNs would be a major event, it would warrant real retaliation against the government who ordered it. If the ships were actually sunk, vs just rendered inoperable, the possible death toll may be over 11,000, or more than all of the US deaths in all of the conflicts since Vietnam combined. Even if most of the sailors could be saved, and only say 10% died, it would be the highest single day (or even single week, if spread across a week of time) loses of US combat forces since at least as far back as the Korean war, and more likely one of the major battles of WW II. If for some reason 25% of the personnel were lost it would be more than the deaths from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Not to mention the political ramifications of sinking a US carrier, what that does to US national security, and how responses would have to include showing other potential adversaries the gravity of major attacks by nation states on US warships. I have serious doubts responses would be limited to the initial areas of conflict.

You specifically mentioned optical and IR technologies as things the PLA would plan to have available to them. It is a good thing that stealthy platforms, like the F-35 (to return to the subject of the thread), don't attempt to reduce their visual detection or IR signature, or limit their active emissions in the RF spectrum and lean more heavily on IR or visual detection or queuing, ah? Darned short sighted of the designers to not include IRST....



T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 5, 2019)

Token said:


> Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face, or maybe the Moltke version sounds better to your ears (paraphrased) "no plan of operations survives with any certainty beyond the first contact with the enemy".
> 
> So the basics of what you are saying: the PLA has a plan to leverage the US reliance on technology by denying much of the advanced sensor networks and technologies developed over the years. They believe they can reduce the US capability to perform to near useless levels while still having an ability to complete their desired objectives themselves. Sounds ambitious to me.
> 
> ...


Like the Soviets, I don't see the Chinese as being invincible. And I understand that most military's scream about a lack of readiness to counter XXXX threat. 

But, a brief perusal of open press US military journals, various Rand reports, etc., will indeed raise your eyebrows about the state of US military preparedness to fight in environment that denies use of C4ISR. 

Sinking a CVN? When did they become sacrosanct? We expected to last about 48 hours. Long enough for the Soviets to finds us and hit us with either nukes or incendiary warheads. (I had a very pleasant Russian submariner show me a picture of my CV in his periscope over a beer in the Submariners club in St. Petersburg. The picture was taken while I was crew.)

*"They believe they can reduce the US capability to perform to near useless levels while still having an ability to complete their desired objectives themselves. Sounds ambitious to me."* - Last time it worked for about 7 months. Who has the industrial base now? We can't even fix a national asset like the USS Truman because we didn't keep a critical part on the shelf. She just missed a deployment date and won't sail for another 60 days making her 90 days late for a scheduled deployment. The Ike (CVN-69)? Her six month yard period just ran _18 _months. And the rest of DoD ain't much better. 

And while I appreciate your optimism, even the Navy is now saying stealth isn't what it was. We can both agree that the RCS/IRST suppression still makes it harder to detect reducing firing solution time and easier to break the kill chain. Retain a little pessimism my friend. 

_I believe the Chinese are able to completely suppress the full electromagnetic spectrum in localized areas of battle for short periods of time. And fully able to control the battle and its outcome due to doctrine and training to fight in that environment. _


----------



## Glider (Oct 5, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Like the Soviets, I don't see the Chinese as being invincible. And I understand that most military's scream about a lack of readiness to counter XXXX threat.
> 
> But, a brief perusal of open press US military journals, various Rand reports, etc., will indeed raise your eyebrows about the state of US military preparedness to fight in environment that denies use of C4ISR.
> 
> ...



Your assumption is that we are the only nation to have problems. The Chinese have unquestionably made significant leaps in all areas of their military capability they are still learning and its one thing to build a power base and quite another to be able to maintain it. A lot of their technology is cutting edge (for China) and people with the required skills are in short supply. 
Stealth will have to develop and improve to stay concurrent, that shouldn't be a surprise, and in this area the US are well ahead. It's a good bet that having developed the stealth technology the US will have looked at how to deal with opponents with stealth, any look at the history of countermeasures will confirm that.
China is a huge country and it clearly has ambitions that extend well beyond its borders and with this in mind it's modern armed forces are small. Heaven forbid if it ever did but if the chips go down, the USA can count of the assistance of the European countries who are technically well developed to support them, who would China look to for support? Russia is bankrupt and in my opinion is less well equipped militarily than China. 

You are right to believe that we should take the threat seriously but, and its an important but, you shouldn't consider them to be supermen who never make mistakes.


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 5, 2019)

Glider said:


> Your assumption is that we are the only nation to have problems. The Chinese have unquestionably made significant leaps in all areas of their military capability they are still learning and its one thing to build a power base and quite another to be able to maintain it. A lot of their technology is cutting edge (for China) and people with the required skills are in short supply.
> Stealth will have to develop and improve to stay concurrent, that shouldn't be a surprise, and in this area the US are well ahead. It's a good bet that having developed the stealth technology the US will have looked at how to deal with opponents with stealth, any look at the history of countermeasures will confirm that.
> China is a huge country and it clearly has ambitions that extend well beyond its borders and with this in mind it's modern armed forces are small. Heaven forbid if it ever did but if the chips go down, the USA can count of the assistance of the European countries who are technically well developed to support them, who would China look to for support? Russia is bankrupt and in my opinion is less well equipped militarily than China.
> 
> You are right to believe that we should take the threat seriously but, and its an important but, you shouldn't consider them to be supermen who never make mistakes.



Please refer to first sentence in my post:
"Like the Soviets, I don't see the Chinese as being invincible."

In the Pacific, I believe we can count on Japan (Although the PLAAF does has published doctrine to blockade Japan and create a famine.) along with Australia. There are also a lot of choke points along the routes that China needs to move her oil. (I don't think Russia can replace the all the oil.) Korea will sit it out, as will New Zealand and the countries adjacent to the nine dash line.

I do not believe we should count on any European NATO members. I believe Russia will happily cut off the gas to aid her new ally and to punish Europe for the sanctions.


----------



## Glider (Oct 5, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Please refer to first sentence in my post:
> "Like the Soviets, I don't see the Chinese as being invincible."
> 
> In the Pacific, I believe we can count on Japan (Although the PLAAF does has published doctrine to blockade Japan and create a famine.) along with Australia. There are also a lot of choke points along the routes that China needs to move her oil. (I don't think Russia can replace the all the oil.) Korea will sit it out, as will New Zealand and the countries adjacent to the nine dash line.
> ...



I did note your first line, however the tone of the postings have generally been very negative. Do you really think that the Chinese are less liable to error than the USA and its allies? How many stealth aircraft does china have, probably less than 50 and how effective are they? Then how many does the USA and its allies have?

I have no doubt that China has a plan to blockade Japan, but I find it difficult to believe that it would work. They don't have the navy or airforce, and missiles have there own limitations.

As for Russia I think they would stay out of it, possibly supplying mainly Oil and Gas to both sides. Russia imports huge quantities of food and agricultural machinery from the world and both sides can play the blockade card. One thing Russia cannot afford is to let its people go hungry. The risk of serious instability would be too high.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 5, 2019)

Glider said:


> I did note your first line, however the tone of the postings have generally been very negative. Do you really think that the Chinese are less liable to error than the USA and its allies? How many stealth aircraft does china have, probably less than 50 and how effective are they? Then how many does the USA and its allies have?
> 
> I have no doubt that China has a plan to blockade Japan, but I find it difficult to believe that it would work. They don't have the navy or airforce, and missiles have there own limitations.
> 
> As for Russia I think they would stay out of it, possibly supplying mainly Oil and Gas to both sides. Russia imports huge quantities of food and agricultural machinery from the world and both sides can play the blockade card. One thing Russia cannot afford is to let its people go hungry. The risk of serious instability would be too high.



Pardon my negativity, after 40 years of either wearing the uniform, working with active duty navy and reading the professional journals from the US and other countries it's hard not be a little jaundiced. Particularly in view of what the USAF and USN are doing these days. 

"They don't have the navy or airforce, and missiles have there own limitations."
Report to Congress on China Naval Modernization - USNI News


----------



## Glider (Oct 5, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Pardon my negativity, after 40 years of either wearing the uniform, working with active duty navy and reading the professional journals from the US and other countries it's hard not be a little jaundiced. Particularly in view of what the USAF and USN are doing these days.
> 
> "They don't have the navy or airforce, and missiles have there own limitations."
> Report to Congress on China Naval Modernization - USNI News



I still stand by my comment, they don't have the navy or the airforce. The majority of the increase in the Chinese Navy is in short range FPB and Corvettes and they actually have one less attack submarine compared to 2005. We all know that numbers are not everything and there is no denying that the capability is significantly improved. However if you were to change the date of the paper to 1973 and substitute Soviet Union for China, the majority of the report would be very similar. 
China are doing what Russia did in the late 60's and 70's (when I was in the RN). I am not being complacent, the development should be watched and measures taken to compensate but it's also important to stand back and have a clear view of the situation and not be drawn into automatically thinking the worst.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Oct 6, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> But, a brief perusal of open press US military journals, various Rand reports, etc., will indeed raise your eyebrows about the state of US military preparedness to fight in environment that denies use of C4ISR.


I don't think much I read in a Rand report about this will be a huge surprise.

The US mil has become very network centric, with extensive sensor fusion from varied sources, and when able to use the full capability they have developed they are unequaled. But even at the more localized level, each soldier, each airmen, each aircraft or ship, there really is no force, on average, as capable.

Deny / reduce C4ISR and the US military will loose its "hammer swatting a fly" advantage, but it is still capable of defeating the Chinese, it will just take longer and result in higher losses. The Chinese are absolutely trying to change that, their modernization / expansion efforts are enviable, but they are not there yet, nor will they be in the near future.

And yes, the US mil does train / practice in a denied environment. They often don't like to, they prefer to enjoy the advantages of full systems, but testing and training of reduced abilities does take place.


jetcal1 said:


> Sinking a CVN? When did they become sacrosanct? We expected to last about 48 hours. Long enough for the Soviets to finds us and hit us with either nukes or incendiary warheads.


I don' t doubt, in the least, the Chinese have the technical ability to kill CVNs, especially in relatively close proximate to their territorial waters. That was not the point of what I was saying. They have developed techniques and hardware specific to that task. What I doubt is their willingness to do so, and to then suffer the escalation that would almost certainly come in the event of a couple of sunk carriers.

Killing a carrier would be a major escalation, and would probably expand a conflict significantly. Disabling it, without sinking it, would be far preferable.

You cannot compare the US / China matchup today to the Cold War US / Russia situation. I am NOT saying China is easy or second rate, not in the least, only that it is not very similar to that past situation.

Lets talk about the impact of such a conflict to the Chinese economy. Leaving out direct impacts (see what I did there?  ) due to any major conflict, reduced infrastructure, restricted shipping capability, etc, the US is about 18% of China's exports, on the order of 540 billion dollars a year. Are they going to take a chance to disrupt that, and probably a significant portion of the 700 billion a year to Europe also, by sinking a US carrier? The Russians never had that kind of economic tie to the US.

And while trade is important to both sides of the equation, China (more succinctly, the governing body of China, to stay in power) needs the US more than the US needs China. In the event of a major or protracted conflict the US would have major shortages of many items, but relatively few that are critical. The Cosco / WalMart shelves may run bare of weedeaters, plastic toys, and TV sets, but fuel, food, and medical services would continue mostly unharmed for quite a while. Sure, fuel prices would go up (impacting almost all other pricing), people would be unhappy about things like that, but life would go on.

China is far more dependant on foreign oil imports than the US is. And while Russia is the single largest supplier of oil to China, China still gets a lot of oil by sea. In the event of a protracted or expanded US/China conflict I doubt the Chinese Navy could keep sea lanes open. 30+ years ago this would have small impact on the average Chinese citizen...not so today.

I mention nukes here just for the sake of showing numbers and ratios, not as suggestion they would be used as the result of some regional conflict, I don't think the Chinese are that driven, and I am reasonably certain no US president wants to be the guy that used nukes, in Asia, for the second time. Russia had rough parity with the US in nuclear capability, China does not. In the late 1980's the Soviets had on the order of 40,000 warheads, and the US had around 23,000. MAD was much more than a concept. Today China has anything from 250 to 600'ish weapons, depending on which source you believe, and the US has roughly 6,200. Both have the ability to greatly impact the other, but the US has the ability (but probably not the will) to erase China.

Russia had a serious Blue Water Navy and threat to US battlegroups in any theater in the World. I do not claim China is not a threat to a battlegroup near home, however they have very limited ability to project Naval power beyond the immediate region. Russia was a World military player, China is a World power but more of a regional military player with desires to move up to the big leagues.

Much more importantly, for the entirety of the Cold War the Russian military was a dagger pointed at the chest of our friends and allies in Europe. They had a significant conventional military force that could, in a matter of days (because of location and geography) , roll into and over several nations with which the US was strongly allied and had historical ties. China does not have this lever. Who are they going to roll tanks into, Russia? India? They do, of course, threaten allies, Japan, Australia, etc, but they would have to ship forces there before they could occupy those locations. Not the same thing at all.

The Blue Water naval parity between the US and Russia during the Cold War was relatively close, the Chinese Navy has nothing like that. SSBN's, SSN's, Cruisers, Destroyers, and Carriers, they are well behind the US, a fraction of the capability. For littoral combat and waters close to home they are formidable, but after the expansion of the conflict that would almost certainly result from sinking a Carrier, how long would those last?

I view the Chinese problem as having two "levels". The Spratly's and in, and outside that region. Inside that region they are strong and capable, equal to what US forces could bring to the table in many ways, ahead in some ways, and behind in others. More behind than ahead, but close. In the long term I think the US would prevail (assuming it maintained the resolve), but it would be a protracted effort. Outside of that region there is no real comparison, the US military has the advantage in every way I can think of.



jetcal1 said:


> And while I appreciate your optimism, even the Navy is now saying stealth isn't what it was. We can both agree that the RCS/IRST suppression still makes it harder to detect reducing firing solution time and easier to break the kill chain. Retain a little pessimism my friend.



Sure, stealth (the reduction of signature, across many regions) is not the game changer it was 25+ years ago. It is more a fact of military development for everyone than the silver bullet it used to be for the US.

But it still works.

Militaries may work on anti-stealth tech (view the expansion of passive radar systems that started this portion of this thread) but the vast majority of weapons systems that operate beyond short ranges are still radar guided. Stealth excels in the RF realm. What SAM is in the field, in numbers, today or in the near future that can intercept an aircraft at greater than 6 km? The VAST majority are radar guided, a minority are IR guided, and a vanishingly small percentage use some other technology.

Stealth is still more survivable than non-stealth. I believe it will, to some extent, be so for quite a long time.


jetcal1 said:


> I believe the Chinese are able to completely suppress the full electromagnetic spectrum in localized areas of battle for short periods of time. And fully able to control the battle and its outcome due to doctrine and training to fight in that environment.


And I don't. I don't think anyone can fully suppress the EM spectrum in the first place (maybe your idea of the full spectrum is different from mine). They can impact major important parts of it, they can reduce the usability of large chunks of it. But unless by "localized" you mean a bubble a few km across I doubt anyone, in a usable way, can deny it all, and I especially don't think they can do so without major impact to their own capabilities beyond preplanned events.

T!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 6, 2019)

T what do you make of this footage .... ?
Try to look away from these Chinese troops doing a dramatic slow turn


----------



## Token (Oct 6, 2019)

michaelmaltby said:


> T what do you make of this footage .... ?
> Try to look away from these Chinese troops doing a dramatic slow turn



I think communist have always thrown the best parades.

Yeah, I laughed when I saw that, then I thought "that poor dude, he is going to catch a world of crap". I hope counseling did not involve a 5.8mm.

T!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 6, 2019)

Token said:


> I think communist have always thrown the best parades.
> 
> Yeah, I laughed when I saw that, then I thought "that poor dude, he is going to catch a world of crap". I hope counseling did not involve a 5.8mm.
> 
> T!


He probably ain't gonna have enough points to make the next cutting score.


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 6, 2019)

Glider said:


> I still stand by my comment, they don't have the navy or the airforce. The majority of the increase in the Chinese Navy is in short range FPB and Corvettes and they actually have one less attack submarine compared to 2005. We all know that numbers are not everything and there is no denying that the capability is significantly improved. However if you were to change the date of the paper to 1973 and substitute Soviet Union for China, the majority of the report would be very similar.
> China are doing what Russia did in the late 60's and 70's (when I was in the RN). I am not being complacent, the development should be watched and measures taken to compensate but it's also important to stand back and have a clear view of the situation and not be drawn into automatically thinking the worst.



Please go look at their commissioning rates. Particularly the Type 055 destroyer. You might be surprised. If you'd really to be taken aback, take a look at the size of their 'Coast Guard" and their commissioning rates.

One a personal note, two of my former shipmates toured the PLAAN Jian (Type 052D) a few years ago in Mayport. Both of them are intimately familiar with shipboard fittings and trained to assess material condition. (The Jian was in the middle of an around the world deployment and not a ringer sent on tour.) There were a few philosophical design differences that they saw that they questioned, and one of them noticed some electronics on the bridge were tagged out. They were impressed overall with the quality and condition of what saw _especially considering the ship was mid-deployment._


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 6, 2019)

Token said:


> I don't think much I read in a Rand report about this will be a huge surprise.
> 
> _The US mil has become very network centric, with extensive sensor fusion from varied sources, and when able to use the full capability they have developed they are unequaled. But even at the more localized level, each soldier, each airmen, each aircraft or ship, there really is no force, on average, as capable.
> 
> ...



I'm sure I may have missed a response or two to your post. Please consider that I don't think the Chinese are ten feet tall. I do have an excellent knowledge of our own capabilities and what the Chinese are building and commissioning. Selling China short comes at your own peril. They are built up their industrial base, their design teams are getting exercised like crazy and they have National Will. There is still a significant percentage who want revenge for the Century of Humiliation. 

I see that we have gone way off the rails from the original topic and have enjoyed the discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 13, 2019)

Norway’s F-35s have a problem with a unique piece of gear


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 14, 2019)

First Brit F-35s land aboard the carrier HMS QE2:

First UK fighter jets land onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Oct 17, 2019)

Nice video...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Oct 17, 2019)

It's one of those neato 360 degree videos. So feel free to 'grab' and pan around during the flight ...


----------



## Greyman (Oct 25, 2019)

I'm a bit late on this but here's a 2019 updated Heritage Foundation report on the F-35 (from the older 2016 .pdf file I posted in the past);
The F-35A Fighter Is the Most Dominant and Lethal Multi-Role Weapons System in the World: Now Is the Time to Ramp Up Production 

Also a great talk and QnA period the author has about the report here (skip to 14 minutes in);

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 30, 2019)

In newly inked deal, F-35 price falls to $78 million a copy

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Nov 1, 2019)

OOOOPS............OOOPS! First Dutch F-35A Accidentally Gets Foam Party Instead of Water Salute.


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 1, 2019)

Torch said:


> OOOOPS............OOOPS! First Dutch F-35A Accidentally Gets Foam Party Instead of Water Salute.


Ouch! Mustering the reclamation and salvage party on the first day? That's going to be expensive. I hope the other operators are smart enough to send some volunteers to participate in some very invaluable real world training.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 1, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Ouch! Mustering the reclamation and salvage party on the first day? That's going to be expensive.


Hey it's an F35, isn't it? Doesn't "expensive" go with the territory?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 3, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hey it's an F35, isn't it? Doesn't "expensive" go with the territory?


I was involved with the F-35 GSE depot. Some of the gear just boggled the imagination, aesthetically it would have pleased any engineer. From a usage and durability standpoint for shipboard use? 
It made me cringe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> I was involved with the F-35 GSE depot. Some of the gear just boggled the imagination, aesthetically it would have pleased any engineer. From a usage and durability standpoint for shipboard use?
> It made me cringe.


From what I've been told from people who were on the program, a lot of the GSE was not designed and built by LM and was either subcontracted or a directed GFE source. In either case it seems once again no one fully spoke to the end user.


----------



## jetcal1 (Nov 3, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From what I've been told from people who were on the program, a lot of the GSE was not designed and built by LM and was either subcontracted or a directed GFE source. In either case it seems once again no one fully spoke to the end user.



I blame JAPO for this. This is not all the fault of LMCO.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Nov 4, 2019)

There's a short TV series on at the moment on UK TV about the carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. It's a fly on the wall programme which is nicely done and the second episode concentrated on the Sea Trials of the F35 and it's integration / test flying on the new carrier. They explain in a fair amount of detail how the unique twin superstructure has had to be taken into account when writing the rule book with the F35 and there are a number of interesting factors that I hadn't been aware of.

One of the key tasks of the test flying is to find the edge of the performance envelope regarding the operating conditions the F35 can be flown in. The tests were very successful and in an endeavour to find the strongest winds possible HMS Queen Elizabeth deliberately sailed into the outer areas of Hurricane Michael and operated the F35 with wind speeds of 70mph over the deck. The rain was sheeting down, the aircraft was barely visible from the bridge and it was the on absolute limit of the deck handling teams ability to stay standing up. It was a very impressive thing to see.

The deck has to be protected from the jet blast which is exceptionally hot and a new type of metal has been developed which is sprayed over the deck in a molten format, which then dissipates the heat so that when the aircraft is moved immediately after landing the deck is approx. 100 degrees c and rapidly cools so it isn't an issue. Having seen the jet blast deflectors on the Ark Royal glowing red hot after an F4 launch, this was an example as to how far technology has come. A sad thing was one of the scientists responsible for developing this new material was interviewed, she was from a minority, young and it was good to see someone who had clearly made it to a responsible position so quickly on her merit. At the end, the programme it was dedicated to her as she had died from cancer.

On a lighter note bird ingestion is a problem on any carrier and there was a video of a small bird being sucked into the dorsal intake when the aircraft was in the hover just before landing. The lighter part of this was the name given to the dorsal intake, it's called by one and all, the toilet seat, and the ship has been adopted by a Kestrel which has made a nest in the netting at the stern of the ship. As you would expect this has significantly reduced the bird strike risk.

Some other small facts, the ship has 23 nationalities on board and the RN do all they can to cover religious requirements a good example being the Captains personal Steward who is a Rastafarian from St Vincent in the Caribbean . He is allowed to keep his dreadlocks but when on duty he has to keep them tidy and in a bun as per the requirements followed by female crew members. When off duty on board he can let them down.

An interesting programme

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 27, 2019)

Sometimes one has to just shake one's head and sigh:

F-35 ‘Epic Failure’ Intercepting Russian Bomber Tu-160 an Epic Fake

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 5, 2019)

Coming in 2020: A new technology to link F-35 simulators across the globe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Dec 6, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> Sometimes one has to just shake one's head and sigh:
> 
> F-35 ‘Epic Failure’ Intercepting Russian Bomber Tu-160 an Epic Fake



Good for a chuckle.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 3, 2020)

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Saw Record Production, Big Hurdles in 2019


----------



## Torch (Jan 7, 2020)

52 F-35A Jets Take Part In Massive “Elephant Walk” At Hill Air Force Base, Utah.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2020)

Torch said:


> 52 F-35A Jets Take Part In Massive “Elephant Walk” At Hill Air Force Base, Utah.



I was just out at Hill AFB late last year for work. F-35’s taking off outside of our hangar all damn day.

Makes me appreciate my Raptor even more...


----------



## Glider (Jan 7, 2020)

Has anyone else noted that the F35 critics seem to have gone very quiet these days. Even the President seems to have changed his mind

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 7, 2020)

Concur. Funny how proven success stops the flapping of uninformed critical gums.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 7, 2020)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jan 8, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I was just out at Hill AFB late last year for work. F-35’s taking off outside of our hangar all damn day.
> 
> Makes me appreciate my Raptor even more...


Seen a bunch take off at Buckley up close...They are loud


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2020)

Torch said:


> Seen a bunch take off at Buckley up close...They are loud



Yes they are.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 8, 2020)

Glider said:


> Has anyone else noted that the F35 critics seem to have gone very quiet these days. Even the President seems to have changed his mind


Not those living around the VT ANG base in Burlington. They're as loud as the jets are! But then again most of them are too young or too recent to remember the F4.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Torch (Jan 11, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Not those living around the VT ANG base in Burlington. They're as loud as the jets are! But then again most of them are too young or too recent to remember the F4.
> Cheers,
> Wes


We used to stay at a Hawthorne Suites in Marietta Georgia while in school, it was in the flight path of Cobb AFB, got to see and hear alot of different birds but your right the F4 were very loud but not as impressive as seeing a C5 low and slow over head...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 11, 2020)

The sound of a Galaxy is unmistakable

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 11, 2020)

From time to time, maybe once a year on average a C5 flies right over my house and a couple times over the years they have been very, very low.
Kinda reminiscent of one of those science fiction movies where the alien space ship flies overhead and it's so large it takes up the whole sky..................Very impressive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 11, 2020)

michael rauls said:


> Kinda reminiscent of one of those science fiction movies where the alien space ship flies overhead and it's so large it takes up the whole sky..............


The aluminum overcast hovercraft. Soundtrack by Hoover. Straight out of "Independence Day".
Hitchhiked a ride in one in 1972, back when they were new, from NAS Key West to (ostensibly) NAS Quonset Point on a three day weekend pass. Below minimums in Quonset, followed by an in-flight emergency put us on the ground in a monsoon at Dover AFB Delaware, where we were taxied into a huge hangar marked "AUTHORIZED USAF PERSONNEL ONLY". We three enlisted sailors and the Corps of Engineers civilian on board were met by a very angry USAF Brigadier General who had us blindfolded and dumped out into the rain to hike to the transient terminal. Too late. We had already seen the wingless C5 with its engineless wings laid out on the floor, some skin panels off and people working on the spars. Apparently the AF was trying to keep a lid on the wing fatigue life scandal that erupted quite publicly about then. FlyboyJoe, you used to work at Lockheed, can you shed light on this?
Anyway, by hitchhike and Greyhound I made it home just in time to catch my airline flight back to Key West.
That C5 was an awesome ride. 1700' ground roll at 769,000 lbs GTOW. Fuel On Board to fly Key West -> Quonset -> JAX + reserve. An SH3 and two HAWK 3-rail launchers downstairs in the cargo bay.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 11, 2020)

There's a "rumor" floating around that people would go up into the tail compartment to grab a smoke, too.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 11, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> There's a "rumor" floating around that people would go up into the tail compartment to grab a smoke, too.


Yup, the MSGT loadmaster took us back up there with its 100+ aft facing airline style seats, windowless, with multiple smoke and CO detectors, no cabin environmental controls, and an inoperative intercom to the crew compartment. Told us to choose a seat, strap in, stay put, and don't touch anything. At this point, the Aircraft Commander, a Major, and his boss, a bird Colonel flying as FO, came up to welcome us aboard, and the elderly civilian engineer (one of the Chosen Frozen from Korea) lit into them about "a hell of a way to treat guests", whereupon they overrode their loadmaster and invited us up front to the crew compartment, a small airliner all by itself.
The cockpit of that thing was bigger than the bridge of a DE, and the pilot seats slid fore and aft AND right and left. There were multiple jump seats, and another Major and a light Colonel, and all these guys were looking to grab some stick time, so it was a non stop Chinese fire drill. Not to mention that there were three guys rotating through the flight engineer station. Several of these guys seemed intrigued by the idea of a "dixie cup" E4 with a multi engine Commercial Pilot License in his pocket, apparently something that wasn't all that common in USAF. Had some interesting conversations.
I had been my unit's delegate to the Air Station C5 Suitability Assessment Committee, and we had done an exhaustive survey of operating parameters, dimensions, and vulnerabilities using a detailed packet of C5 specifications and limitations. This was sent out over the base engineering officer's and the CO's signatures to USAF before they would release the flight to come down to us.
Even so we missed one vulnerable bit of asphalt-over-concrete patchwork that came loose when the big bird almost came to stop turning onto the active and the pilot had to spool up #4 a little to keep us moving. That chunk of asphalt flew a hundred yards, penetrated the concrete block wall of the VF101 CO's office, smacked into his bulletin board, and fell on his desk, just three feet to the left of where he was standing looking out the window.
100 yds aft at Initial Breakaway Thrust: 120 Kts wind effect.
1000 ft aft at IBT: 60 Mph
Numbers from the info packet.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 11, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The sound of a Galaxy is unmistakable


Yes thay do have a distinct sound. A couple times ive been doing something in the house, had the front door open, and upon hearing that distinct sound ran outside to see if I could get a look.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 24, 2020)

Negotiations ‘almost complete’ on Poland’s buy of 32 F-35s, defense minister says

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 11, 2020)

How the F-35 could be a game-changer for Singapore


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 11, 2020)

Wow!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 11, 2020)

New Details About the F-15X That Boeing is Pitching the US Air Force
More payload than the F-35 and greatly lowered hourly operational costs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2020)

Depending who you talk to, these F-15s will be "mules" for the F-22 and F-35. This is not new news, IIRC this was in the press last year. From Air Force Magazine;

_"The F-15EX purchase was an initiative of the Pentagon’s Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation shop, which said the Air Force could more rapidly refresh its fighter fleet by purchasing new examples of the F-15, even as it buys the stealthy F-35 fighter.* Service leaders have said the F-35 remains their top priority, and will only buy the F-15EX if additional funds are provided that don’t require reducing the F-35 buy.*"_

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2020)

I would like to say something, but I can’t...lol

those news articles are old. Keep your ears and eyes open people.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 12, 2020)

IMHO a stealth UAV bomb mule that can be controlled from an F35 would make much more sense and have far greater operational utility than new-build F-15s.

This is just my read on the situation. I have zero connection to any defence procurement efforts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 12, 2020)

Surely the term 'Mule' is dismissive ... as we have witnessed and discussed many times on this forum ... Uncle Sam likes to employ both belt _and_ suspenders when it comes to picking AC ... it's part politics and part military indulgences, IMO.

"... would like to say something, but I can’t...lol"
Why not? It's never stopped you before ....


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 12, 2020)

Not dismissive at all...simply reflective of the intended role for such a platform. It's a flying bomb truck that can penetrate hostile airspace. Seems remarkably sensible to me, particularly if the UAV could be adapted for other roles.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 12, 2020)

... I was being _sarcastic_ .... I _agreed_ with your mule comment


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 13, 2020)

This is a potential F-35 Mule platform ...


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 4, 2020)

Latest NYT article, clearly with an axe to grind:

Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program

Contains lots of old news and any credit is given grudgingly or caveated by "if" to suggest that the aircraft isn't actually performing well.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 4, 2020)

... sad.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 4, 2020)

Classic example of a hit-piece with no other purpose than to stir the pot.

Sadly, in this day age age of rabid journalism, I am not surprised...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 4, 2020)

Capt. Kristin "Beo" Wolfe, the newly-certified pilot and commander for the F-35A Demonstration Team, after a practice flight at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, Feb. 2. (Capt. Kip Sumner/Air Force)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Mar 4, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Latest NYT article, clearly with an axe to grind:
> 
> Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program
> 
> Contains lots of old news and any credit is given grudgingly or caveated by "if" to suggest that the aircraft isn't actually performing well.



There were and still are some problems. Out of respect for my then employer, I will go so far as to say some the approvals by JAPO for support equipment had to have been made by somebody on some really good psychotropic medicine.

But....the airplane does appear to be in the process of fulfilling its promise. And, that was not obvious even three years ago.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 4, 2020)

I was out at Hill AFB a few months ago for work. F-35’s flying around all day long. I prefer the F-22, but it was impressive to watch the 35’s maneuver.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Apr 27, 2020)

Update..The Pentagon has cut the number of serious F-35 technical flaws in half

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (May 11, 2020)

😳😲🤨🤔

USAF abandons 80% mission capability goal after three fighters miss target


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 11, 2020)

Perhaps there's something to be said for the East Bloc's design tradition, the PQRS factor.
Plentiful
Quick
Rugged
Simple


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2020)

Lucky13 said:


> 😳😲🤨🤔
> 
> USAF abandons 80% mission capability goal after three fighters miss target



This is a numbers game which in the bigger picture is somewhat meaningless, especially when some of the numbers in the article show all 3 aircraft weren't that far off. The size of the operational fleet has to be considered as well. Have three or four jets break in a month with a small size fleet (F-22) and your MC rate could drop by 5 points depending the size of the fleet. MC rates also factor in normal actriction as well any maintenance deviations that cause a pilot to abort the mission. You also don't fly 100% of your fleet unless you're in a wartime situation so that adds to the numbers game. If anything the fact that the F-35 can maintain an MC rate over 70% is noteworthy. I also notice the article talks about the factory deficiencies which are apples and oranges with regards to MC rates.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 11, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Perhaps there's something to be said for the East Bloc's design tradition, the PQRS factor.
> Plentiful
> Quick
> Rugged
> Simple


I think that this applies to other aircraft, not just the Eastern Bloc.

I would argue that part of the success of the C130 Hercules was because it was a simple rugged design, relatively cheap, reliable and did what it said on the tin.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 12, 2020)

Glider said:


> I would argue that part of the success of the C130 Hercules was because it was a simple rugged design, relatively cheap, reliable and did what it said on the tin.


And it was a product of an earlier and simpler time. It and its sister the Electra kind of dodged the gee-whiz technology rat race, although she and her sibling Orion had their share of mechanical issues, like shedding wings in flight and sucking up starlings.


----------



## swampyankee (May 14, 2020)

Glider said:


> I think that this applies to other aircraft, not just the Eastern Bloc.
> 
> I would argue that part of the success of the C130 Hercules was because it was a simple rugged design, relatively cheap, reliable and did what it said on the tin.



Possibly because Kelly Johnson _wasn't_ involved in the design 

It's interesting how the C-130 has continued in production after some aircraft which were, in some aspects, better have faded into obscurity.


----------



## Torch (May 20, 2020)

USAF F-35A Lightning II from 58th Fighter Squadron Crashes at Eglin AFB, Florida.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2020)

Torch said:


> USAF F-35A Lightning II from 58th Fighter Squadron Crashes at Eglin AFB, Florida.



just a few days after losing a F-22.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 22, 2020)

The inside story of two supersonic flights that changed how America operates the F-35

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (May 23, 2020)

More bad news:

When US Navy and Marine F-35 pilots most need performance, the aircraft becomes erratic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 23, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> More bad news:
> 
> When US Navy and Marine F-35 pilots most need performance, the aircraft becomes erratic


Old news from last year. AFAIK these issues were fixed


----------



## buffnut453 (May 23, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Old news from last year. AFAIK these issues were fixed



DOH! I'm usually better than that. Should've checked the date.


----------



## Husky (May 23, 2020)

Lemme guess....firmware/software update.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 23, 2020)

Husky said:


> Lemme guess....firmware/software update.



The problem was related to flight controls so, yes, it would require a software update to fix it.


----------



## Glider (Jun 9, 2020)

Nice photo of the F35 on HMS Queen Elizabeth

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 13, 2020)

US State Dept. approves UAE’s purchase of F-35 jets, MQ-9 drones

"... up to 50 ..."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 13, 2020)

Not meaning to bring politics into this, but I have to wonder how much this sale has to do with the recent Israel-UAE Abraham Accords Peace Agreement. For anyone not already aware, the US is prohibited (by US law) from selling superior weapons technology to any nation seen as a potential threat to Israel.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Dec 2, 2020)

Has much more to do with bribery of the POTUS and setting up a place for him to run to when the New York indictments are issued. The UAE is also very friendly with both the PRC and the Russian Federation so sales there are an easy way for him to ensure what secrets are left get in their hands.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Dec 2, 2020)

As noted below, my tit for tat is deleted. But, in the words of Dennis Miller, what is tat, where can I get some, and how do I trade it in for that other stuff...

Cheers,



Dana


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2020)

wlewisiii said:


> Has much more to do with bribery of the POTUS and setting up a place for him to run to when the New York indictments are issued. The UAE is also very friendly with both the PRC and the Russian Federation so sales there are an easy way for him to ensure what secrets are left get in their hands.



Keep the politics for facebook please. We have a no politics policy on this forum to prevent the tit for tat argueing that always ensues. There is a time and a place, and this forum is not that place.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2020)

Dana Bell said:


> As noted below, my tit for tat is deleted. But, in the words of Dennis Miller, what is tat, where can I get some, and how do I trade it in for that other stuff...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dana



It’s obvious he is talking about a current POTUS originally from New York. The no politics rule applies to all of us. Not here on this forum.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 25, 2021)

Not entirely sure what to make of this...it could just be another hatchet-job on the F-35.


*The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed*

David Axe Forbes Staff

The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed

The U.S. Air Force’s top officer wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.

The result would be a high-low mix of expensive “fifth-generation” F-22s and F-35s and inexpensive “fifth-generation-minus” jets, explained Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr.

If that plan sounds familiar, it’s because the Air Force _a generation ago_ launched development of an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small future fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.

But over 20 years of R&D, that lightweight replacement fighter got heavier and more expensive as the Air Force and lead contractor Lockheed Martin LMT +0.1% packed it with more and more new technology.

Yes, we’re talking about the F-35. The 25-ton stealth warplane has become the very problem it was supposed to solve. And now America needs a _new _fighter to solve that F-35 problem, officials said.

With a sticker price of around $100 million per plane, including the engine, the F-35 is expensive. While stealthy and brimming with high-tech sensors, it’s also maintenance-intensive, buggy and unreliable. “The F-35 is not a low-cost, lightweight fighter,” said Dan Ward, a former Air Force program manager and the author of popular business books including _The Simplicity Cycle__._

The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday. “You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our ‘high end’ [fighter], we want to make sure we don’t use it all for the low-end fight.”

“I want to moderate how much we’re using those aircraft,” Brown said.

Hence the need for a new low-end fighter to pick up the slack in day-to-day operations. Today, the Air Force’s roughly 1,000 F-16s meet that need. But the flying branch hasn’t bought a new F-16 from Lockheed since 2001. The F-16s are _old_.

In his last interview before leaving his post in January, Will Roper, the Air Force’s top acquisition official, floated the idea of new F-16 orders. But Brown shot down the idea, saying he doesn’t want more of the classic planes.

The 17-ton, non-stealthy F-16 is too difficult to upgrade with the latest software, Brown explained. Instead of ordering fresh F-16s, he said, the Air Force should initiate a “clean-sheet design” for a new low-end fighter.

Brown’s comments are a tacit admission that the F-35 has failed. As conceived in the 1990s, the program was supposed to produce thousands of fighters to displace almost all of the existing tactical warplanes in the inventories of the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

The Air Force alone wanted nearly 1,800 F-35s to replace aging F-16s and A-10s and constitute the low end of a low-high fighter mix, with 180 twin-engine F-22s making up the high end.

But the Air Force and Lockheed baked failure into the F-35’s very concept. “They tried to make the F-35 do too much,” said Dan Grazier, an analyst with the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.

There’s a small-wing version for land-based operations, a big-wing version for the Navy’s catapult-equipped aircraft carriers and, for the small-deck assault ships the Marines ride in, a vertical-landing model with a downward-blasting lift engine.

The complexity added cost. Rising costs imposed delays. Delays gave developers more time to add yet more complexity to the design. Those additions added more cost. Those costs resulted in more delays. So on and so forth.

Fifteen years after the F-35’s first flight, the Air Force has just 250 of the jets. Now the service is signaling possible cuts to the program. It’s not for no reason that Brown has begun characterizing the F-35 as a boutique, high-end fighter in the class of the F-22. The Air Force ended F-22 production after completing just 195 copies.

“The F-35 is approaching a crossroads,” Grazier said.

Pentagon leaders have hinted that, as part of the U.S. military’s shift in focus toward peer threats—that is, Russia and China—the Navy and Air Force might get bigger shares of the U.S. military’s roughly $700-billion annual budget. All at the Army’s expense.

“If we’re going to pull the trigger on a new fighter, now’s probably the time,” Grazier said. The Air Force could end F-35 production after just a few hundred examples and redirect tens of billions of dollars to a new fighter program.

But it’s an open question whether the Air Force will ever succeed in developing a light, cheap fighter. The _new _low-end jet could suffer the same fate as the _last_ low-end jet—the F-35—and steadily gain weight, complexity and cost until it becomes, well, a _high-end_ jet.

If that happens, as it’s happened before, then some future Air Force chief of staff might tell reporters—in, say, the year 2041—that the new F-36 is a Ferrari and you don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day.

To finally replace its 60-year-old F-16s, this future general might say, the Air Force should develop an affordable, lightweight fighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2021)

Hopefully Boeing jumps all over this.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2021)

I think it's a matter of money and where the current leadership wants to place dollars to accomplish "the mission." Also this is a part hatchet job. 

_"But over 20 years of R&D, that lightweight replacement fighter got heavier and more expensive as the Air Force and lead contractor Lockheed Martin LMT +0.1% packed it with more and more new technology."_

LMCO did pack it with ore technology, the air force did!

One thing I have to agree with - _The F-35 is a Ferrari, Brown told reporters last Wednesday. “You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays.* This is our ‘high end’ [fighter], we want to make sure we don’t use it all for the low-end fight.”*

“I want to moderate how much we’re using those aircraft,” Brown said._

In the mean time over 650 have been built and I believe the USAF has about 260 aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 25, 2021)

Still not sure in what context that the F-35 has "failed".

The author states that the F-35 was supposed to be a "one-size-fits-all" as requested by the military, yet turns around and states that the F-35 has taken on too many rolls.

You can't make a single type that addresses each branch's needs all wrapped up in a single airframe - it just can't be done, especially in this modern age of warfare.

And from what I've read regarding the F-35's performance from the pilots themselves, it delivers at or beyond expectations - so then the "failure" must lay more in a political sense than a performance aspect.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2021)

I read up on Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr. He's been in this position since last summer and right now this may be his vision/ opinions. An eventual change of leadership down the road may mean a change of policy. I think the author of the article is trying to negatively read between the lines and because the F-35 has been the whipping boy of the media, a chance to sell copy has arisen, regardless if it's completely true or accurate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Feb 25, 2021)

When I stand back and look at it, three things spring to mind

1) Did the F35 fail?
No, it didn't. A lot of countries use it as their primary front line fighter / bomber and it meets every criteria

2) Can it replace all the F15 and F16 aircraft currently in the USAF Inventory?
No, it is too expensive. Not even the USA can afford the sort of money that would be involved.

3) Does the USA need something new to fill the gap
Yes it does

The F15 and F16 and now pretty much fifty year old designs, they may be very effective fifty year old designs, but they are fifty years old. There are a number of other aircraft in service such as the Typhoon and Gripen that have advantages over the F15 and F16 which could in theory be used to fill the gap. However the USA is more than capable of quickly and relatively cheaply building equivalent or even better aircraft using modern materials. If the politicians stay out of the way and senior officers remember that there not going to get an F35 Mk 2 anything is possible.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2021)

Glider said:


> When I stand back and look at it, three things spring to mind
> 
> 1) Did the F35 fail?
> No, it didn't. A lot of countries use it as their primary front line fighter / bomber and it meets every criteria
> ...



Great points, but remember, the F-35A was never intended to be a dedicated air-to-air platform although some at LMCO tried to push that role a little too much IMO.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 25, 2021)

The problem is it won't just be one aircraft type. I don't see the USN, USMC and USAF all operating the same aircraft unless the new "cheap" combat aircraft follows a similar path to the F-35 (which, in all likelihood, will add complexity and increase costs and risk). 

Can the US really afford to start 2 new combat aircraft designs? What will get cut from the defence budget to make room for this unplanned expenditure?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Feb 25, 2021)

This may be an anathema to many but I think the manned air superiority fighter is ending it reign. With the advent of smarter and smarter weapons along with increased range and increased maneuverability, add sophisticated artificial intelligence, and manned aircraft wouldn't stand a chance. Take a B-52 type, or a stealthy B-2/21 type with 50+long range hypersonic air-to-air missiles associated to a powerful jointstars type aircraft with a powerful low probability of intercept radar coupled to a multichannel processing and control capability. Can you imagine the amount of airspace that could be controlled and be made effectively a no fly zone for improper coded aircraft?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2021)

"Cheap" Be careful - you get what you pay for!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Feb 25, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great points, but remember, the F-35A was never intended to be a dedicated air-to-air platform although some at LMCO tried to push that role a little too much IMO.


Totally agree. What the USA seemed to have forgotten are the lessons of the F5E and the F16. Neither were as good as there contemporaries the F4 and the F15, but both were highly capable, cheap and sold by the bucketful. And for a lot of nations the F16 was their primary combat aircraft. 

I suspect we all agree that the vast majority of missions undertaken in Afghanistan and Libya didn't and don't need the capability of the F35, and that I suggest is the sort of aircraft needed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2021)

Glider said:


> When I stand back and look at it, three things spring to mind
> 
> 1) Did the F35 fail?
> No, it didn't. A lot of countries use it as their primary front line fighter / bomber and it meets every criteria
> ...



One thing though. The F-35 was never meant to replace the F-15. That was what the F-22 was for, although it never did. It simply complimented (but the 22 is still the most potent air superiority fighter in existence). The F-35 was meant to replace the F-16 and the A-10.

Oh, one more thing...

Go Raptor!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 26, 2021)

Glider said:


> I suspect we all agree that the vast majority of missions undertaken in Afghanistan and Libya didn't and don't need the capability of the F35, and that I suggest is the sort of aircraft needed.



The problem is the current threats are China and a resurgent Russia which have IADS that make 4th gen fighters little more than targets. Having the F-35 as a boutique platform runs the risk that we'll lose the attrition war against those highly capable adversaries. 

Putin likes to compete at what we in the US term "below armed conflict" but, in reality, it's only below armed conflict from the US/NATO perspective. For the people of Georgia and Ukraine, it definitely is armed conflict. For all his savvy, Putin isn't a genius and there's a real risk that continued military incursions will, one day, trigged a bigger conflict. If that day arises, I hope we have enough F-35s in the inventory to cope.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Feb 26, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> One thing though. The F-35 was never meant to replace the F-15. That was what the F-22 was for, although it never did. It simply complimented (but the 22 is still the most potent air superiority fighter in existence). The F-35 was meant to replace the F-16 and the A-10.
> 
> Oh, one more thing...
> 
> Go Raptor!



I agree with a lot of what you say, but for politicians and senior officers to pretend that the F35 was ever going to replace the A10 was always a pipedream. The F35 can be said to have replaced the F16 in the wealthier countries in the world, but as a replacement for the A10 it was never going to work.
It could also be said that it was inevitable that the F35 would replace the F15 in countries other than the USA simply because the USA wouldn't release the F22 to those countries that had purchased the F15, plus of course the cost of the F22.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 26, 2021)

Glider said:


> I agree with a lot of what you say, but for politicians and senior officers to pretend that the F35 was ever going to replace the A10 was always a pipedream. The F35 can be said to have replaced the F16 in the wealthier countries in the world, but as a replacement for the A10 it was never going to work.
> It could also be said that it was inevitable that the F35 would replace the F15 in countries other than the USA simply because the USA wouldn't release the F22 to those countries that had purchased the F15, plus of course the cost of the F22.



The F-35 was never going to replace the A-10 no matter how much they wanted it too. The A-10 is just so specialized, and the F-35 is too fragile. The F-35 and the F-15 have different roles. Maybe outside of the US. Maybe...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 26, 2021)

... look to the Israeli's use of a 'high end' platform - F-35 - in real combat strikes .... there's familiarity factor with any platform ... pilots are only as good as their training and experience ... the Israelis don't shrink from this.
Go Lightning

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2021)

davparlr said:


> This may be an anathema to many but I think the manned air superiority fighter is ending it reign. With the advent of smarter and smarter weapons along with increased range and increased maneuverability, add sophisticated artificial intelligence, and manned aircraft wouldn't stand a chance.



I think in the short term we're going to see manned fighters working in conjunction UAVs. It going to be a matter of determining the need for a body in the middle of an automated fight.


----------



## GTX (Feb 26, 2021)

As of today over 615 F-35s delivered; over 360,000 flight hours logged; it's operating from 27 locations; has been purchased by 13 nations; has achieved IOC with 10 services, 6 of which have flown operational missions; is being actively considered to be purchased by at least another 5 nations and is expected to result in probably over 4000 act ultimately delivered through to the 2040s. If that's a failure, I would love to see what success looks like...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Feb 27, 2021)

GTX said:


> If that's a failure, I would love to see what success looks like...


I give you the Russian Su57. Supposed to be the replacement for the Mig 29 and other fighters which would have been a huge purchase. India bought into it and were going to buy about 200ish aircraft and ended up walking away from the whole thing because it failed nearly all it criteria and Russia reduced it's number to about 100 aircraft. 
Personally I liked the reason given by Russia for the delays, it was because our 4th generation aircraft are so good we don't need to press the development of a 5th generation aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Feb 27, 2021)

Glider said:


> I give you the Russian Su57. Supposed to be the replacement for the Mig 29 and other fighters which would have been a huge purchase. India bought into it and were going to buy about 200ish aircraft and ended up walking away from the whole thing because it failed nearly all it criteria and Russia reduced it's number to about 100 aircraft.
> Personally I liked the reason given by Russia for the delays, it was because our 4th generation aircraft are so good we don't need to press the development of a 5th generation aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 13, 2021)

GTX said:


> As of today over 615 F-35s delivered; over 360,000 flight hours logged; it's operating from 27 locations; has been purchased by 13 nations; has achieved IOC with 10 services, 6 of which have flown operational missions; is being actively considered to be purchased by at least another 5 nations and is expected to result in probably over 4000 act ultimately delivered through to the 2040s. If that's a failure, I would love to see what success looks like...


Perhaps it’s too big to fail, the ultimate sunk cost fallacy.

Opinion | The Fighter Jet That’s Too Pricey to Fail

It will be interesting to see what Canada does. We’ve been prevaricating on this for decades now.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Perhaps it’s too big to fail, the ultimate sunk cost fallacy.
> 
> Opinion | The Fighter Jet That’s Too Pricey to Fail
> 
> It will be interesting to see what Canada does. We’ve been prevaricating on this for decades now.



Great article - while LMCO isn't blameless, no one want to address people in the pentagon and USAF who kept adding things on to the program.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Mar 13, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Perhaps it’s too big to fail, the ultimate sunk cost fallacy.
> 
> Opinion | The Fighter Jet That’s Too Pricey to Fail
> 
> It will be interesting to see what Canada does. We’ve been prevaricating on this for decades now.



Canada will eventually get the F-35.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 13, 2021)

GTX said:


> Canada will eventually get the F-35.


Eventually yes, but that could be a long time. Ottawa has spent the farm on Covid, we need to replace the frigates. There’s no money for the F-35. If we could without facing the ire of Washington and contravening Norad I expect Canada would like to go the way of New Zealand in scrapping the fighter requirement entirely.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2021)

Lockheed’s F-35 topples competition in Swiss fighter contest


The F-35 beat out the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and Boeing's Super Hornet.




www.defensenews.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2021)

Was just gonna post that, and the Rafale was the expected favourite for a while.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Lockheed’s F-35 topples competition in Swiss fighter contest
> 
> 
> The F-35 beat out the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and Boeing's Super Hornet.
> ...



I would expect it to beat those. The F-35 is a whole generation better. Now lets put an F-22 up against it...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would expect it to beat those. The F-35 is a whole generation better. Now lets put an F-22 up against it...


Will the F-35 be able to fight BVR and interface with ground based assets?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would expect it to beat those. The F-35 is a whole generation better.



I'm not entirely sure exactly why the F-35 beat the other contenders, possibly because of its technological lead, but the other contenders' manufacturers pulled out all the stops, with Eurofighter consortium offering limited production in Switzerland and access to other weapon systems to sweeten the deal, I think Boeing did the same with the Super duper Hornet. I suspect the F-35 is a means by which Switzerland introduces greater integration with US and other European forces that operate the type; the Swiss have traditionally been outliers that kept their own defence agenda, but the interoperability and information sharing that comes with the F-35 could possibly signal a policy change for the Swiss?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Will the F-35 be able to fight BVR and interface with ground based assets?



Still have to find the 22...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> I'm not entirely sure exactly why the F-35 beat the other contenders, possibly because of its technological lead, but the other contenders' manufacturers pulled out all the stops, with Eurofighter consortium offering limited production in Switzerland and access to other weapon systems to sweeten the deal, I think Boeing did the same with the Super duper Hornet. I suspect the F-35 is a means by which Switzerland introduces greater integration with US and other European forces that operate the type; the Swiss have traditionally been outliers that kept their own defence agenda, but the interoperability and information sharing that comes with the F-35 could possibly signal a policy change for the Swiss?



I honestly thought the Swiss would take the F-18.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I honestly thought the Swiss would take the F-18.



Boeing were clearly hoping so too, but Eurofighter and Dassault were both looking good at different times.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2021)

I have to say that the F-18 is a fantastic bird, but it's getting long in the tooth.

The F-35, F-22, Su-57 and whatever the hell that Chinese thing is, are all 5th generation platforms.
It seems to me, that the Swiss want to be 21st century current.

Considering that they've traditionally been conservative in such hardware acquisitions, this speaks volumes.


----------



## cvairwerks (Jul 1, 2021)

The Swiss have F/A-18’s but they are nearing the end of their operational life, as are their F-5’s. Spares for that generation of F-5’s and -18’s are getting harder to come by, without expensive programs to tool up and build new parts. It’s not too hard to tool up for that bulkhead that needs replacement, or super expensive, but people miss the need for several million dollars of additional tooling and fixtures required to replace the bulkhead.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 1, 2021)

Also note that the decision has yet to be ratified, so things could still change.


----------



## wlewisiii (Jul 1, 2021)

One can't help but wonder if Lockheed-Martin isn't using the same marketing used by Lockheed to foist the F-104 all over Europe in the 60's...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 1, 2021)

wlewisiii said:


> One can't help but wonder if Lockheed-Martin isn't using the same marketing used by Lockheed to foist the F-104 all over Europe in the 60's...



In short....no. The F-35 included international partners right from the outset (e.g. United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Denmark and Canada). That wasn't a sales tactic. It was a Government-to-Government agreement whereby partners got a piece of the action depending on their degree of commitment to the programme. Note that all the partners except Australia are members of NATO. Once those partners got the F-35, it was a good bet that other European nations would follow suit.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 1, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> short....no. The F-35 included international partners right from the outset (e.g. United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Denmark and Canada). That wasn't a sales tactic. It was a Government-to-Government agreement whereby partners got a piece of the action depending on their degree of commitment to the programme.


Deja vu! Sounds like the same song and dance we ignorami were fed in the 1960s over the F104. Only many fatalities later did the real story start to trictkle out.
Even as a teenager I thought the F104 was an overhyped gee whiz one trick pony. But what did I know?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Still have to find the 22...


And the 35

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2021)

wlewisiii said:


> One can't help but wonder if Lockheed-Martin isn't using the same marketing used by Lockheed to foist the F-104 all over Europe in the 60's...


Lockheed's 1960's marketing was no different from their competitors, they were just dumb enough to get caught!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jul 1, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Will the F-35 be able to fight BVR and interface with ground based assets?


Yes - probably better than most


----------



## GTX (Jul 1, 2021)

wlewisiii said:


> One can't help but wonder if Lockheed-Martin isn't using the same marketing used by Lockheed to foist the F-104 all over Europe in the 60's...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 2, 2021)

Will the Swiss people have vote about it, like they had the first time, when they chose the -39 Gripen? 🤨🤔


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Jul 5, 2021)

Yes - but the vote is only a "fork over the money vs end the procurement and try again later" vote... it is NOT a "buy something else" vote.

Note that in 2014 the same was the case... the Swiss people voted to not fund the Gripen E/F purchase the Swiss AF and government had selected in 2012.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

With the introduction of the F-15EX I'm wondering if aircraft performance has plateaued. If it was a sitting duck, I can't see the Air Force acquiring them, unless there is some darker, evil reason behind it.


----------



## wlewisiii (Jul 6, 2021)

Well, I'd say hedging their bets. They built nowhere near enough F-22's and have already built too many F-35's so the F-15ex will be there to be a known quantity for the medium term till they see if the F-35 actually performs in combat as well as they think it will from exercises. Reality has a way of being far different from a Tom Clancy-esque fantasy where everything works perfect the first try.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> With the introduction of the F-15EX I'm wondering if aircraft performance has plateaued. If it was a sitting duck, I can't see the Air Force acquiring them, unless there is some darker, evil reason behind it.


A robust sophisticated airframe CAN sometimes be a relatively low cost vehicle for later generations of avionics, powerplants, weapons, and aerodynamic upgrades, provided it has sufficient growth potential built in at the start.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

I like that they're producing more Eagles. Beautiful aircraft. My requirements aren't that strict.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 6, 2021)

wlewisiii said:


> Well, I'd say hedging their bets. They built nowhere near enough F-22's and have already built too many F-35's so the F-15ex will be there to be a known quantity for the medium term till they see if the F-35 actually performs in combat as well as they think it will from exercises. Reality has a way of being far different from a Tom Clancy-esque fantasy where everything works perfect the first try.



Agree with the statement regarding F-22s. However, how do you determine that there are too many F-35s? What should we have instead? More F-16s?

As to your comment about Clancy-esque fantasy, I recommend you check up on how exercises are run at Nellis and other locations. They are about as realistic as they possibly can be...and I can guarantee you that Nellis exercises are specifically run to ensure that things do not work perfectly.

Since the Israeli, British and USMC F-35s have all conducted combat operations, at what point do you think we will be able to say that it performs as well as expected? Or are you proposing that we must wait for a large force-on-force war against a near-peer adversary to make that judgement? If so, I really, REALLY hope we never have to make that assessment!
.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

I am seeing a lot about the F-35 requiring a lot more maintenance than anticipated. Is this this due to teething issues and working out the bugs or is it something else?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I am seeing a lot about the F-35 requiring a lot more maintenance than anticipated. Is this this due to teething issues and working out the bugs or is it something else?


Depends on who's saying it.

If it's from a military source, then it's credible.

If it's from a media source, who's quoting another media source, who's using "Joe-blog's" op-ed as it's source...then no.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

That's what I thought. If it's so bad why are countries buying it. If the IAF likes it what can be bad?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

wlewisiii said:


> Well, I'd say hedging their bets. They built nowhere near enough F-22's and have* already built too many F-35's* so the F-15ex will be there to be a known quantity for the medium term till they see if the F-35 actually performs in combat as well as they think it will from exercises. Reality has a way of being far different from a Tom Clancy-esque fantasy where everything works perfect the first try.


Not even close. The F-35A is supposed to replace the F-16, close to 2000 airframes. The F-35A already served in combat (Israel) and the Marines have 5 active F-35B squadrons. Also remember the aircraft is being manufactured in Italy and Japan. The F-35 is a STRIKE aircraft with 3 different versions available and should not be compared in any way with the F-22


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> That's what I thought. If it's so bad why are countries buying it. If the IAF likes it what can be bad?


Not sure if you've perused further upthread, but the F-35 flogging by the media is virtually the same as any other advanced type developed in the past.

I even posted a quote from an op-ed from the 70's regarding the F-16, that was virtually identical to what's being said about the F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

Marine Corps' First Carrier-Capable F-35 Squadron Is Ready for Wartime Use


The Marine Corps has not disclosed how many F-35Cs the squadron has now.




www.military.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure if you've perused further upthread, but the F-35 flogging by the media is virtually the same as any other advanced type developed in the past.
> 
> I even posted a quote from an op-ed from the 70's regarding the F-16, that was virtually identical to what's being said about the F-35.


I have. Modern aircraft are very complex. It's not like rushing JN-4's into service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I have. Modern aircraft are very complex. It's not like rushing JN-4's into service.


Exactly! And as been said many times, many of the delays are due to required customer testing aside from the "add ons" that add more cost, but the media always ignores this. Meanwhile close to 650 F-35s (all versions) have been built.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2021)

Here's a great artical about the F-16 that covers it's development in detail and all that was involved in the process.
You can *almost* replace the word "F-16" for "F-35", as it used advanced (for it's day) technology that needed to be debugged.
In the end, the F-16 proved to be a solid investment, just as the F-35 will (and already is).

The Outrageous Adolescence of the F-16

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not even close. The F-35A is supposed to replace the F-16, close to 2000 airframes. The F-35A already served in combat (Israel) and the Marines have 5 active F-35B squadrons. Also remember the aircraft is being manufactured in Italy and Japan. The F-35 is a STRIKE aircraft with 3 different versions available and should not be compared in any way with the F-22



2 different roles. The 22 is more comparable to the 15, and the 35 is comparable to the 16 like you pointed out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Here's a great artical about the F-16 that covers it's development in detail and all that was involved in the process.
> You can *almost* replace the word "F-16" for "F-35", as it used advanced (for it's day) technology that needed to be debugged.
> In the end, the F-16 proved to be a solid investment, just as the F-35 will (and already is).
> 
> The Outrageous Adolescence of the F-16


I remember around 1976 when the F-15/ F-16 was coming on line and all the bitching and moaning about the price and how the media jumped on any bad press about either aircraft. Into the 80s the B-1B and eventually the B-2 became the whipping boys. F-22 got it's lumps and now the F-35. Waiting for the B-21 to hit the presses!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2021)

And don't forget how the press jumped all over the "Wobbly Goblin" like a pack of dogs on a three legged-cat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> And don't forget how the press jumped all over the "Wobbly Goblin" like a pack of dogs on a three legged-cat.


Once they found out it existed. Oh how I remember the the "media experts" and their take on the "F-19"

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

RE: press reporting on aviation. A bunch of years ago I read a puff piece on T-6's (might have been about Sky-Typers) and the reporter wrote "S & J trainers..." Nicely researched. It still bugs me 10, 15 years later.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

That's why we have this;

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

True story. On the railroad a newbie dispatcher reached out to a train that was losing time as it has to be recorded and accounted for. The engineer, aka "Special Ed" (honest!) told the dispatcher that he had a problem with the 4Q2 valve but he reset the flux capacitor and it seems to be holding. 
You could hear her frantically flipping through the trouble shooting manual over the radio.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> True story. On the railroad a newbie dispatcher reached out to a train that was losing time as it has to be recorded and accounted for. The engineer, aka "Special Ed" (honest!) told the dispatcher that he had a problem with the 4Q2 valve but he reset the flux capacitor and it seems to be holding.
> You could hear her frantically flipping through the trouble shooting manual over the radio.


I used the "4Q" phrase on a guy who used to like to read what was on people's desks. I think I called it a "4Q-1 drone and he bought it

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jul 6, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Exactly! And as been said many times, many of the delays are due to required customer testing aside from the "add ons" that add more cost, but the media always ignores this. Meanwhile close to 650 F-35s (all versions) have been built.


More - 665+" https://www.f35.com/content/dam/loc.../images/FG21-00000_001 F35FastFacts7_2021.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jul 6, 2021)

I've never worked on a rail road. Must be a cousin.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

GTX said:


> More - 665+" https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/images/FG21-00000_001 F35FastFacts7_2021.pdf


That was a great link. I guess none of this will be reported "primetime".

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jul 6, 2021)

GTX said:


> More - 665+" https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/images/FG21-00000_001 F35FastFacts7_2021.pdf


Or if you prefer the video version: F-35 Fast Facts_ENGLISH_LMGA

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

BTW great avatar, GTX! The Egyptian God of Frustration. Nice.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jul 6, 2021)

Yep!


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2021)

For the record, the duck carried the bunny.


----------



## strider190 (Jul 12, 2021)

Torch said:


> This photo shows all the weapons the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is designed to carry


Yeah but can it ACTUALLY carry and deliver any of those weapons???


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 12, 2021)

I believe yes.


----------



## cvairwerks (Jul 12, 2021)

Everything displayed and more...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2021)

strider190 said:


> Yeah but can it ACTUALLY carry and deliver any of those weapons???


And then some!!!! BTW - it can also access other weapons from contributing assets so "how much it can carry" is a non issue depending on the situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 12, 2021)

One of the hang ups during the development was that the UK wanted access to the code so they could integrate UK specific weapons with the F35. This was agreed so there is more to come than the US only weapons displayed.

As far as I am aware, the only missile that isn't being integrate onto the F35 is the Brimstone. This may change as the USA were thinking about purchasing this missile

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2021)

Military Daily News


Daily updates of everything that you need know about what is going on in the military community and abroad including military gear and equipment, breaking news, international news and more.




www.military.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 5, 2021)

Mentioned by SaparotRob in the Boeing/Canada/Fighter thread:









The real star of Israel’s Blue Flag air exercise


Israel conducted its fifth Blue Flag air exercise at the Uvda Air Base in the southern Negev from October 17th until October 28th. A number of countries participated in flying 4th and 5th generati…




asiatimes.com





_Scorpius is Israel's new electronic warfare system. It provides a unique capability against air threats including manned and unmanned aircraft, missiles (including air defense missiles), drones and cruise missiles._

_...

One of the main points of the exercise was to simulate air defenses and learn how to fly against them. Italy and Israel supplied F-35 stealth jets permitting the participants to take advantage of the F-35's superb radar set to fix enemy targets and share those targets with 4th-generation aircraft such as the F-16, the Mirage and the Eurofighter.

The F-35 can act as a flying AWACS (airborne early warning and control system) and also provide electronic countermeasures and radar warning capabilities thanks to its sophisticated AESA (airborne electronically scanned array) radar.

Also, it can share data instantly with other aircraft if they have Link 16 or equivalent onboard systems. Link 16 is a military tactical data link network used by NATO and other nations including Japan and India. India flies Russian, French and British fighter aircraft.

...

The result of the exercise is that the F-35 when combined with the Scorpius system offers the possibility of tactical and strategic dominance in the battle area and reduces the threat of counter-stealth systems and beyond-visual-range (BVR) air to air and air defense missiles.

Even if a country lacks the stealthy F-35, it would seem that the Scorpius system offers a way to identify threats at long range and use Scorpius's soft-kill capability to take them out. As such this can be a game-changer even against hypersonic threats._

_When equipped with a Scorpius pod under the airframe or supported by a ground- or sea-based Scorpius platform, an older generation aircraft can aggressively respond to long-range threats that depend on radars and other electronics to go after their targets._

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 5, 2021)

That seems to be it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2021)

Greyman said:


> _*The F-35 can act as a flying AWACS *(airborne early warning and control system) and also provide electronic countermeasures and radar warning capabilities thanks to its sophisticated AESA (airborne electronically scanned array) radar.
> 
> Also, it can share data instantly with other aircraft if they have Link 16 or equivalent onboard systems. Link 16 is a military tactical data link network used by NATO and other nations including Japan and India. _


I think these are the biggest points the anti-F-35 community either don't understand or choose to ignore.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 5, 2021)

I’d go with “choose to ignore “.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 5, 2021)

I find most of what the Chinese do interesting - there is much to admire - but when the party-press crows on about their new Stealth jet - bastard off-spring from the coupling of a Raptor and some Swedish number - and stresses feature # 1 as "*two pilots*" I say WTF????

Two pilots better than one? or, more likely Don't trust that much power to just 1 pilot?

It's the old Red pitfall of initiative, IMO. One of the reasons the Germans outfought and beat the crap out of the Soviet forces until 1943.
Reds don't learn easy - what they see before their eyes can't be what's _supposed_ to be. "Can it comrade?".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 5, 2021)

That is very insightful, mm.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Dec 5, 2021)

michaelmaltby said:


> I find most of what the Chinese do interesting - there is much to admire - but when the party-press crows on about their new Stealth jet - bastard off-spring from the coupling of a Raptor and some Swedish number - and stresses feature # 1 as "*two pilots*" i say WTF????
> 
> Two pilots better than one? or, more likely Don't trust that much power to just 1 pilot?


Riiiight, the good ol US of A don't have any two seat fighter/attack aircraft in their arsenal do they?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 5, 2021)

gumbyk said:


> Riiiight, the good ol US of A don't have any two seat fighter/attack aircraft in their arsenal do they?


Several USN/USAF types have two-seats, but only one pilot.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Dec 5, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think these are the biggest points the anti-F-35 community either don't understand or choose to ignore.



Right -- it can both be some of the the force, and be a force-multiplier force for a/c with lesser capabilities.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 5, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think these are the biggest points the anti-F-35 community either don't understand or choose to ignore.



The quote from Lt.Gen David Deptula (ret) has stuck fast with me ever since I read it; _"I've said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not 'fighters'—they are 'sensor-shooters' optimized for different threat regimes, and can perform the roles of "F," "B," "A," "RC," "E," "EA," and AWACS aircraft of the past."_

From post 573 over six years ago (yikes!).

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Dec 6, 2021)

We're transitioning to a world were air superiority is no longer important as it was in the past but rather it's having a superior information network, so you always know where to direct your highly automated weapons. First combatant to take down or jam the network of the enemy is the one who will win, regardless of the number of forces on the ground/sea/air because the opposing forces will be essentially blind and no longer trained to operate on their own and, at the same time, possessing weapon systems whose offensive capacity is greatly diminished without coordination from the outside.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Dec 6, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Several USN/USAF types have two-seats, but only one pilot.


Yep, and between using laymans terms and translation, what did the original Chinese info say? 
We all know how accurately things get reported, even without it going through a translation that is guaranteed to removed some of the original meaning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 6, 2021)

The original J-20 was a single-seat, the latest J-20 is a two-seater.

I have read that the second seat was added not for a pilot, but for an electronics operator to "process the enormous and complex amount of information".
Which the F-35 does by itself...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 6, 2021)

I have some information. British F-35s dont float.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Dec 7, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I have some information. British F-35s dont float.


So much for being a multirole aircraft. As a seaplane, it sucks!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 7, 2021)

Pretty good imitation of a submarine, though.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 7, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Pretty good imitation of a submarine, though.


I have only seen a short clip, if the pilot landed back on the deck that is a helluva stunt.


----------



## msxyz (Dec 7, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I have only seen a short clip, if the pilot landed back on the deck that is a helluva stunt.


Imagine landing on top of another plane parked on the deck. That would have been epic! 

_"Sorry sir, my aircraft experienced a little malfunction, I'll take this one instead!"_

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 7, 2021)

msxyz said:


> Imagine landing on top of another plane parked on the deck. That would have been epic!
> 
> _"Sorry sir, my aircraft experienced a little malfunction, I'll take this one instead!"_


It is funny because no one was hurt, normally I would say heads will roll after this but they wont, I saw a documentary on the Queen Elizabeth, it came over as an outward bound bonding experience for young people, like they have on sailing ships.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 23, 2021)

If you got some spare time during the holidays: 100 minutes of info ...



Posted Oct 4, 2021

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Mar 14, 2022)

Germany joins the party.

_Germany will purchase American-made F-35 fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons in its first major defence deal since Berlin's landmark decision to inject €100bn into the country's armed forces.

Christine Lambrecht, German defence minister, said the F-35s, made by America's Lockheed Martin, would replace some of the country's ageing Tornado aircraft that have been flying since the 1980s. Germany will also upgrade its Eurofighter Typhoon jets for electronic warfare, she said._

*EDIT*: looks like Financial Times behind a paywall. Pointless link removed.









Germany to buy 35 Lockheed F-35 fighter jets from U.S. amid Ukraine crisis


Germany will buy 35 U.S. F-35 fighter jets to replace its ageing Tornado, it said on Monday, announcing a first big defence deal since Chancellor Olaf Scholz pledged a 100-billion-euro upgrade to the military in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.




www.reuters.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 14, 2022)

Remember those articles and vids saying Germany WASN'T going to buy F-35s?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2022)

Yep - and now, 770 units (and counting) later all those dinosaurs who didn't understand the technology behind the aircraft can eat crow!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 14, 2022)

Is it true that guy didn't actually design anything aviation?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Is it true that guy didn't actually design anything aviation?


He was a very glorified bean counter


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 14, 2022)

I really should have studied Self Promotion in college.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Mar 20, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep - and now, 770 units (and counting) later all those dinosaurs who didn't understand the technology behind the aircraft can eat crow!



Had he ever heard of the F4 which most people would agree was a very effective multi role aircraft, used with great success by the USAAF, USN, Marines and a good chunk of NATO.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 8, 2022)

This popped into my news feed. Just sharing it for fun because it resurrects "info" that's 7 years old. Every article on military topics that I've seen from EurAsian Times appears to have a strong anti-Western spin. It almost seems lime it's a Russian propaganda vessel:









Destroying The World's Best Fighter - How A 4th-Gen F-16 Once Overpowered A Superior F-35 Stealth Jet In An Aerial Combat


The F-35 is emerging as a top choice of major powers across the world. After Israel is set to receive more F-35s from the United States (US) and Germany announced its plan to buy 35 F-35A fighters earlier this month and Canada has now chosen it over the SAAB Gripen to replace its aging fleet […]




eurasiantimes.com

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2022)

A new term - "Speyism"

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 8, 2022)

Noted and logged, this day. 😉

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 8, 2022)

Glider said:


> Had he ever heard of the F4 which most people would agree was a very effective multi role aircraft, used with great success by the USAAF, USN, Marines and a good chunk of NATO.


In a much simpler world, the F4 filled the "low" slot in a de facto F15/F16-style high/low mix where "high" was the F111, although the concept of "high/low mix" was not a thing yet. The battlespace was a much simpler place back then.
Interesting that in both cases it was the "low" aircraft that hit the sweet spot in all around effectiveness (sorry, Biff!). Do we have a trend here? Stay tuned, kids!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 8, 2022)

Dear God, here we go again with the old "F-16 defeats F-35" nugget...

Yes, an F-16 bested an F-35, but what they don't mention, is that it was an F-35 prototype without the pilot feedback warfare electronics installed.

There's a huge difference between a mock encounter with a test-bed and actual combat, FFS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 8, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> There's a huge difference between a mock encounter with a test-bed and actual combat, FFS.


AND a huge difference between an actual close-in knife fight setup and a real world engagement that begins BVR.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 8, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> AND a huge difference between an actual close-in knife fight setup and a real world engagement that begins BVR.



In an age when missiles have ranges of 80-100 miles, if you're caught in a dogfight you've probably done something pretty wrong.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 8, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> In an age when missiles have ranges of 80-100 miles, if you're caught in a dogfight you've probably done something pretty wrong.


Or have antiquated ECM.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Apr 8, 2022)

F-35: Capabilities, Missions, Kinematics, Role In Ukrainian Crisis And Beyond. Interview With Billie Flynn


"The F-35 was designed to operate in highly contested airspace, with capabilities precisely focused on what we have been seeing in Ukraine today." We have




theaviationist.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Apr 8, 2022)

Fast Facts


Download a PDF of our latest stats updated every month.




www.f35.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 11, 2022)

Just saw this, looks like the Israelis are the first to put the F-35 to work  









Israel Shows The F-35’s First Aerial Kill In Newly Declassified Video


The incident involved an Iranian flying-wing drone carrying small arms to Hamas fighters over a very long distance.




www.thedrive.com

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 20, 2022)

Czech Republic To Buy 24 F-35s Amid Russia's War on Ukraine, Ministry Says


“Given the worsening security situation,” Prague says, it must bolster air forces now.




www.defenseone.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jul 21, 2022)

Greyman said:


> Czech Republic To Buy 24 F-35s Amid Russia's War on Ukraine, Ministry Says
> 
> 
> “Given the worsening security situation,” Prague says, it must bolster air forces now.
> ...


Alot of countries are buying into this platform, the next upgrade is substantial, engine, cooling and electronics and yet theres still nay sayers. All the buyers can’t be that stupid.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2022)

Torch said:


> Alot of countries are buying into this platform, the next upgrade is substantial, engine, cooling and electronics and yet theres still nay sayers. All the buyers can’t be that stupid.



It’s almost like everything is all part of Lockheeds plan. Everything including the Ukraine War. All to increase sales…

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Jul 21, 2022)

Was on Schiermonikoog last week and saw a 322 squadron practising over the Waddenzee. First time I’ve seen our new F35’s.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2022)

Marcel said:


> Was on Schiermonikoog last week and saw a 322 squadron practising over the Waddenzee. First time I’ve seen our new F35’s.



They are obnoxiously loud aren’t they?

Every base I go to, people always curse them. 😂


----------



## Marcel (Jul 21, 2022)

Yeah, they are a bit loud, but so is the F16 I think.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 21, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They are obnoxiously loud aren’t they?
> 
> Every base I go to, people always curse them. 😂



Hear them every day in the circuit here at Hill AFB. Haven't cursed them yet.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2022)

I used to live near MCAS El Toro back in the time of the F-4 - now that aircraft defined the word "loud".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 21, 2022)

Who can not love the sound of a freedom enforcer?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2022)

Marcel said:


> Yeah, they are a bit loud, but so is the F16 I think.



I find then much louder in an obnoxious way.

At Hill for example, when a 22, 16, 15, or 10 fly by everyone hardly notices, but when a 35 goes by they all curse it for the noise level.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Hear them every day in the circuit here at Hill AFB. Haven't cursed them yet.



You are the first then. When I am at the hangar there, the guts are always complaining. Same at Edwards.

The only place it did not bother me was at the Hill Golf Course having lunch.

Edit: and you are weird then.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2022)

Snautzer01 said:


> Who can not love the sound of a freedom enforcer?



Depends on whats doing the freedom enforcing.

The best sounds of freedom are when those 701s start coming to life on a 60, and you smell that burning jet fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jul 21, 2022)

When I was working at Buckley AFB I found a spot near the runway to watch F16s and the occasional F35 doing their thing. I found the F35 to be slightly louder. Think the F16 jockeys enjoyed flying around low in the pattern setting off car alarms everywhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jul 21, 2022)

Yep everyone wants to join the club. The last year (or so) alone:

Jun 2021 - Switzerland announces plans to buy 36 F-35s
Dec 2021 - Thailand expresses interest
Dec 2021 - Finland announces plan to buy 64 F-35s
Mar 2022 - Germany announces plan to buy 35 F-35s
Mar 2022 - Canada announces plan to buy 88 F-35s
Jun 2022 - Greece announces plan to buy 20 F-35s
Jul 2022 - Czech Republic announces plan to buy 24 F-35s

Over 800 delivered so far

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2022)

GTX said:


> Yep everyone wants to join the club. The last year (or so) alone:
> 
> Jun 2021 - Switzerland announces plans to buy 36 F-35s
> Dec 2021 - Thailand expresses interest
> ...


Yep - and I hope the naysayers are choking on their words!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jul 21, 2022)

It's ironic that they likes of Sprey and others refer to Boyd when one considers that the F-35 perfectly exemplifies the use of his OODA Loop. Thanks to its mix of sensors, information fusion and low observability, the F-35 pilot not only is able to *O*bserve the enemy first, they are able to *O*rientate themselves without being seen and then *D*ecide (supported by more information) faster before finally *A*cting - all faster then their enemy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2022)

GTX said:


> It's ironic that they likes of Sprey and others refer to Boyd when one considers that the F-35 perfectly exemplifies the use of his OODA Loop. Thanks to its mix of sensors, information fusion and low observability, the F-35 pilot not only is able to *O*bserve the enemy first, they are able to *O*rientate themselves without being seen and then *D*ecide (supported by more information) faster before finally *A*cting - all faster then their enemy.


And I find folks like that still living in an analog world, wearing flower shirts and polyester pants and dancing to the Bee Gees!


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 21, 2022)

Marcel said:


> Yeah, they are a bit loud, but so is the F16 I think.



Like all aircraft, it depended on the aspect you were hearing them from, and their flight regime. At low speeds/high AOA it was silent, almost; but when it went ballistic from 300' AGL everyone a mile away knew it.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 21, 2022)

GTX said:


> It's ironic that they likes of Sprey and others refer to Boyd when one considers that the F-35 perfectly exemplifies the use of his OODA Loop. Thanks to its mix of sensors, information fusion and low observability, the F-35 pilot not only is able to *O*bserve the enemy first, they are able to *O*rientate themselves without being seen and then *D*ecide (supported by more information) faster before finally *A*cting - all faster then their enemy.



It really exemplifies the 80s phrase "first-look, first-shot, first-kill", I think.

I was a naysayer ten or twelve years ago, but as I've learnt more about the platform I've changed from selling to buying the idea. The data linkage alone is a big force-multiplier.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 22, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And I find folks like that still living in an analog world, wearing flower shirts and polyester pants and dancing to the Bee Gees!


Hey, back off, man! I resemble that remark! Or it's pistols at twenty paces tomorrow at dawn.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 22, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hey, back off, man! I resemble that remark! Or it's pistols at twenty paces tomorrow at dawn.



Probably water pistols given the flower shirts and polyester pants (peace, love, dope....man!).

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 22, 2022)

Torch said:


> Alot of countries are buying into this platform, the next upgrade is substantial, engine, cooling and electronics and yet theres still nay sayers. All the buyers can’t be that stupid.


Where have we heard this song before? Three generations ago and from the same company, no less?


DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It’s almost like everything is all part of Lockheeds plan. Everything including the Ukraine War. All to increase sales…


Those that fail to learn from history....


DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They are obnoxiously loud aren’t they?
> 
> Every base I go to, people always curse them. 😂


F...ing A!! Yesterday two of them came over the Tractor Supply where I work occaisonally, less than 3K AGL, burners lit, maneuvering in what looked an awful lot like a low altitude BFM engagement. One appeared to be chasing the other, who appeared to be trying to evade. Shattering noise that made the ground tremble, and if they were complying with <250Kt below 10K FAR, then I'm a fried potato. Looked more like 350.
I spent four years living cheek by jowl with F4Bs and Js, as well as RA5Cs, and this was another whole level on the Richter Scale.

PS: After they overflew us, they went ripping right through what used to be our primary flight training practice area before the flight school shut down. GA is practically dead around here, anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jul 23, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Where have we heard this song before? Three generations ago and from the same company, no less?
> 
> Those that fail to learn from history....
> 
> ...


IBM had an education center in Marrietta and the hotel was in the flight path of Cobb AFB. Phantoms had to be the loudest, Galaxies blocked the sun


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 26, 2022)

Torch said:


> IBM had an education center in Marrietta and the hotel was in the flight path of Cobb AFB. Phantoms had to be the loudest, Galaxies blocked the sun


My barracks room was 100 yards from the approach end of the southeast-facing runway at our base. The morning seabreeze usually favored that runway, so the first three syllabus hops and any hotpad scrambles lit off their J79 burners, four at a time in my backyard. Section formation takeoffs with minimum interval between sections were the norm. I'm intimately familiar with Phantoms and Vigilantes and their noise, and in my experience the F35 is a quantum leap greater in the decibel department.
I was startled and dismayed by the low altitude shenanigans I saw last week. Our Air Guard is more professional than that. Come to find out, they had a visiting detachment of F35s from some squadron out west who apparently had "cowboy" ingrained in their DNA. Set our Air Guard's PR back about a century or so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Jul 31, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> In an age when missiles have ranges of 80-100 miles, if you're caught in a dogfight you've probably done something pretty wrong.



I think we have been down this road before, "missiles means you don't have to do dogfight". Didn't the losses as a result of that line of thought end up with the implementation of both the FWS and Topgun specifically to get back to ACM basic skills?

Missiles are great, but they are not infallible...and you have a limited number. Radar missiles (essentially all long range missiles) are more expensive and more fallible than IR / imaging seekers. That means you still sometimes end up having to get in (relatively) close to get the shot. And sometimes the mission just makes you go someplace you don't want, be it self escorting into a target area or some kind of CAS, close range ACM is going to happen, even in the modern battlespace.

T!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2022)

Token said:


> I think we have been down this road before, "missiles means you don't have to do dogfight". Didn't the losses as a result of that line of thought end up with the implementation of both the FWS and Topgun specifically to get back to ACM basic skills?


Yes and no - it was thought that missiles only would be the "end all" to dogfighting, the issues were the ROEs (Vietnam to be specific)


Token said:


> Missiles are great, but they are not infallible...and you have a limited number. Radar missiles (essentially all long range missiles) are more expensive and more fallible than IR / imaging seekers. That means you still end up having to get in (relatively) close to get the shot. And sometimes the mission just makes you go someplace you don't want, be it self escorting into a target area or some kind of CAS, close range ACM is going to happen, even in the modern battlespace.
> 
> T!


Agree but I believe in this modern era you have way more accuracy and reliability - look up the aerial engagements from the Gulf War on, well over 90% of the air to air kills were done with missiles and I can only think of maybe 2 engagements where the mission took a turn and the close in knife fight was undertaken.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cvairwerks (Jul 31, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree but I believe in this modern era you have way more accuracy and reliability - look up the aerial engagements from the Gulf War on, well over 90% of the air to air kills were done with missiles and I can only think of maybe 2 engagements where the mission took a turn and the close in knife fight was undertaken.


And there was at least one air-to-air kill with an LGB....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 31, 2022)

cvairwerks said:


> And there was at least one air-to-air kill with an LGB....


The F-15E that bombed a helo?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2022)

That time an F-15E shot down an Iraqi Mi-24 attack helicopter with a 2000lb laser-guided bomb - The Aviation Geek Club


That time an F-15E shot down an Iraqi Mi-24 attack helicopter with a 2000lb laser-guided bomb




theaviationgeekclub.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 31, 2022)

The USAF and USN have pilots go through BFM (basic fighter maneuvers) within the ACM (advanced combat maneuvering) instruction.
"ACM" is literally modern dogfighting.

Even A-10 pilots go through this instruction.

The whole idea is to work into an advantage over your opponent whether you're using missiles or cannon (F-16, F-15, F-18, A-10, F-22, F-35, etc.).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 31, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> look up the aerial engagements from the Gulf War on, well over 90% of the air to air kills were done with missiles and I can only think of maybe 2 engagements where the mission took a turn and the close in knife fight was undertaken.


Measure vs counter-measure. IFF is subject to a constantly evolving arms race, as are all other airborne technologies. Very few of the kills mentioned above were between equivalent generation systems of major world super powers. Most were achieved by higher tech aircraft with more proficient crews against lower tech/older generation aircraft, often with less experienced/proficient crews. Lessons drawn from such data don't necessarily apply to a hypothetical major power conflict involving same generation opponents. The eyes still have it.
The knife fight in a phone booth is always a potential scenario, and the N Vietnam scene, with its heavy dependence on vulnerable AWACS aircraft and nearby tankers is less viable in this world of ultra long range SAMs and AAMs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 31, 2022)

Token said:


> I think we have been down this road before, "missiles means you don't have to do dogfight". Didn't the losses as a result of that line of thought end up with the implementation of both the FWS and Topgun specifically to get back to ACM basic skills?
> 
> Missiles are great, but they are not infallible...and you have a limited number. Radar missiles (essentially all long range missiles) are more expensive and more fallible than IR / imaging seekers. That means you still sometimes end up having to get in (relatively) close to get the shot. And sometimes the mission just makes you go someplace you don't want, be it self escorting into a target area or some kind of CAS, close range ACM is going to happen, even in the modern battlespace.
> 
> T!



Maybe you have covered this before, but I haven't. Having said that, nowhere in there did I say that missiles would obviate any dogfighting; and I'm well aware of the history of the Vietnam War in the air.

My point is that an encounter winding up in a shooting dogfighting is almost always the suboptimal end-result, and much more hazardous.

I'm not fool enough to think any missile (or any other man-made object) is infallible. That's probably why I didn't use that word.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Jul 31, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes and no - it was thought that missiles only would be the "end all" to dogfighting, the issues were the ROEs (Vietnam to be specific)



Missiles were so much the "end all" solution that newly designed fighters in the era did not include guns.

The ROE rightfully takes a beating anytime you discuss Vietnam, not being able to kill aircraft and missile sites on the ground before they lifted off or fired on you was stupid. But, it was not the ROE that resulted in a (low point) 1:1 ratio when discussing air-to-air combat in the region. It was the fact that the MiG-17 and -21 were really good fighters in the WVR arena, and the Vietnamese (or Russian aircraft controllers) were very good at leveraging the advantages of the aircraft and region. Even if the Navy / Air Force had been given free reign to kill anything in the air, the MiGs in Bananna valley stayed unshootable (low, terrain masking, etc) until, they had a specific target.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree but I believe in this modern era you have way more accuracy and reliability - look up the aerial engagements from the Gulf War on, well over 90% of the air to air kills were done with missiles and I can only think of maybe 2 engagements where the mission took a turn and the close in knife fight was undertaken.



Lets be clear, I did not say missiles were not the primary weapon, I was not saying "guns only", I was specifically talking about long range shots vs close range engagements. Think BVR vs WVR. Although there is setup and maneuvers in BVR engagements, the world of traditional ACM is really in the WVR arena. The Sidewinder (or Atoll, or Python, or Magic, etc) is a (relatively) close range weapon. Long range missiles can be, and often are, used at shorter ranges. In the case of the Gulf War if you include the Sidewinder engagements or Slammers fired at close ranges you end up with over half of the engagements being WVR.

Reference: "Premise and Reality, Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-to-Air Combat" (sorry, can't find an online copy to link)
During the Gulf war there were roughly 41 total air to air kills by coalition forces. 2 were guns, 10 were WVR missiles, 8 were BVR missiles shot at WVR ranges, and 16 were BVR missiles shot at BVR ranges. Over half at WVR ranges, whatever the weapon used. Plus the WVR weapons and Guns have a much higher probability of intercept, at over 60%, with BVR missile shots falling something under 35%.

And the Gulf War was not a peer-on-peer extended air campaign. Yes, in theory they were roughly the 4th largest army in the World, with a modern air force and air defense system. The reality is that they were so well suppressed and restricted that it was almost a turkey shoot (from the air-to-air aspect).

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Jul 31, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Maybe you have covered this before, but I haven't. Having said that, nowhere in there did I say that missiles would obviate any dogfighting; and I'm well aware of the history of the Vietnam War in the air.
> 
> My point is that an encounter winding up in a shooting dogfighting is almost always the suboptimal end-result, and much more hazardous.
> 
> I'm not fool enough to think any missile (or any other man-made object) is infallible. That's probably why I didn't use that word.




My response was to your statement of "In an age when missiles have ranges of 80-100 miles, if you're caught in a dogfight you've probably done something pretty wrong." That sounds to me like you believe that WVR engagements have no place in the modern battlespace. Not only do they have a place, it must be planned for. While it would certainly be nice to stiff arm any opponent and never get closer than 75 miles to a threat, that just is not realistically possible under many real world conditions.

If I misunderstood your statement then I apologize.

T!


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 31, 2022)

Token said:


> My response was to your statement of "In an age when missiles have ranges of 80-100 miles, if you're caught in a dogfight you've probably done something pretty wrong." That sounds to me like you believe that WVR engagements have no place in the modern battlespace. Not only do they have a place, it must be planned for. While it would certainly be nice to stiff arm any opponent and never get closer than 75 miles to a threat, that just is not realistically possible under many real world conditions.
> 
> If I misunderstood your statement then I apologize.
> 
> T!



As I clarified above, yes, I hold a knife-fight to be a sub-optimal end result, and yes, "probably" something has gone wrong imho.

I'm well aware that we can't be bubble-people, or shoot at every.single.enemy we see etc.


----------



## GTX (Jul 31, 2022)

It amuses me to no end whenever I see a discussion re missiles vs guns and someone brings up Vietnam. Quite apart from the ROE restrictions people seem to forget that this was 50+yrs ago. By way of comparison, the music format at the time was radio, 8-track tapes and/or vinyl records, mobile phones were something of science fiction and computers were bulky and certainly not something in every day use. Today we can have a smart phone which allows communications, listening to music, ready books and much more plus it probably has more processing power than most computers back then. And yet, we see many still referring to that time to justify their position re the viability of missiles in aerial combat. Do people really think that missiles haven't moved on since then?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Measure vs counter-measure. IFF is subject to a constantly evolving arms race, as are all other airborne technologies. Very few of the kills mentioned above were between equivalent generation systems of major world super powers. Most were achieved by higher tech aircraft with more proficient crews against lower tech/older generation aircraft, often with less experienced/proficient crews. Lessons drawn from such data don't necessarily apply to a hypothetical major power conflict involving same generation opponents. The eyes still have it.
> The knife fight in a phone booth is always a potential scenario, and the N Vietnam scene, with its heavy dependence on vulnerable AWACS aircraft and nearby tankers is less viable in this world of ultra long range SAMs and AAMs.


Agree to a point but if you look at what has actually taken place during the last 30 years, the "knife fight in a phone booth" hardly took place, but with that said it doesn't mean you don't train for it.

More than likely if an aircraft like the F-22 or F-35 get involved in an unrestricted shooting war, it's going to be a matter of who sees who first, and I'm talking BVR and maybe with the assistance of AWACS. Unless something goes very wrong, I see these aircraft killing their enemy BVR and moving on the the next objective.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2022)

Token said:


> Missiles were so much the "end all" solution that newly designed fighters in the era did not include guns.
> 
> The ROE rightfully takes a beating anytime you discuss Vietnam, not being able to kill aircraft and missile sites on the ground before they lifted off or fired on you was stupid. But, it was not the ROE that resulted in a (low point) 1:1 ratio when discussing air-to-air combat in the region. *It was the fact that the MiG-17 and -21 were really good fighters in the WVR arena, and the Vietnamese (or Russian aircraft controllers) were very good at leveraging the advantages of the aircraft and region.* Even if the Navy / Air Force had been given free reign to kill anything in the air, the MiGs in Bananna valley stayed unshootable (low, terrain masking, etc) until, they had a specific target.


That is true but you still had restrictions in the aircraft (prior to 1972) where pilots had to be fired upon and had to visually see the opponent. If this ROE didn't exist I would suggest the 1:1 ratio "would have" been a lot higher but there still would have been the need for ACM training


Token said:


> Lets be clear, I did not say missiles were not the primary weapon, I was not saying "guns only", I was specifically talking about long range shots vs close range engagements. Think BVR vs WVR. Although there is setup and maneuvers in BVR engagements, the world of traditional ACM is really in the WVR arena. The Sidewinder (or Atoll, or Python, or Magic, etc) is a (relatively) close range weapon. Long range missiles can be, and often are, used at shorter ranges. In the case of the Gulf War if you include the Sidewinder engagements or Slammers fired at close ranges you end up with over half of the engagements being WVR.


OK-


Token said:


> Reference: "Premise and Reality, Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-to-Air Combat" (sorry, can't find an online copy to link)
> During the Gulf war there were roughly 41 total air to air kills by coalition forces. 2 were guns, 10 were WVR missiles, 8 were BVR missiles shot at WVR ranges, and 16 were BVR missiles shot at BVR ranges. Over half at WVR ranges, whatever the weapon used. Plus the WVR weapons and Guns have a much higher probability of intercept, at over 60%, with BVR missile shots falling something under 35%.


I think the numbers prove my point - the object is to kill the opponent; if it can be done BVR, the better.


Token said:


> And the Gulf War was not a peer-on-peer extended air campaign. Yes, in theory they were roughly the 4th largest army in the World, with a modern air force and air defense system. The reality is that they were so well suppressed and restricted that it was almost a turkey shoot (from the air-to-air aspect).
> 
> T!


Agree


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2022)

GTX said:


> *It amuses me to no end whenever I see a discussion re missiles vs guns and someone brings up Vietnam. Quite apart from the ROE restrictions people seem to forget that this was 50+yrs ago. * By way of comparison, the music format at the time was radio, 8-track tapes and/or vinyl records, mobile phones were something of science fiction and computers were bulky and certainly not something in every day use. Today we can have a smart phone which allows communications, listening to music, ready books and much more plus it probably has more processing power than most computers back then. And yet, we see many still referring to that time to justify their position re the viability of missiles in aerial combat. Do people really think that missiles haven't moved on since then?


Well this will always be brought up because it shows how the USN and USAF had to fight with one arm tied behind their backs and because of this many lives were needlessly lost (I don't want to go political here). During that period there were many issues with the Sparrow missile which had a dreadful reliability rate, but I think even with less stringent ROEs, the issue for the need for ACM training as well as fighters armed with a gun would have still come to light.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2022)

Token said:


> My response was to your statement of "In an age when missiles have ranges of 80-100 miles, if you're caught in a dogfight you've probably done something pretty wrong." That sounds to me like you believe that WVR engagements have no place in the modern battlespace. Not only do they have a place, it must be planned for. *While it would certainly be nice to stiff arm any opponent and never get closer than 75 miles to a threat, that just is not realistically possible under many real world conditions.*
> 
> If I misunderstood your statement then I apologize.
> 
> T!


Yes, but so far in the conflicts that occurred during the past 30 years, the "stiff arm" was the flavor of the day and was probably the preferred method of killing the bad guy, but where I disagree is I think we now have the capability to "stiff arm" most threats, even in many real world conditions.

But still train for ACM...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 31, 2022)

GTX said:


> Today we can have a smart phone which ... probably has more processing power than most computers back then.



I would wager a new smartphone today has more processing power than all computers on earth combined back then. Several times over.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 31, 2022)

To get a better idea, Apollo 11's computer operated at .04MHz - an average "smart phone" today is about 2.5GHz.



_(edited to fix typo - as usual...)_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2022)




----------



## Token (Jul 31, 2022)

GTX said:


> It amuses me to no end whenever I see a discussion re missiles vs guns and someone brings up Vietnam. Quite apart from the ROE restrictions people seem to forget that this was 50+yrs ago. By way of comparison, the music format at the time was radio, 8-track tapes and/or vinyl records, mobile phones were something of science fiction and computers were bulky and certainly not something in every day use. Today we can have a smart phone which allows communications, listening to music, ready books and much more plus it probably has more processing power than most computers back then. And yet, we see many still referring to that time to justify their position re the viability of missiles in aerial combat. Do people really think that missiles haven't moved on since then?



I absolutely know how much missile technology has moved since then. I also know how much countermeasures have moved since then.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 1, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> To get a better idea, Apollo 11's computer operated at .04MHz - an average "smart phone" today is about 2.5GHz.
> 
> 
> 
> _(edited to fix typo - as usual...)_


When I got out of the Nav I worked awhile for Eastern Airlines on a 727 simulator driven by a British Redifon computer roughly the size of a really large office desk that ran at 1 MHZ and had about as much memory as an IBM PC XT. A separate Burroughs computer that filled a 6 ft vertical rack and had similar computing capacity handled the (night time only) visual system. Buggy as all hell. We techs used to hand each other the ceremonial FLIT sprayer before "going tactical" in search of the mighty bug.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Aug 1, 2022)

wrong thread


----------



## Token (Aug 6, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes, but so far in the conflicts that occurred during the past 30 years, the "stiff arm" was the flavor of the day and was probably the preferred method of killing the bad guy, but where I disagree is I think we now have the capability to "stiff arm" most threats, even in many real world conditions.
> 
> But still train for ACM...



In non-peer conflicts, the only kind we have been involved in in the past 30+ years, yes, we have the ability to stand off and suppress almost anything we need to before getting close. A peer-to-peer or near-peer conflict would be different.

T!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2022)

Token said:


> In non-peer conflicts, the only kind we have been involved in in the past 30+ years, yes, we have the ability to stand off and suppress almost anything we need to before getting close. A peer-to-peer or near-peer conflict would be different.
> 
> T!


That's speculation, the only way to know for sure is if it was to happen. IMO against a Chinese threat, agree, against the Russians, considering what we've seen over Ukraine?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Aug 12, 2022)

825+ delivered so far!



https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/documents/F35%20Fast%20Facts%20August%202022.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 12, 2022)

GTX said:


> 825+ delivered so far!
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/documents/F35%20Fast%20Facts%20August%202022.pdf



What a complete flop!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Aug 12, 2022)

Indeed - obviously in a death spiral...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 12, 2022)



Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Token (Aug 13, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That's speculation, the only way to know for sure is if it was to happen. IMO against a Chinese threat, agree, against the Russians, considering what we've seen over Ukraine?



All looks forward are speculation, so I really don't disagree with that statement.

But, I think we are saying two different things. I was talking about being involved in a peer-to-peer or near-pear conflict and how that would impact tactics, and you, I think, are discussing if peer or near-peer threats actually exist.

I think it is very safe to say that attrition would be higher in a peer-peer conflict. I also think it safe to say the tactics and technologies we use to stiff arm opposition would be less successful when facing an opponent that has been developing technologies specifically aimed at negating those advantages. And you cannot talk about the first day of the fight the same way you will have to talk about the 30th day of the fight.

Just as an aside, and timely for this thread, fans of the Fighter Pilot Podcast will like Episode 149 in regards to this discussion.

T!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2022)

Token said:


> All looks forward are speculation, so I really don't disagree with that statement.
> 
> But, I think we are saying two different things. I was talking about being involved in a peer-to-peer or near-pear conflict and how that would impact tactics, and you, I think, are discussing if peer or near-peer threats actually exist.


I actually consider both scenarios


Token said:


> I think it is very safe to say that attrition would be higher in a peer-peer conflict. I also think it safe to say the tactics and technologies we use to stiff arm opposition would be less successful when f*acing an opponent that has been developing technologies specifically aimed at negating those advantages.* And you cannot talk about the first day of the fight the same way you will have to talk about the 30th day of the fight.


Agree to a point but again, we really don't know how effective those opponent technologies are - it seems we've *overestimated *the Russians based on what we've seen in the Ukraine. Again, the Chinese?


Token said:


> Just as an aside, and timely for this thread, fans of the Fighter Pilot Podcast will like Episode 149 in regards to this discussion.
> 
> T!


----------



## GTX (Aug 13, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> it seems we've underestimated the Russians based on what we've seen in the Ukraine.


Underestimated or over-estimated?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 13, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree to a point but again, we really don't know how effective those opponent technologies are - it seems we've underestimated the Russians based on what we've seen in the Ukraine. Again, the Chinese?



Actually, Joe, I'd suggest we've overestimated Russian capabilities, or at least their ability to execute tactical and operational doctrine into warfighting abilities. 

I'm sure China is watching with interest, and perhaps using their friendly relationship with Russia to secure additional insights into counters to western equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2022)

GTX


 buffnut453
just make the correction

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 13, 2022)

Is Xi's China as oligarchical as Russia? I'm thinking Xi runs a tighter ship. If China has been running real training, they've been shaking some of the bugs out of operations and equipment. They can't be worse. Their ships move around without guardian tugboats.


----------



## GTX (Aug 13, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> GTX
> 
> 
> buffnut453
> just make the correction


----------



## Token (Aug 13, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree to a point but again, we really don't know how effective those opponent technologies are - it seems we've *overestimated *the Russians based on what we've seen in the Ukraine. Again, the Chinese?



Have we? Or have we seen the results of the Russians trying to play a constrained game and getting spanked because of it? Is it a case of everyone overestimating the Russians? Or did the Russians underestimate the Ukrainians?

However, I am fully capable of admitting that the Russians may have been overestimated...yet again. During the Cold War they were always painted as 9 feet tall and bullet proof, the big, bad, Bear. Yet every time we actually went head to head with their technology it came up lacking. The upper crust of their personnel were outstanding, but the average not so much. Their mathematicians world class, the basic technology of their systems very sound, and the actual application of those theories and technologies less good.

However, to plan your actions and reactions assuming that is the case will, potentially, fill a lot of body bags.

The Chinese have shown a real capability, technologically, to respond quickly. To take an advanced technique or platform from concept to working model in the field far quicker than the US system can today. Cutting corners, risking personnel and hardware during development in a way the US no longer considers acceptable. Being much less risk-averse than the US. Outside the societal structure, from a technology acquisition standpoint, being ready to accept risks for great reward, I have to tell you they remind me of the US in the 50's. And that concerns me more than a little bit.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2022)

Token said:


> Have we? Or have we seen the results of the Russians trying to play a constrained game and getting spanked because of it? Is it a case of everyone overestimating the Russians? Or did the Russians underestimate the Ukrainians?


That's the quagmire, but when you see photos of Russian jets that were shot down using obsolete Garmin GPS'....?


Token said:


> However, I am fully capable of admitting that the Russians may have been overestimated...yet again. During the Cold War they were always painted as 9 feet tall and bullet proof, the big, bad, Bear. Yet every time we actually went head to head with their technology it came up lacking. The upper crust of their personnel were outstanding, but the average not so much. Their mathematicians world class, the basic technology of their systems very sound, and the actual application of those theories and technologies less good.


Agree


Token said:


> However, to plan your actions and reactions assuming that is the case will, potentially, fill a lot of body bags.


If I'm correct those body bags will be the opposition!


Token said:


> The Chinese have shown a real capability, technologically, to respond quickly. To take an advanced technique or platform from concept to working model in the field far quicker than the US system can today. Cutting corners, risking personnel and hardware during development in a way the US no longer considers acceptable. Being much less risk-averse than the US. Outside the societal structure, from a technology acquisition standpoint, being ready to accept risks for great reward, I have to tell you they remind me of the US in the 50's. And that concerns me more than a little bit.
> 
> T!


Great assessment!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 13, 2022)

The Chinese are far more dangerous than the Russians. They not only have the brainpower, they have (obviously) more manpower; and in addition they have the industrial/technological base Russia could only wish for -- and most importantly they have the money to convert their aims into reality.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 13, 2022)

How much U.S. debt is China holding?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Aug 13, 2022)

Re "I have to tell you they remind me of the US in the 50's. And that concerns me more than a little bit."

FWIW I agree, with the exception that China's economy is intertwined with a very large part of the world. I think this causes China to view the rest of the world in a different manner than the US did in the 1950s - not totally but at least to a significant degree.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> How much U.S. debt is China holding?


$980.8 billion. BUT we buy $450.4 billion worth of Chinese goods. Hmmmm...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 14, 2022)

Wouldn't be like shutting off Russia. If China did cash U.S. debt in, would they be to willing to take the hit from loss of sales? China can enforce acceptance of pain for a national goal. I'd prefer to be wrong. There was quite some whining here when fuel went up. It was, however, at my mechanics garage so there's that. I vaguely remember reading of some relocation of manufacturing out of China. I don't know how extensive or where it's being relocated to. I don't think Vietnam, Thailand or Taiwan might be as secure as we'd like long term.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 14, 2022)

Just food for thought: but if China did attack Taiwan and the West responded with sanctions, etc., it also opens the door for western manufacturers to reclaim the lion's share of the global manufacturing market.

The "most favored nation" move by a certain U.S. administration in the 90's (do NOT make this political) did a lot to encourage China's global expansion in manufacturing goods globally.
Before that, they were a bit player behind Taiwan and India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Just food for thought: but if China did attack Taiwan and the West responded with sanctions, etc., it also opens the door for western manufacturers to reclaim the lion's share of the global manufacturing market.



And then everyone will bitch at how expensive prices are. There is a reason companies offshore in places like China. Americans (and the rest of the west) are not going to work for Chinese wages, and manufacturing companies are not going to make less profit. The costs of safety and wages correlates with price. We can’t have our cake and eat it too,

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Aug 14, 2022)

Token said:


> Have we? Or have we seen the results of the Russians trying to play a constrained game and getting spanked because of it? Is it a case of everyone overestimating the Russians? Or did the Russians underestimate the Ukrainians?




Pull up a chair…

See them Russians? They are a victim of their own publicity and a system that doesn't tolerate failure.

Par example: 

Red Flag or some such - if the Red Team pull a wildcard move and win, everyone does a high five, then everyone sits down and minutely examines the exercise for lessons to be learnt.

Now the Russian - the annual war-games, the SU-25s go brrrrr, the SU-34's go brrrr… the 'enemy' are all wiped out.
And for the finale - the big bombers fly over and and bomb the 'enemy airfield' - and in the last big exercise, missed the airfield completely.
But fear not, the script, for these exercises are very tightly scripted right down to how many bullets each soldier shall fire at a set time - said the airfield was destroyed in the script - so the exercise was declared Great Success! and everyone got medals and promotion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Aug 14, 2022)

Token said:


> The Chinese have shown a real capability, technologically, to respond quickly. To take an advanced technique or platform from concept to working model in the field far quicker than the US system can today. Cutting corners, risking personnel and hardware during development in a way the US no longer considers acceptable. Being much less risk-averse than the US. Outside the societal structure, from a technology acquisition standpoint, being ready to accept risks for great reward, I have to tell you they remind me of the US in the 50's. And that concerns me more than a little bit.



I'm not so sure that Americans are more risk-averse - technologically-wise - compared to most other parts of the world, in Europe, Russia or even China. Could you cite an example of what you mean, regarding China?


----------



## Torch (Aug 23, 2022)

Nice pic from Mach Loop

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Aug 23, 2022)

And another nice pic:

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 21, 2022)

UK MOD just took delivery of 3 more F-35Bs, meaning the UK now has 26 jets in operational service plus an additional 3 undertaking test flights in the US. A further 7 airframes are supposed to be delivered in 2023, with the full complement of 47 (they ordered 48 but one had a whoopsie off the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth) scheduled to arrive before the end of 2025.

More interestingly, the UK MOD is making noises about purchasing further airframes. Apparently, funding for an additional F-35 buy has been delegated to RAF Air Command and the First Sea Lord recently stated that the UK was looking for a total buy of "about 60" and then "maybe more up to around 80" which would provide four deployable squadrons. Those numbers are still a long way short of the 138 originally envisaged...but I'm all for seeing more F-35s in RAF and FAA service (I just wish they'd gone with the F-35A and F-35C variants instead of the Bs).


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 22, 2022)

My understanding is that the plan has always been to have an absolute minimum of 3x Sqn of F-35B, with more preferred. When funding will be available has been the only question recently.

The idea is to have 2x Sqn available at ~all times for ops (1x Sqn/24x airframes per carrier), with the 3rd Sqn able to be stood up quickly in case of hostilities for reinforcement, and all 3x Sqn rotating for training and such as needed.

Part of the reason the UK bought the B variant is due to the idea that they will be able to operate along side the USMC Sqns from the same platforms, ie operating as STOVL from either the new RN large carriers or the USN LHA/LHD classes.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 22, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> My understanding is that the plan has always been to have an absolute minimum of 3x Sqn of F-35B, with more preferred. When funding will be available has been the only question recently.
> 
> The idea is to have 2x Sqn available at ~all times for ops (1x Sqn/24x airframes per carrier), with the 3rd Sqn able to be stood up quickly in case of hostilities for reinforcement, and all 3x Sqn rotating for training and such as needed.
> 
> Part of the reason the UK bought the B variant is due to the idea that they will be able to operate along side the USMC Sqns from the same platforms, ie operating as STOVL from either the new RN large carriers or the USN LHA/LHD classes.



Yep....and given the UK's financial situation, I suspect the promised funding is still very much at risk. Apparently, a decision on the precise size of any additional buy will only be made in 2025 which seems late to me because it will take time to get that order slotted into the production schedule.

I know why the UK bought the F-35B. I just think it was a stupid idea driven solely by the Harrier Mafia. When have the RAF or USMC EVER operated from land using the STOVL role, even with the Harriers? Yes, it made sense in the Cold War and RAF Harrier units regularly trained to deploy to woods and use roads as runways. However, that training hasn't been conducted for over 20 years now so the skillset just isn't there. If we're not training to use the advantages of the STOVL capability, why on earth buy that sort of platform. The illogic is deafening. 

A UK purchase of the C-variant would allow interoperability with the USN using aircraft that provided longer range and larger payload than the B-variant. I'm guessing the RAF leadership thought that was perilously close to being solely a Navy asset and so hedged their bets on the B-variant (presumably a mix of A and C-variants would be too expensive).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Nov 22, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> I know why the UK bought the F-35B. I just think it was a stupid idea driven solely by the Harrier Mafia. When have the RAF or USMC EVER operated from land using the STOVL role, even with the Harriers?



Its nothing to do with STVOL ashore and everything to do with sortie generation rates


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Its nothing to do with STVOL ashore and everything to do with sortie generation rates


Dude, why do keep posting dribble with nothing to back up your nonsense?!?!?


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 22, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Dude, why do keep posting dribble with nothing to back up your nonsense?!?!?


It's all I got.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 22, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Dude, why do keep posting dribble with nothing to back up your nonsense?!?!?



Thanks Joe. I was really scratching my head at that comment. I have no idea how, or even if, differences between the F-35 variants impacts sortie rates. If anything, I'd have argued that the B-variant would likely have lower sortie generation rates because it's got a lot more moving parts (separate lift engine plus that funky rear nozzle).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Nov 22, 2022)

Speaking of F-35s, here is a recent photo of the main LM production line;

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## cvairwerks (Nov 22, 2022)

Looking north, from about column 110, shot from a monorail cab. There's more than 1/2 of mile of the production line to the south from that viewpoint....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 22, 2022)

I love the turquoise camo.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Dec 15, 2022)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 5, 2023)

In case anyone wondering, the F-35 naysayers are still alive and well. This "article" follows a similar pattern of taking selective facts (and a few "facts") then liberally sprinkle negative hyperbole in between....good words include boondoggle, expensive, failure, under-performing etc etc.










Failing F-35 fighter grounded once again - Responsible Statecraft


A faulty engine caused the $1 trillion boondoggle fighter to crash during a quality check.




 responsiblestatecraft.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 5, 2023)

I can envision these clowns getting all giddy with that F-35B's incident.

They were most likely jumping up and down, pointing at their screens while pointing and shouting "See? See?".

Idiots, the lot of 'em...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jan 5, 2023)

It is so easy to make fun of those guys - I even did a Hitler video years ago doing just that:









Hitler is not happy with F-35 announcement


A parody of the RAAF F-35 Announcement news



www.captiongenerator.com





Meanwhile in the real world, we are so close to the 900 aircraft mark...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Friday at 3:09 AM)

There was another incident in Okinawa a month ago.
As few seem to know, please let me introduce.

On the afternoon of the 1st, an F-35 fighter plane fell forward while being towed at Kadena Air Base, and is currently still stopped.
After 2:00 pm on the 1st, when the F-35 stealth fighter that made an emergency landing at Kadena Air Base was being towed, white smoke rose from near the right main landing gear. After that, for some reason, part of the nose landing gear became retracted, and the fuselage fell forward and the nose touched the ground. The U.S. military said the F-35 had made an emergency landing due to an electrical problem, and that the landing gear failed during towing, and that no one was injured.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Friday at 6:16 PM)

Shinpachi said:


> There was another incident in Okinawa a month ago.
> As few seem to know, please let me introduce.
> 
> On the afternoon of the 1st, an F-35 fighter plane fell forward while being towed at Kadena Air Base, and is currently still stopped.
> After 2:00 pm on the 1st, when the F-35 stealth fighter that made an emergency landing at Kadena Air Base was being towed, white smoke rose from near the right main landing gear. After that, for some reason, part of the nose landing gear became retracted, and the fuselage fell forward and the nose touched the ground. The U.S. military said the F-35 had made an emergency landing due to an electrical problem, and that the landing gear failed during towing, and that no one was injured.



Looks like someone left the park brake on while towing, with the way it was bouncing.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Friday at 6:21 PM)

gumbyk said:


> Looks like someone left the park brake on while towing, with the way it was bouncing.



Agreed...or one of the main wheel brakes had seized.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Friday at 7:04 PM)

gumbyk said:


> Looks like someone left the park brake on while towing, with the way it was bouncing.





buffnut453 said:


> Agreed...or one of the main wheel brakes had seized.


Or some idjit forgot the gear pins.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Friday at 10:00 PM)

No more update is found than this.

The F-35B stealth fighter jet deployed at Iwakuni Air Base (Yamaguchi Pref.) and stayed at the U.S. Air Force Kadena Air Base in Okinawa due to the front landing gear problem after the emergency landing was moved to a parking spot on the 4th.





Source: 緊急着陸後に故障した米軍のF35戦闘機　トレーラーで誘導路から移動　嘉手納基地　 | 沖縄タイムス＋プラス　ニュース | 沖縄タイムス＋プラス

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Saturday at 8:01 PM)

A series of procedure to move.












Source: 米軍嘉手納基地で故障のＦ３５ステルス戦闘機 格納庫に｜NHK 沖縄県のニュース

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

