P-61 or Reverse Lend Lease Mosquito

[FLYBOYJ]

Hi Joe,

Source for the Canberra stuff was general scuttlebutt from Vietnam. No specific information.

Personally, I think that if anyone SAW a MiG-15 in Vietnam, they were simply mistaken. I'd surmise it was a MiG-17.

Hi Greg;

Cutting to the chase, not to bash your source but I think this was a case of as you put it "general scuttlebutt." There were no single seat MiG-15s used by the VPAF during the Vietnam War. The VPAF did operate the MiG-15UTI as a trainer but I have serious doubts that if these aircraft were being operated during the major parts of the war, and if they were they were kept well out of harms way.

Hi Joe,

Regarding your quote from Berke, I believe he is missing the entire point, failing to SEE that he is missing it, and failing miserably in even trying to asses whether or not he even MIGHT be wrong.

I have ZERO doubt that the initial firing pass in a fight with the F-35 versus anything else will take place differently from "getting on the 6" and firing either a missile OR a gun. That will most likely never happen, and I don't want to claim it would, ever. I'll concede the F-35 is a great ambush predator ... no problemo.

Greg - I think you're missing the point. First the F-35 IS NOT a dedicated air to air fighter, but if used in that role it does not necessarily need to get on an enemy's 6 - it could stand off and fire from miles out and even interface with other aircraft in the vicinity and use their weapons. It could also compute a mission strategy by interfacing with other aircraft and even ground and naval weapons systems (like a mini AWACS) and either jam or standoff in defense.

But the F-35 carries only 2 AAMs.

Not really true, you have to be specific to the version and load out required for the mission:

If, say two F-35s meet with, say, 4 less-stealthy but still capable foes, such as maybe Su-37s, they may well remain undetected through the initial firing pass. Once the F-35s fire their FIRST missile or gun, the stealth is out the window and everyone knows where everyone else is, or at LEAST has a good idea of it. Missiles don't come from out of nowhere ... somebody shot it at you.

Again not necessarily true especially BVR and as I've said in the past - if you're that close that you're using a gun 100 million worth of technology was pissed away.

Every other Russian foe flying a capable aircraft that is still in the air after the first pass has all his weapons, is mad as hell, and is faster and more maneuverable than the F-35 is. He also probably has more fuel to play with. So the F-35 can't run away because the enemy will close from behind rapidly and have a good view of any heat plume the F-35s are producing. No matter how I consider it, I see the F-35 getting in some good first licks and then being in a real problem situation. Once the enemies are in Mark 1 eyeball range, all the stealth in the world won't help a bit. At that point, if you can't dogfight, can't out turn, and can't outrun the opposition ... and also can't outlast them on fuel aboard at the time, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. You're gonna' be more unhappy than a vegetarian at a B-B-Q.

Missing the point Greg - the point is not to get VR, destroy your enemy BVR and either continue to drop your bombs or get out of Dodge.

Since we arern't producing more F-35s than the enemy has fighters, we cannot afford a more or less 1 : 1 loss rate.

"As of April 2010 the United States intends to buy a total of 2,443." From a congressional report written in 2010.

So how many enemy aircraft are we talking about???

If we aren't in a an all-out war and are engaged in normal "hot zone" action, the ROE sill state we can't use BVR capability. We'll HAVE to close and identify, and get within eyeball range before we shoot. And that's right where the F-35 does NOT want to be.

Agree to a point and that would be the result of the politicians pissing away this aircraft's capability

I could be mistaken here, but we are NOT usually the ones with the superior numbers in most fights. Usually the enemy is more numerous. He has more missiles and more friends about. Once the 2 AMMs are expended, how will the F-35 survive the aftermath of the fight if there are healthy enemies about and in a less than happy state of mind, and if they know where the F-35s are or approximately so?

During the last shooting conflicts we (along with our allies) had the superior numbers in most cases. I think during GW1 there was just one fight at VR and that MiG-29 was driven into the ground.

I have an open mind here and will galdly listen if there is a plan for this situation that will work most of the time. I just haven't been able to come up with one myself, other than to be flying something else other than the F-35, or to have something else escorting the F-35 to cover the withdrawl once empty of AAMs.

Greg, I suggest you do more research into this aircraft, it's systems and capabilities and also look into what all three versions bring to the table.

Perhaps this isn't a good place to dicsuss it. If not, I can come back in and just erase this. No real issue,

No need for that but we did hijack this tread. We could discuss this more in the F-35 thread

just wondering what happens when you get within visual range and are out of missiles and stealth doesn't really help. That's when you need a good airframe to live. Outside of within visual range, I like the F-35 just fine, and am looking for a reason to like it overall, including within visual range.

The F-35A (and probably the F-35C) have the maneuverability of an F/A-18C. Despite some maneuvering limitations (which were exaggerated by the press and others) this aircraft is still quite capable, but then again there should be no reason why you allow this aircraft to go into a VR fight with another 4th or 5th generation aircraft - but with that said I know folks are being trained to fight in the worse "what if" scenario.

BTW, the 200th F-35 was delivered recently - it was the second one going to Japan.

Here's a dated article about the F-35 "dogfighting" A-4s -

F-35 pilot explains how he dominated dogfights against multiple A-4 aggressors. Every time.

Oh - and it could carry nukes...

The F-35 may carry one of the US's most polarizing nuclear weapons sooner than expected

 

[GregP]

Thanks Joe,

I believe all the MiGs in Vietnam that we saw in combat thath looked like the MiG-15 were MiG-17s, as you say.

First, thanks for the links above. I'll read them.

I knew the F-35 could carry more missiles, but it loses a lot of stealth when it does so. I was assuming that if the U.S. side KNOWS about enemy planes coming, they would load up with more. I also figured if they did not know about an incoming bunch of enemy planes, the'd load for stealth. So I was assuming a more or less surprise encounter with a superior number of enemy aircraft. I'd think surprise encounters would be loaded with 2 missiles.

If the F-35 can maneuver with an F-18, that helps a lot. Many reports I reads imply otherwise, but that could just be the way they are written / worded. I doubt seriously that quantitative data on the real performance will be public knowledge for some time, but having a fighter pilot familiar with both say the maneuverability is about the same would definitely help clear up the ambiguous wording of the criticism reports.

When I try to read up on the F-35 I can usually find only two sides: One side says it does the job better than anything else has to date. That side comes from Lockheed-Martin / USAF top brass. The other side says it is abysmal as a fighter. That side is, for want of better words, "the critics." I'm finding it hard to locate any reports that even try to offer an objective viewpoint somehwere between the extremes.

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle of wildly opposing arguments, and I am assuming that in this case. That is, it has good points and bad points. My trouble comes from deciding if "big money" is causing the top brass and the pilot reports to be shaded positive (toe the line or you're fired) or if the nay-sayers really aren't up to speed.

I'm leaning toward a positive view of the F-35 since other countries are joining the fray and buying. When the F-35 gets into service in some numbers, I doubt if even "big money" will be able to stifle the criticism if it doesn't perform. I can't see Australia or Italy praising it if they don't actually feel thath way. So we're at a point where it will have to put up or shut up, and I'm pulling for it to succeed while still wondering if it will do so.

The best outcome is success, by long shot. Since the above has zero to do with the P-61 or Lend-Lease Mosquito, that's all she wrote on that subject from me.

I cannot see how the U.S.A. would have adopted the Mosquito in WWII. The P-61 was in development and on order, ir performed well, had tricycle gear for more friendly ground handling, was WAY safer at slow speeds, especially with an engine out, and it was a metal airplane, not wood. Given the attitudes at the time, I cannot see how we would have abandoned the P-61 for a foregin aircraft made of wood.

Those views are shared by virtually all the WWII veteran pilots I have spoken with about the Mosquito, and that is more than a few. I haven't talked with any of the Pacific pilots about it, but have asked maybe 50% of the former ETO pilots in conversations about Spitfires and Mosquitoes. To a man, they all loved the Spitifire, but most who flew P-51s would not have traded. To date, none wanted Mosquitoes except for the guys who flew the very early P-38F models that still had issues with the Allisons. Once they got to the P-38G and later, the guys would stick with the US planes. Almost all were fond of their British counterparts and have almost nothing negative to say about anythind British ... with the glaring exception of the shortage of COLD beer.

Nobody can argue that the Mosquito wasn't a really good performer. It was, in spades. But it wasn't going to be adopted on a large scale by the USAAF no matter what. Unless I am forgetting something (certainly possible), the first foreign plane we DID adopt in the post-WWI era was the B-57 Canberra and the next one was the Harrier.

Well, technically, I suppose you COULD make a case that the P-51 was a foreign aircraft, but it was also designed and built here, and came into greatness using the Merlin that rather obviously is a big pat on the back for Rolls-Royce.

 

[buffnut453]

Greg,

I think this report is pretty fair. It's by a Norwegian former F-16 driver who now flies the F-35. It comes across as very balanced, noting the F-35's strong points and some of its less stellar aspects.

"Here's what I've learned so far dogfighting in the F-35": a JSF pilot's first-hand account

From a manoeuvre perspective, the key thing for me is that the F-35 can get into a firing solution faster than the F-16 which means the F-35 can shoot while the F-16 is still bringing the nose around...and this despite the fact that the F-16 has a higher overall g-rating. I think that says something about how different the F-35 is compared to current generation combat aircraft.

Cheers,
Mark

 

[Shortround6]

Since it can take well over a year to get a plane into production and 6 months to a year to get production up to high numbers, you cannot cancel program "A" in say, the middle of 1943, and expect to get a usable number ( 1/2 dozen service squadrons or so) of of aircraft "B" out of the same or different factory by the middle of 1944. Date of "fly-off" of date of decision has to be well in advance of service use.
Trying to make "metal" Mosquito would require designing a whole new structure while just copying the shape of the Mosquito. Granted some things like landing gear and control systems and engine installations can be carried over with minimum modification.
If the US had wanted to use Mosquitos,it would have had to make the decision in late 1942 or very early 1943 in order to get planes into service in 1944.
According to AHT the Mosquito vs P-61 fly-off was July 5th 1944 and regardless of wither the results were biased or "cooked" or what ever this is way too late to try to change over. Just about 200 P-61s have already been built and detachments (not full squadrons?) are flying in NW Europe, New Guinea, the Solomons and Saipan. Around another 450 P-61s are built between July of 1944 and July of 1945.
The Mosquito may very well have been better, especially the MK 30, but it was too late.

 

[GregP]

Hi Buffnut,

I can accept that. I have not yet read Joe's links above, but my first thought was , "If our new wonder plane can't beat an old A-4, we should scrap it post haste!" Who are we going against? Singapore? Weren't they the last people flying A-4s? But I am going to read the links and I have decided that if the F-35 performs badly in foreign service, we'll hear about it pretty quickly. I am not "in the know" about it's mission-capable rate at this time, but am relatively sure that if it doesn't come in somewhere close to where it should, foreign countries won't just sit around and not say anything. They'll be complaining and it won't be a secret.

So if we ARE getting a whitewash, we'll know soon enough. If we aren't, then the nay-saying complainers are just talking the loudest. Complainers tends to DO that. I have never been severely anti-F-35. I have always been in the camp where I hear great things and very bad things, and what I WANT to hear is the real story without the hard performance numbers that we all want to know .. but realize nobody will tell us.

To me, the F-35 proponents could EASILY shut the complainers up by addressing each and every point, one-for-one, in the more technical complaints.

I can recall in the case of the F-15, they did many one vs. one dogfights, then many two vs. one dogfights where one F-15 was pitted against two older jets, then some many vs. one dogfights, followed by more aggressors vs. two F-15s and, finally many several aggressors vs several F-15s where the aggressors always outnumbered the F-15s. If that development series is still considered sound, why not repeat the test with the F-35? You could silence the complainers easiy. I'm pretty sure we have more F-35s delivered at this point than F-15s when we ran the F-15 dogfight tests, so we SHOULD be able to support it.

In the end, Donald Trump has said in the past he'll take care of F-35. When he gets into office, if he reads the REAL reports and thinks the F-35 is sound, he'll likely let it stay in production. If he can't find a compelling reason to stay with the F-35, then he'll act on that information. As a businessman, I doubt if he has any better data than we do in here. Once he is in office, he should be able to get straight answers. A lot of doubts will be laid aside when we see what shakes out, especially if he let's the F-35 stay in production. That should be a clear sign as to what the real story is because he is among the doubters, not the complainers. I doubt if we'll hear any real data either way. But staying with the F-35 would almost surely mean it is much better than the press would have us all believe, don't you think?

 

[GregP]

If we were to look at the Mosquito and the P-61 today, knowing everything we kown today, and using the attitudes of today, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the Mosquito, and I was never saying otherwise. It's just that I can't see the acceptance of the Mosquito at teh time when the P-61 was being developed. No real other claims of any sort.

 

[Shortround6]

Even the attitudes of the time were not cast in stone.
The US did adopt the Hispano cannon, We did adopt the 20mm Oerlikon gun, the 40mm Bofors gun. We licensed the 60mm and 81 mm Bradt mortars.
We adopted the British 4.5in artillery caliber (this one was a mistake).

4.5 in gun barrel in 155mm howitzer carriage.
We adopted the 57mm AT Gun. The US keeping about 10,000 of the 15,000 produced in the US.
US ELCO motor torpedo boats (at least the early ones) were either copies of the Scott-Paine or modified versions. Later ones got further away from their roots.
The warships known as Destroyer Escorts were built for the British in US yards under lend lease (first order in the summer of 1941) but with the coming of war to the US 44 of the first 50 were taken over by the US and after that the British got one out of every Five built.

The US would NOT build stuff they couldn't see themselves using, even under lend lease. (No British tanks built in the US) We had gotten burned too badly during WW I to go that route again.
But if a foreign design was judged to work as well or better than a US design it got adopted. Again the US had learned from WW I when the 3inch field gun of 1916 was often referred to as the crime of 1916. and US troops had to use French 75s or British 18lbs with barrel liners sized for French 75mm ammunition.

The Mosquito had not proved itself in combat at the time production decisions had to be made.

 

[GregP]

I was thinking that we'd adopt a foreign design at the time in the case that no suitable U.S. design ws available that would do the job in an acceptable fashion. We used Oerlikons for a LONG time, didn't we?

I shot several some years back when I was living in Arizona. Impressive, but I have no frame of reference from using other makes of 37 mm cannon, so "impressive" doesn't really mean much except it was the biggest gun I had ever shot up to that point. After that, I managed to shoot a 75 mm howitzer, and THAT became "impressive." The muzzle blast was a definite attention-getter. If you think shooting a 50-cal is expensive, don't even THINK about a 75! Wish I could have kept the shell, but it was kept by the owner.

Nothing remotely near that on the horizon now as I am not hanging around with that crowd anymore since I left Arizona. They're still there having fun, I'm sure, and I'm having fun restoring old warbirds that those guys only dream about. The other guy's grass is always greener, isn't it?

 

[wuzak]

I was thinking that we'd adopt a foreign design at the time in the case that no suitable U.S. design was available that would do the job in an acceptable fashion.

The USAAF did buy over 100 Mosquitoes, used as weather reconnaissance aircraft, photo reconnaissance aircraft, pathfinders, target markers, and by the OSS for communicating with agents.

Some USAAF squadrons also PR Spitfires. Some may have given up Lightnings to do so.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Mosquito may very well have been better, especially the MK 30, but it was too late.

Yep, I agree with your post SR, for the USA to order Mossies as combat aircraft required several things to be overcome; the Mossie would have required production elsewhere, perhaps in the USA itself; the Brits didn't have enough capacity to fulfil all the commands and units that wanted it from early on. Initially production in Canada was set up because of this and it was agreed by de Havilland that if the USA wanted Mosquitoes, certainly more than they eventually acquired, particularly if they wanted combat capable armed ones, they'd have to be built in Canada. The time thing kind of stymies the Mossie in USAAF service because of the P-61.

The USA would have to create a niche for it within its arsenal, since it wouldn't be necessary for it as a night fighter because it had the P-61. The USAAF used Beaufighters as night fighters in Italy and these were eventually replaced by P-61s, although there was the thought they might have been replaced by Mosquitoes at the time. Certainly the US Navy saw the Mossie as a very good night fighter and wanted them to defend its shore bases. Hap Arnold saw the value of the Mossie, but for various reasons, notably lack of a suitable role, only recon ones were operated. He did stipulate that he thought the Mossie was a better recon platform than the P-38.

 

[GregP]

Wayne, we've been over this before, several times. I am completely aware of USAAF Mosquito use. It's a drop in the bucket comapred with 100,000 fighters of domestic manufacture. Did we use some? Yes.

Let's put some numbers to it.

Aircraft in U.S. service claimed 25,486.5 aerial vicrtories in WWII.

U.S. flown Spitfires claimed 379 of them, or 1.49%. All but 15 of those were in the MTO, where we used a few Spitfires.

U.S. flown Mosquitoes claimed 1 aerial victory of all these, for 0.0039%. Means ZERO to the aerial victory war.

They were so important, both together along with Beaufighters, that I can't even FIND the number of missions they flew.

Nothing says they weren't good ariplanes or that we wouldn't use what was expedient. It merely says they didn't contribute much to the overall outcome of the U.S. wartime effort. The Spitfires did well, I'm sure, and the Mosquito surely few some very useful and good recon missions. But we could have performed ALL those mission without any British aircraft and the outcome would have been the same. It does NOT mean we couldn't have used, say, 10,000 Spitfires at all. It means we DIDN'T use many.

That was no doubt due to the British needing as many of their own Spitfire and Mosquito aircraft as they could get. Had we set up an alternate production line, we could have built our own versions. With attitudes of the day, it was NEVER going happen and it didn't. Let it go; it never happened.

The ONLY reason we set up a production line for Merlins was to provide the British with them. Ford declined. Later, when we elected to use the Mustang, we increased production capacity to meet our own needs while still keeping up with British needs. When the war was over, Merlin production (as well as Allison production, and P&W, Wright, etc.) ramped down almost immediately after existing contracts, in place when the war was won, were completed.

None of this is derrogatory to anything British at all. They did and DO design very good weapons and other things, including British invasion music of the 1960s and some very cool motorcycles and cars.

What it means in reality is that the attitudes in the 1940s U. S. A. meant we would almost certainly rely on domestic designs and production unless there was a driving need to do otherwise. The British did exactly the same. It so happens a war broke out and they needed some foreign equipment to effectively continue or they would never have bought U. S. weapons. After the war, if I am not mistaken, the first U.S. aircraft they bought was the F-4 Phantom, and their version had Rolls-Royce Spey engines, making it the slowest Phantom in the sky since the F-4 airframe was designed around the J-79's profile, and the change to accommodate the Spey altered the aerodynamics of it. It has nothing much to do with whether they or we made better weapons. It just makes good common sense to rely on domestic industry for critical items of armament unless there is a real need to do otherwise.

 

[wuzak]

Greg, the initial contract for US built Merlins, agreed between the UK and the US, was that 1/3 of production would go to US airframes.

The initial order was 9,000 - 6,000 for the RAF and 3,000 for the USAAF. They were certainly not relying on domestic designs there - perhaps they recognised that, at that stage at least, the Merlin was superior to the V-1710.

Yes, go ahead and quote kill statistics, since almost all of the Mosquitoes supplied to the US were unarmed reconnaissance types. Specifically the USAAF requested Mosquito PR.XVIs. But the British wanted all that they could build, so they had de Havilland modify B.XXs (Canadian built B.IV) to a PR aircraft, and these were initially supplied to the US as F-8s. The USAAF was not happy, and eventually got their way and received PR.XVIs (in 1944).

Note that this order was made at or after mid 1943, when the PR.XVI went into production. At this stage the Lockheed F-4 and come and gone and the F-5 was in production along side its P-38G/J fighter brother.

USAAF PR Mossies regularly flew ahead of 8th AF bomber formations to determine weather conditions over Europe.

One of the USAAF's reconnaissance squadrons, the 14th, gave up its Lockheed F-5s in favour of Spitfire PR.XIs.

The 14th flew combat reconnaissance missions in the European Theater of Operations from 12 August 1943 until 25 April 1945. The squadron's Spitfires flew the majority of the target photography missions (including the first Spitfire reconnaissance mission over Berlin in March 1944), while the other squadrons of the 7th, equipped with Lightnings, concentrated on photographic mapping. Squadron deep penetration missions included reconnaissance of oil refineries to determine when repairs had been performed that could justify returning them to Eighth Air Force's target list.

14th Fighter Squadron - Wikipedia

That sounds pretty important to me. It would also suggest a contribution greater than their number.

Again, they had aircraft that could do the missions. They didn't choose them out of necessity. They chose them because they were the best tool for the job.

 

[GregP]

The missions would have been flown even without the Mosquito pathfinders. They did a good service, to be sure, but there was nothing essential about it. One plane or even a few tens of planes in any mission are not essential, no matter what nation built them, us, the British, the Germans, Russians, or Japanese, French, etc.

In plain old fact, we evaluated the Mosquito and the Spitfire, and we like what we saw. Nothing to dislike there at all. Great machines, both. So was the Beaufighter, for it's intended task. Nothing to dislike.

They were not an integral part of anything we did, despite any claims to the contrary. They were evaluation machines that did quite well in their evals. Many, if not all the people who flew them liked them, a lot. I never said otherwise and don't mean to even imply it. There was and IS nothing to dislike about the British aircraft of WWII, including the Lancaster, which I consider to be the best bomber of the ETO.

But I seriously doubt if Avro could have built enough for us to use or they would have built more for Britain. Ditto the Mossie and the Spit. They needed them more than we did, but we DID want an eval, and I'm pretty sure it helped us to trim some weight on future projects. I have a feeling the F-86 directly benefitted from the British evals as well as from any swept-wing data we got. Most people tend to forget that we were already experimenting with swept wings on our own, but its a fact.

To reiterate, the British aircraft we used were for evaluation purposes, and they worked quite well, but were never necessary for our war effort. Not having them would have changed nothing at all.

The British, on the other hand, seemed to need some of our planes for war. Their first-line fighters were needed for defending Great Britian. They needed some of ours for other duties like in the Pacific, some Wildcats for the RN, and a few others. They might or might NOT have been essential, but those other duties needed to get done somehow. If they had not had our planes, then the defenders would have been fewer.

I have no idea of whether or not it might have changed anything, and certainly don't claim so. But I believe our planes were more useful to the British than British planes were to us. That is not nationalistic in the least. We weren't getting bombed or attached, except for the U-boat issue. That makes a huge difference right there. Uninterrupted production helps tremendously in wartime. In point of fact, food shipments to the British were probably more important than aircraft shipments were, but I bet they know much better than I do.

To this day, I don't think many Brits like Spam!

 

[wuzak]

Greg, I think you are being disingenuous when you say the USAAF evaluated Spitfires and Mosquitoes in the PR role.

OK, it may have only been one squadron of PR Spitfires, but you don't replace an entire squadron of the best PR aircraft your country ever made with one from another country and operate them on some of the most important PR missions for 2 years to evaluate an aircraft.

That there is recognising that the tool you didn't make is a better tool for the job and using it.


And you certainly don't go ordering 100+ of a specific version of an aircraft and then get pissed because you didn't get the one you wanted in order to evaluate the aircraft. You maybe need a couple for that.

The Spitfire and Mosquito were operational in the USAAF and doing some quite important roles. Sure, the US had other aircraft that could have done those jobs, but the USAAF evaluated their options and then they chose the Spitfire and Mosquito.

 

[wuzak]

The British, on the other hand, seemed to need some of our planes for war. Their first-line fighters were needed for defending Great Britian. They needed some of ours for other duties like in the Pacific, some Wildcats for the RN, and a few others. They might or might NOT have been essential, but those other duties needed to get done somehow. If they had not had our planes, then the defenders would have been fewer.

Yes, the British took a lot of aircraft from the US. It was simply a matter of production requirement - the RAF and FAA needed aircraft, and they took just about anything, no matter how crap, because they were desperate.

And these purchase by the British, and the French, were vital to the US aviation industry, to keep production going. Otherwise there may not have been the hundred thousand fighters built.

 

[Shortround6]

"After the war, if I am not mistaken, the first U.S. aircraft they bought was the F-4 Phantom, and their version had Rolls-Royce Spey engines, making it the slowest Phantom in the sky since the F-4 airframe was designed around the J-79's profile, and the change to accommodate the Spey altered the aerodynamics of it."

The British did operate over 400 Sabre jets during the 50s for few years. They were Canadian built and paid for with US funds under the MDAP program.
The use of the Spey in the Phantom was a rather reasoned choice. They traded top speed (rarely used) for a number of other attributes.

From Wiki so:
"The British versions of the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II F-4K (designated Phantom FG.Mk.1) replaced the 16,000 lb wet thrust J79 turbojets with a pair of 12,250 lb thrust dry and 20,515 lb thrust with afterburning RB.168-15R Spey 201 turbofans. These provided extra thrust for operation from smaller British aircraft carriers, and provided additional bleed air for the boundary layer control system for slower landing speeds. The air intake area was increased by twenty percent, while the aft fuselage under the engines had to be redesigned. Compared to the original turbojets, the afterburning turbofans produced a ten and fifteen percent improvement in combat radius and ferry range, respectively, and improved take-off, initial climb, and acceleration, but at the cost of a reduction in top speed"

Yes the listed thrust for the J79 is wrong (should be 17,800-17,900lbs).
A Phantom that does Mach 2.2 isn't much good to the Royal Navy if it won't operate off their carriers. Difference is carriers was such that British Phantoms had longer nose wheel legs for higher angle of attack in catapult launches, larger leading edge flaps were fitted, anhedral of the stabilator was changed. leading edge slats were installed on the stabilator, drooping ailerons were fitted and last, the nose radar cone and dish could be swung 90 degrees to the side to shorten the length to 54 ft to fit the British carrier elevators (lifts).

Economic and political considerations dictated that a bit over 40% of the plane (and equipment) be produced in the United Kingdom. (Using British pounds to provide employment for American workers wasn't very popular). As with many projects time changed initial requirements substantially. The British carrier fleet shrunk much faster than anticipated and the cost of converting carriers to handle even the modified F4s was much higher than anticipated. RAF wound up with the Phantoms and with their longer concrete runways didn't need the the modifications of the FG,MK. 1 and 2. That doesn't mean the mods or the engine switch was wrong when it was done.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hi Buffnut,

I can accept that. I have not yet read Joe's links above, but my first thought was , "If our new wonder plane can't beat an old A-4, we should scrap it post haste!" Who are we going against? Singapore? Weren't they the last people flying A-4s?

Greg - the old saying, "never judge a book by it's cover?" Read the article!!!

But I am going to read the links and I have decided that if the F-35 performs badly in foreign service, we'll hear about it pretty quickly. I am not "in the know" about it's mission-capable rate at this time, but am relatively sure that if it doesn't come in somewhere close to where it should, foreign countries won't just sit around and not say anything. They'll be complaining and it won't be a secret.

The USAF MC/ FMC rates have been published on non-classified sources, the last time I looked they were running below requirement but not by much. Many of the USAF F-35s are being operated by training squadrons so lower MC rates are to be expected. Sometimes I get to see full service MC rates, the next time I see this I'll post.

So if we ARE getting a whitewash, we'll know soon enough. If we aren't, then the nay-saying complainers are just talking the loudest. Complainers tends to DO that. I have never been severely anti-F-35. I have always been in the camp where I hear great things and very bad things, and what I WANT to hear is the real story without the hard performance numbers that we all want to know .. but realize nobody will tell us.

Well Greg, you have to analyze where your getting your information from and UNDERSTAND how this aircraft works. Pierre Spey's condemnation of this aircraft was a major driver of the bad press (besides the cost)

To me, the F-35 proponents could EASILY shut the complainers up by addressing each and every point, one-for-one, in the more technical complaints.

I believe that's been happening and then some

I can recall in the case of the F-15, they did many one vs. one dogfights, then many two vs. one dogfights where one F-15 was pitted against two older jets, then some many vs. one dogfights, followed by more aggressors vs. two F-15s and, finally many several aggressors vs several F-15s where the aggressors always outnumbered the F-15s. If that development series is still considered sound, why not repeat the test with the F-35? You could silence the complainers easiy. I'm pretty sure we have more F-35s delivered at this point than F-15s when we ran the F-15 dogfight tests, so we SHOULD be able to support it.

"Dogfight, dogfight, dogfight"! Greg, this aircraft is not, and again I'll repeat "IS NOT" a primary air-to-air fighter (at least in the US mission role) Please understand that!!!!

In the end, Donald Trump has said in the past he'll take care of F-35. When he gets into office, if he reads the REAL reports and thinks the F-35 is sound, he'll likely let it stay in production. If he can't find a compelling reason to stay with the F-35, then he'll act on that information. As a businessman, I doubt if he has any better data than we do in here. Once he is in office, he should be able to get straight answers. A lot of doubts will be laid aside when we see what shakes out, especially if he let's the F-35 stay in production. That should be a clear sign as to what the real story is because he is among the doubters, not the complainers. I doubt if we'll hear any real data either way. But staying with the F-35 would almost surely mean it is much better than the press would have us all believe, don't you think?

I think Trump will come around when he realizes what this brings to the table. I also think he'll brow beat LMCO in to further cost reductions.

Speaking of Trump...

Breaking Defense

 

[GregP]

Hi Joe,

I'm hoping you are right and have been all along. It would be VERY nice to have the F-35 come out as a winner, and then go back an analyze why it got so much bad press. The more I read the better I like it. Perhaps Pierre Sprey was out in left field after all. I'm still not very happy about the cost, and I would like very much to have bought more F-22s before eliminating the assembly line. But the cost of something like the Rafale or Typhoon ain't all that much cheaper, is it?

I WILL read your links this coming weekend. I'm in the middle of preparing to teach a Friday-Saturday class and just won't have time until then.

Once thing has me puzzled. I took a quick look at the Norwegian pilot's report and he said something that made me wonder.

He said that while the F-35 has a lower g-rating, he could get the nose around quicker than in the F-16. That makes me wonder because the only way that makes sense is if the F-35 is going slower than the F-16's g-envelope at 7+g. By way of explanation, arbitrarily say the F-16 can take 8 g and the F-35 can take 7 g (I'm not claiming that). Then the only way the F-35 SHOULD be able to turn inside of the F-16 is if it is moving slower than the F-16s required airspeed to sustain more than 7 g's, right?

I was not surprised to hear the F-35 could pedal-turn better since it has two rudders versus the F-16's one rudder. More rudder area should equal better yaw capability, all else being equal.

Thanks for the detailed answers. I'm more in your camp now than in the doubter camp, and hoping to be out of the doubter camp entirely sometime soon. Glad to hear it is approaching good mission-capable rates. Maybe the're getting the software straight. From what I hear the biggest current issue was the maintenance software. The press made these guys sound like Microsoft ... release it and let the customer base debug it! Ha! I have no way to counter-check the article as I have no more "in" to the F-35 after leaving Parker Aerospace.

 

[ChrisMcD]

="GregP, After the war, if I am not mistaken, the first U.S. aircraft they bought was the F-4 Phantom, and their version had Rolls-Royce Spey engines, making it the slowest Phantom in the sky since the F-4 airframe was designed around the J-79's profile, and the change to accommodate the Spey altered the aerodynamics of it.

There is a lovely fighter jocks comment.

"It's the same with every bitch. Once they are Spayed they get fat in the arse and slow down"

 

[GregP]

Good one, ChrisMcD! I hadn't thought of that.