some F35 info

[Lucky13]

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]

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.
2 tons on target from one aircraft is a bargain compared to the B 29 which cost more than the Manhatten project....but had huge influence on all US post war designs and tech.

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?
That means also designing building and training people for "the other aircraft"
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 than the F4s.
Skyraiders were not so good at taking on mig fighters I believe?
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.

That depends on the weapon, a B 52 carries a huge number of weapons internally. Using stealth and internal weapons is the first mode of attack along with jamming feints and other disguise the layers of a defense system are systematically attacked.



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.

OK ...I surrender......no defense system was ever breached.

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.

Getting better but not there yet

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.
If all potential rivals agree to do nothing for 30 years then we probably dont need manned military aircraft


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.

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

 

[gjs238]

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]

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

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.

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

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!!!

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.

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!

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?!?!?

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?

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

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.

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?!?!?

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!!!!

 

[parsifal]

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....

 

[Lucky13]

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]

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.

 

[parsifal]

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

 

[buffnut453]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

Only time will tell how good/bad, she is....

 

[parsifal]

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

 

[Glider]

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.

 

[GrauGeist]

Saw this today

 

[Shinpachi]

A good list to compare, Dave.
I may use the style in the future

 

[Lucky13]

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...

 

[michaelmaltby]

A rose by any other name is still .....

 

[rochie]

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...

View attachment 289178

Good, good....

......and again..

This is a Lightning...

View attachment 289179

Very good, well done....

I want you to practice at least three times a day...

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 ?

 

[parsifal]

you guys crack me up sometimes

 

[buffnut453]

Some of us are just cracked up!