FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think the argument is better if you talk to someone who's actually FLOWN the aircraft!
Even if its dropping bombs, the mission it was designed to do to begin with?
I could agree with that
I think the argument is better if you talk to someone who's actually FLOWN the aircraft!
buffnut453
Captain
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.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
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
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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'...
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'...
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.
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
Colonel
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....
I dont think the answer is as easy as it looks....
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
GregP
Major
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.
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.
One engine has half the chance of an engine failure...
buffnut453
Captain
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.
Last edited:
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
Captain
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.
GregP
Major
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.
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.
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
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.
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.
parsifal
Colonel
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
Major
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.
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.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
From where - the uninformed media or from those at EDW, PAX, Hill or Nellis?
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
All true, but also include how the USAF intends to deploy it.
F-35 and F-22 combine capabilities in operational integration training mission
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.
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!!!
Token
Senior Airman
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
Colonel
"....Right now IMO Canada is doing some political posturing." Understatement. 
Scrapping F-35 fighter jets may not lead to big savings, experts say - The Globe and Mail
Scrapping F-35 fighter jets may not lead to big savings, experts say - The Globe and Mail
Last edited:
