some F35 info

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

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

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

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

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

razor1uk said:

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

Click to expand...

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

razor1uk said:

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

Click to expand...

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

razor1uk said:

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

Click to expand...

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

razor1uk said:

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

Click to expand...

I think you have!

FLYBOYJ said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Glider said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

ScreamingLighting said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

Joint Strike Fighter program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

beaupower32 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

pbehn said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Lucky13 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

The F-35 carries a 25mm cannon

This is total rubbish

syscom3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Your response (with evidence) is awaited with anticipation

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

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

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

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