F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[KenV]

Au contraire, for the UK the F-35 was intended to be a carrier-borne aircraft capable of air defence of naval and ground forces and self-escorting ground attack (as set out in Staff Target 6464).

If it is unable to perform this mission, then it is defective.

Thank you, Mel. Exactly what I've been trying to say.

1. Do you guys really think that a single test pilot's blog post proves (or even just suggests) that the F-35 cannot perform the mission? REALLY?!!! Amazing.

2. If the F-35 cannot perform the mission, then the RAF/RN folks who set down the specifications need to sacked. Perhaps shot.

[PhilipG]

Ken

Would you now with the latest stance that you are taking on what the F35 is be advising Canada to replace it's Hornets with F35s as having an attack bomber as your sole air defence fighter is not a very sensible idea? Ditto Norway of course.

As the F35 is not an air superiority fighter, with the supposed advent of Russian and Chinese Stealth Fighters, I am assuming that you feel it was the wrong decision to stop production of the F22 and as such the line should be put back to work after suitable upgrades have been made to the central computer systems, so that antiques are not being installed in the new build aircraft, whilst we wait for 6th Generation air defence fighters.

I assume as well that you would suggest to South Korea, Israel, Japan and Australia that they cancel their orders for F35s and put in orders for F22s. Together with of course Canada and Norway.

As regards the UK Ken I am assuming that taking your logic forward you would suggest that the decision to put a ski jump on the QEC Class Carriers was wrong and that they should be re-equipped to either take Super Hornets or Rafales, as the F35B is not fit for purpose.

Ken what is the quantum of F35s that you feel is appropriate for the USAF to purchase, still some 1,700+?

A number of jobs in Fort Worth seem to be at risk if you are correct.

[Hempy]

As I said before, you can't send a bomb truck on CAP. So you tell us Ken, is it 1 or 2?

[Heathrow Harry]

from Janes.com

COMMENT As with most issues related to the F-35, this latest controversy has split observers down the middle, with the aircraft's advocates and detractors taking diametrically opposed views - and with the truth probably somewhere in the middle.


The War is Boring article appears to have accurately recounted the test pilot's experiences and comments (as the JPO seems to be only disputing the interpretation of the pilot's findings not their authenticity) when it says the F-35 performed poorly in close-in dogfighting.


For its part, the JPO was quite correct when it stated the F-35 was never designed for dogfighting (some have postulated the aircraft would have been better designated the A-35 rather than the F-35, on account of its weighting towards the attack role), and that aircraft AF-2 used for the test was not fitted with many of the advanced systems that would likely have enabled it to defeat its adversary when fighting on its own medium- to long-range terms.
However, while the JPO can point to such discrepancies between the test pilot's comments (as they appeared in the article) and the F-35's mission set, it should be noted that many nations that cannot afford multiple aircraft types are procuring the F-35 as a multirole 'jack of all trades' to perform the full spectrum of missions.


Though advanced sensor and missile technology renders the classic dogfight less likely than at any point during the history of military aviation, rules of engagement and other considerations can sometimes require aircraft to be within visual range before engaging each other. The point the War is Boring article was trying to make, and the point the JPO has failed to refute in its rebuttal, is that aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so.


With the F-35 set to become the dominant platform in Western (and allied) use over the coming decades (in many cases procured specifically as an F-16 replacement), its apparent lack of a close-in aerial combat capability will raise concern, especially considering the range of new 'fifth-generation' fighters coming out of Russia and China, such as the PAK-FA and J-20.



This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not.

[KenV]

Sigh.

Citing U.S. Air Force analyses, (Davis) said the F-35 is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market, including Sukhois.

"Effective in air-to-air combat" involves a LOT more than turning and burning. Once again, the total package must be compared, not just raw turn performance.

"The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission," says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot who is responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for all three variants.


And the blog post you guys are hanging your hats on provided how many metrics that show the F-35's metrics are not "comparable or better" than those other (4th gen) aircraft's metrics? Zero you say? And you think that's definitive or even just meaningful? REALLY?

[Heathrow Harry]

"Aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so."

[Hempy]

Up against non AESA equiped jets, and losing, your 'metrics' mean nothing :ugh:

At this stage a fleet of Supers would kill this bi:mad:tch

[melmothtw]

Well then, I'm guessing the you're guessing wrong. Do you really think the Royal Navy (and the other F-35 buyers) think they're buying F-22 dog fight performance? REALLY?!!

Nope, but I am guessing that they're expecting dogfight performance at least as good as their current crop of combat aircraft (nothwithstanding the Royal Navy, which doesn't have a current fighter, of course).

You are aware that the choice is not F-35 or F-22, right?

You're still missing it aren't you? F-35 is predominantly a tactical bomber. But one that can escort itself to defend itself against fighters. It is not nor was it ever meant to be an air superiority fighter.

I get it Ken, but I wonder if you do. You said it yourself - predominantly. While no one is saying that it is expected to have Raptor-esque air combat capabilities, LM itself said that it should be able (and would be, going by past statements) to dogfight to defend itself. According to the test pilot, it can't.


2. If the F-35 cannot perform the mission, then the RAF/RN folks who set down the specifications need to sacked. Perhaps shot.

The aircraft is designed to the specifications, rather than the specifications being drawn-up to fit the aircraft. The specs come first, and it is the job of the designers to build the aircraft to those specifications (assuming they don't change, of course, which is never a given).

Would you now with the latest stance that you are taking on what the F35 is be advising Canada to replace it's Hornets with F35s as having an attack bomber as your sole air defence fighter is not a very sensible idea? Ditto Norway of course.

And the rest PhilipG - Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Turkey, etc, etc....

Sigh.

You should hear our collective sigh, Ken.

[kbrockman]

Looking at how our air forces have to do their present day job in the baltic , I'm more than happy that we still have a real air dominance fighter iso the A7 of the 21st century.

Belgische F-16's merken spanning op tussen Rusland en Westen: 'Intercepties zijn agressiever' - Wereld - Knack.be (http://www.knack.be/nieuws/wereld/belgische-f-16-s-merken-spanning-op-tussen-rusland-en-westen-intercepties-zijn-agressiever/article-normal-583633.html)
De Belgische F-16's die vanuit Polen mee het noordelijke Navo-luchtruim bewaken, hebben de voorbije weken duidelijk de verhoogde spanningen tussen Rusland en het Westen gemerkt. Het aantal Russische vliegtuigen dat onaangekondigd opduikt boven de Baltische Zee steeg gevoelig, zo kreeg defensieminister Steven Vandeput (N-VA) ter plaatse te horen.

Belgian F-16's ,operating out of Poland to safeguard the Northern NATO-airspace, reported a markable increase in tensions created by the number of Russian airplanes popping up unexpectedly over the Baltic Sea, quoting defence minister Vandeput

Sounds surprisingly a lot like a potential WVR (ACM capabilities potentially very much required) engagement to me.

[glad rag]

Quote:
It's a stealth bomber with self-escort....
Interestingly, that's essentially what I've been saying all along. So how do you tie in the self defence weapons with the offensive weapons whilst retaining your stealth then ? <rofl>

Besides,Dude, this is a stealth bomber.

bjoMQRUWEe8

[KenV]

Ken

Would you now with the latest stance that you are taking on what the F35 is be advising Canada to replace it's Hornets with F35s as having an attack bomber as your sole air defence fighter is not a very sensible idea? Ditto Norway of course.
If Canada and Norway are expecting the F-35 to be able to go up against modern air superiority fighters in close-in air combat, then (as I've already said repeatedly) they have the wrong fighter. Sadly, such purchase decisions are as much (or more) political than they are technical. But basing such a decision on a single "War is Boring" blog post is absurd.

As the F35 is not an air superiority fighter, with the supposed advent of Russian and Chinese Stealth Fighters, I am assuming that you feel it was the wrong decision to stop production of the F22
That depends on two factors:

What is the actual performance of the "Russian and Chinese Stealth Fighters", and how many will they actually build? 5th gen fighters are pricey. 5th gen air superiority fighters even more so. If the US can't afford them in large numbers, can Russia and China? If the Russian and Chinese 5th gen fighters actually deliver on promised performance AND they can be purchased in large numbers, then by all means, lets build more F-22s. But making such a decision based on a single blog post is absurd.

I assume as well that you would suggest to South Korea, Israel, Japan and Australia that they cancel their orders for F35s and put in orders for F22s. Together with of course Canada and Norway.That depends on what they want to do and who they expect to go up against. In any event, basing such a decision on a single blog post is absurd.

As regards the UK Ken I am assuming that taking your logic forward you would suggest that the decision to put a ski jump on the QEC Class Carriers was wrong and that they should be re-equipped to either take Super Hornets or Rafales, as the F35B is not fit for purpose."Not fit for purpose" is YOUR allegation. I have found zero evidence to back your allegation. But if that is true (which I seriously doubt), then yeah, sure, they should refit their carriers and buy something else. Maybe a navalized Typhoon? In any event, even suggesting this course of action based on a single blog post is absurd.

Ken what is the quantum of F35s that you feel is appropriate for the USAF to purchase, still some 1,700+? I never thought USAF would ever be able to buy anywhere near that number. USAF thought they were going to get hundreds of F-22s, and that did not work out anywhere near as hoped or planned. But one thing is certain. Basing the decision of how many F-35s to buy on a single blog post is absurd.

A number of jobs in Fort Worth seem to be at risk if you are correct. Really? Why? Based on a single blog post? That's absurd.

One final comment: I've said before that folks are jumping to all sorts of absurd conclusions concerning the "War is Boring" blog post. If suggesting that multiple nations cancel F-35 orders, reopening the F-22 line, refitting RN carriers, RN cancelling F-35B orders in favor of Super Hornets and/or Rafales based on that blog post is not absurd, then nothing is.

[melmothtw]

I would posit that your suggestion that all of the misgivings about the F-35 raised in this thread are the result of a single blog post is absurd.

[Courtney Mil]

Mel,

A brave effort and well reasoned. I doubt you'll reap much fruit.

Do remember when you discuss the aircraft being designed to meet the spec that the design spec in this case has had to be redefined more than once.

I honestly now think the RN has been sold a pup. And for those that couldn't be arsed to follow this and many other discussions and articles on the subject, the opinions being expressed here are not based on a single pilot's jottings. His words are simply confirming what was already expected.

If some of you would like to take a little time out to read, let's say, posts here from about two years ago, you will see that the claims of the day were precisely what many here are now denying.

So, enough "I told you so." Enough "it was never meant to do that." How about what it can do? Tactical Bomb Truck seems to be the current thinking. Anyone care to think about how HMS Queen Elizabeth might be defended? Apologies to the Americans for that question; I understand you couldn't give a ****. Just as long as the UK remains a loyal partner and buys it.

[KenV]

I get it Ken, but I wonder if you do. You said it yourself - predominantly. While no one is saying that it is expected to have Raptor-esque air combat capabilities, LM itself said that it should be able (and would be, going by past statements) to dogfight to defend itself. According to the test pilot, it can't.

Wow. You actually have test metrics that show "it can't"? REALLY?!! And you have data that the aircraft does not meet performance specs or that the performance specs it was designed to are defective? REALLY?!!! And you really think that single blog post was meaningful, much less definitive? Especially since it was based on a test that did not measure nor was meant to measure overall air-to-air performance, using a test asset that did not include numerous features useful in an air-to-air scenario?

You're welcome to leap to such conclusions. Me, not so much.

[KenV]

Sounds surprisingly a lot like a potential WVR (ACM capabilities potentially very much required) engagement to me. Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on many different factors. I posit that any suggestion that it MUST require close-in air combat is absurd.

[FODPlod]

Au contraire, for the UK the F-35 was intended to be a carrier-borne aircraft capable of air defence of naval and ground forces and self-escorting ground attack (as set out in Staff Target 6464).

If it is unable to perform this mission, then it is defective.

Your approach leads me to suspect that you would have judged SHAR defective and prevented it from ever entering service. Accepting its ability as a bomb truck, do you believe the F-35B's AD capability is going to be significantly better or worse than Harrier in any of its forms?

[KenV]

I would posit that your suggestion that all of the misgivings about the F-35 raised in this thread are the result of a single blog post is absurd.

And I would posit (again) that the conclusions presented here recently (especially those relating to canceling F-35 orders, reopening the F-22 line. and refitting aircraft carriers) as a result of this single blog post are absurd.

The F-35s performance metrics have been known for years. Loooonggg before this blog post. Yes, there is controversy surrounding the performance specifications the aircraft was designed to. That controversy has been brewing for years. But no, this blog post provides no new insight into those specifications, beyond a fresh "seat of the pants" observation about turn performance in a close in dog fight scenario. And yes, these latest conclusions bantered about here based on that blog post are absurd. Further, I posit that any suggestion that this blog post provides some kind of definitive "I told you so" data to support the many "warnings" expressed here over the years is absurd.

[Cows getting bigger]

I know it is a very naive stance to take, but I've always thought that an aircraft which looks good, is good. To me, the F35 looks like an overweight pig; conversely, the F22, F16, F15, F18.........

[peter we]

But in my defense I got worn down by the personal attacks. I will endeavor to keep a more proper British stiff upper lip.

Give up. This is not the place to have a discussion.

[LowObservable]

Ken

You stated: The F-35 is not nor was it ever intended to be an air superiority fighter.

I gave you two sourced quotes in which it was advertised as exactly that.

You then defended those statements (Davis and Flynn) - and not factually, but by attacking anyone who attaches any significance to the report leaked on Monday.

So you're defending people who contradicted your first statement. Do you wonder that people are getting a bit :mad:ed off, or is that your intention? Do you have any consistent viewpoint, or are you just trying to muddy a discussion that's not going your way?

[KenV]

So, enough "I told you so." Enough "it was never meant to do that." How about what it can do? Tactical Bomb Truck seems to be the current thinking. Anyone care to think about how HMS Queen Elizabeth might be defended?
There's two parts to your question:

1. Defended from what/who? Against the vast majority if nations, no problem. Against a 1st or big 2nd world nation (like India? Brazil?) with a modern air arm and/or modern sea denial weapons (like anti ship missiles and submarines), no chance of survival. In the latter case she would need to operate cooperatively within a proper carrier battle group. Do you really foresee an RN carrier engaging a significant military power all by herself? Really?

2. If not F-35B what would you propose as an alternative? F-35C? Super Harrier? Rafale M? Super Hornet? Su-33? MiG-29K? What data do you have that indicates any of these would be significantly better at defending her. And equally importantly, capable of defending her while also providing the same offensive capability?

Apologies to the Americans for that question; I understand you couldn't give a ****. Just as long as the UK remains a loyal partner and buys it. Gratuitous cheap shots from these folks seem somehow appropriate and expected. Wonder why that is. (Oh wait, that was a joke! Yeah, that's the ticket.)

[KenV]

Ken
You stated: The F-35 is not nor was it ever intended to be an air superiority fighter.

I gave you two sourced quotes in which it was advertised as exactly that. Your interpretation. I interpreted it quite differently and said so. That you missed that appears willful. Is that because you are pissed off? And separately, I posit that no uniformed decision maker (I will not include the politicians nor the few handwringers in this thread) in USAF, USN, RN, RAF, or the air arm of any nation bought the F-35 thinking it was an air superiority fighter. None. You handwringers are welcome to fantasize otherwise.

And on the subject of air superiority fighters, are Mirages air superiority fighters with high levels of close-in air combat capability? Really? And yet France and many other nations have depended on them to defend their nation. For decades. Those were of course all very bad decisions.

[Courtney Mil]

Ken,

I'm kind of sorry to say this because I do think you have something to contribute, although you hide it well sometimes and seem more intent on arguing than discussing - to use your phrase "SIGH!"

In a few months here on PPRuNe you have picked the same (or similar) fights with folk on various threads and have put yourself about as an expert on everything from "airliners" to mil transport, helicopters, carrier ops and even Typhoon. Looking through your earlier posts, I wonder if your real interest isn't "American stuff is great, everyone else's is rubbish." You showed your hand repeatedly in the Boeing vs Airbus debates.

I only wonder this because you change your arguments so quickly and ignore the points others raise with such ease if you don't want to address them, that I really wonder if you are here to DISCUSS the F-35 or simply to rubbish anyone that raises doubts about another American super cab.

If you truly are an expert in all those fields, then I raise my glass to you now.

Yes, I kind of know what to expect.

[KenV]

I know it is a very naive stance to take, but I've always thought that an aircraft which looks good, is good. To me, the F35 looks like an overweight pig; conversely, the F22, F16, F15, F18.........

Have you seen Boeing's version of the JSF? Now THAT is ugly!

[glad rag]

Err Boeing don't have a version of the JSF, Dude.

I am starting to lean towards the notion that this thread needs a declaration of interests...:ok:

[KenV]

Ken,

I'm kind of sorry to say this because I do think you have something to contribute, although you hide it well sometimes and seem more intent on arguing than discussing - to use your phrase "SIGH!"

Do you not find it strange that most people have no problem understanding what I write and don't come away with the conclusion that I am trolling, changing position, ignoring points, and/or have an inherent bias toward US products and against European products? While the same certain few come away with that impression?

I posit that the few with the mistaken impression are engaging in projection. In other words, they are biased and project their bias on me. My previous discussion with Beagle on the "Frankentanker" epithet was an excellent example of such.

As to "picking fights", I don't consider replying to posts that are directed at me, by name (such as this one), and often include personal remarks (such as this post), as "picking fights". I posit that your "picking fights" charge is another form of projection.

"rubbish anyone"? I have endeavored mightily to address specific statements posted in this thread and have even quoted the specific statement before addressing it. That's not rubbishing anyone, but replying to/rebutting the statement. On the other hand, the same folks who misinterpret and/or totally ignore/miss what I state have made several personal remarks directed at me by name, just like this post I am replying to now. Once again, projection.

And finally, I never stated, suggested, nor remotely implied that I was an "expert" in any field, much less "all those fields" as you claimed. Yet more projection?

[KenV]

duplicate post deleted.

[KenV]

Err Boeing don't have a version of the JSF, Dude.Oh my goodness. The gross ignorance of the above statement is matched only by the certain confidence with which it was stated.

Google "Boeing JSF" and you will get literally thousands of pictures of a very ugly airplane.

If Googling is problematic, dude, try one of the links below:

Boeing X-32 JSF Photo Gallery Image df-sd-03-15738 (http://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/f-32/pages/df-sd-03-15738.shtml)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

I am starting to lean towards the notion that this tread needs a declaration of interests...Perhaps you should begin by declaring YOUR interests which prompted you to make the above utterly false statement. And one so easily shown to be false.

[NITRO104]

Joint Program Office Response to “War is Boring” Blog
The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft.
Hm, if memory serves TRO wasn't noted by the pilot performing the test which suggests it has up to date control laws.

Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target....which means the plane is lighter than the production version, so the results for the line aircraft are probably even worse.

[KenV]

...which means the plane is lighter than the production version, so the results for the line aircraft are probably even worse. Maybe. Maybe not. Test assets are loaded with all sorts of extra wiring, strain gauges, test instrumentation, data recorders, and telemetry equipment. And we have no idea what ballast (if any) was in the weapon bays to mimic/model weapons, nor the fuel state of the test aircraft.

I believe we should be much more cautious about making assumptions and drawing conclusions based on those assumptions.

[NITRO104]

And we have no idea what ballast
There's no ballast replacement for stealth coating.

[glad rag]

.Ken.

Have verses Had. OK. English.


Ken, many participants have commented on your,well, preposterous and argumentative stance.

You do indeed give the impression that you are in fact obliquely angling to have this thread shut down possibly by sighting house rules.

Are you?? or are you not???

I refer you, Sir, to my previous "declaration of interests" You do seem somewhat concerned over it :confused:

Bonsoir.

[LowObservable]

And separately, I posit that no uniformed decision maker (I will not include the politicians nor the few handwringers in this thread) in USAF, USN, RN, RAF, or the air arm of any nation bought the F-35 thinking it was an air superiority fighter.

Are you mincing words here, and defining "air superiority fighter" as "F-22-like aircraft that does nothing else"? Because nobody is saying that, nobody has said that, and you are using a strawman argument.

Or are you literally trying to say that these customers did not think that it was capable of air superiority missions (OCA, DCA, QRA air defense &c)? Because that is not true - which we know because almost all customers and partners plan to use the F-35 to replace aircraft that do those missions today.

So you are wrong either way, and your sneering references to "handwringers" simply indicates your contempt for anyone who disagrees with you.

Also: Do you not find it strange that most people have no problem understanding what I write and don't come away with the conclusion that I am trolling, changing position, ignoring points, and/or have an inherent bias toward US products and against European products?

This mystifies me somewhat, as there seems to be a large absence of people responding to your posts with "Attaboy, Ken!" and "Give those Limeys heck, dude!"

And BTW, your position from the other thread (Airbus MRTT is "Frankentanker" and KC-46 is not) has been rather undermined by Australia's decision to convert two used civil A330s into KC-30s. Try modding a 767 into a KC-46.

Enough already, since unlike CM I am not really aware of anything useful you have brought to this discussion. I wave my wand, engage my ignore filter and

TROLLICULUS EFFOFFITUS!

(Kennie whinges about how "mature" this response is in 5-4-3....)

[melmothtw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by melmothtw
Au contraire, for the UK the F-35 was intended to be a carrier-borne aircraft capable of air defence of naval and ground forces and self-escorting ground attack (as set out in Staff Target 6464).

If it is unable to perform this mission, then it is defective.
Your approach leads me to suspect that you would have judged SHAR defective and prevented it from ever entering service. Accepting its ability as a bomb truck, do you believe the F-35B's AD capability is going to be significantly better or worse than Harrier in any of its forms?

That's actually a very good point FODPlod, and one I have considered on several occasions. I'm well aware that when the Sea Harrier entered service it was considered little better than a toy, only to prove its critics massively wrong during the Falklands (I know there was the US-supplied Sidewinder issue, but many of the kills were with guns).

I do truly hope that the F-35 does the same - believe it or not, I don't want it to fail.

To answer your question, I honestly don't know if the F-35's AD capability is comparatively greater than the Sea Harrier (given the increased capability of the threat also). I have to assume that it is, but the reports I am reading (the facts of which the JPO does not dispute, only the interpretation) lead me to wonder.

Regardless of the comparative capabilities with the Sea Harrier though, I find the JPO's argument that because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight (a change from its previous position) that it will never have to, to be spurious and disingenuous.

[Finnpog]

So - in UK service what designation might it attract? I know we perhaps discussed this a couple of years ago before some of the more recent testing.

Lightning FRS1 or FA1 (a la SHAR) or
GR1 following on from Tornado or Harrier?
FGR1 from the Phantom & Euro Typhoon inspirations?

I thought about the B & I prefixes, and even the MRA (don't mention Nimrod... I did it once, but think that I got away with it)

I might in fact prefer the Strike 'S' from Buccaneer fame - however the Reaper does not have a role prefix designation AFAIK - so perhaps bets are off?

[Courtney Mil]

KenV,

As expected, you have quoted my first sentence and ignored the rest. Any chance, for once, of a complete answer?

Oh my goodness. The gross ignorance of the above statement is matched only by the certain confidence with which it was stated.

Google "Boeing JSF" and you will get literally thousands of pictures of a very ugly airplane.

If Googling is problematic, dude, try one of the links below

And here is my point. The Boeing thing was dismissed many years ago. As such, there is no Boeing JSF. You are just trying to pick a fight, as you have on several other threads here. You are starting to look like either a troll or a Walt. What is your background, by the way?

[peter we]

Ken, many participants have commented on your,well, preposterous and argumentative stance

It would be more accurate to say you have ganged up in order to abuse him. Why don't you just come out and say that nobody with a positive attitude towards the F-35 is welcome in this topic.

Ken, stop wasting your time posting here, only bad things allowed.

[Courtney Mil]

Peter we,

A fine accusation. Just for the record, explain to everyone what my attitude towards the F-35 is. Please.

[peter we]

You are an exception in being open minded, critical and fair. And for what its worth I think you are mainly right in what you say about the F-35, but its immaterial. It will be made to work over time.

BTW, the argument that there isn't enough F-22's, keep in mind that the Russians will only have 12 PAK-FA's. Assuming they can get the design right, the Indians are most unimpressed, and that they can afford even that number.

[rh200]

It would be more accurate to say you have ganged up in order to abuse him. Why don't you just come out and say that nobody with a positive attitude towards the F-35 is welcome in this topic.

Seems to be a reasonable assesment of a lot of posters.

What I like about this thread, is that there are obviously a lot of posters who have an extremly good technical, an practical background on the various issues involveled. As such it is a very good learning thread.

But there does seem to be intertwined the "haters". I also fined it interesting that some of the people, who obviously are extremely capable can appear to be naive in regards to some technicalitys, and the reality of strategic decisions.

Ability to defend itself, a statement that can mean anything, too what level and standard against what?

Ability to provide CAP, again to what standard and level.

These things work on measurable metrics, metrics which trade lives off against cost., sad but true. most of us know why countries like Aus and canada etc. are getting the F35, whether we like it or not. And most of the military decision makers will as well.

As such most of the discussion on this thread really is more in relation to minutia and strategic decisions of our respective countrys and how they should respond to a threat.

[melmothtw]

It would be more accurate to say you have ganged up in order to abuse him. Why don't you just come out and say that nobody with a positive attitude towards the F-35 is welcome in this topic.


I hope you're not lumping me in with sweeping generalisation peter. I've only disagreed with the message, not the messenger.


BTW, the argument that there isn't enough F-22's, keep in mind that the Russians will only have 12 PAK-FA's. Assuming they can get the design right, the Indians are most unimpressed, and that they can afford even that number.

Not true, - you have taken Borisov's comments about 'a squadron's worth' too literally. Russia is to get a reduced number of between 12 and 55 in the first batch (2016 to 2020), with approximately 200 more to follow after.

Also, these will be bolstered by additional Su-30SMs, Su-35s, & MiG-35s. As I said during my earlier 'fantasy', it is these force multipliers that are the chief concern when it comes to numbers.

[MSOCS]

Naivety is believing that the release/appearance of this article has nothing to do with the USMC going IOC this month in order to cloud a relatively major milestone.

I agree with LO. There are a lot of straw man arguments zinging around this thread - from both sides I might add - which can leave the undecided or uninitiated confused. That said, personal attacks and baiting add nothing and it isn't hard to see where the debate has become puerile.

[melmothtw]

MSOCS, as Courtney pointed out a few posts back, these concerns go back years (you need only to read through the 300-odd pages of posts in this particular thread to see that), so I disagree with your assertion that the timing of this latest story is linked specifically to the upcoming Marine IOC.

It seems like every month there is a major 'milestone' of some sort or another with this programme, so by your reasoning all stories that question the JPO's rosy assessment of the F-35s status are cynically timed to cloud their good news.

Totally agree about personal attacks though.

[peter we]

you have taken Borisov's comments about 'a squadron's worth' too literally.

The Mig 35 is a paper aircraft. I would take Russian grandiose plans to expand to a Soviet level with a massive dose of salt. Russia cannot afford it and it’s getting worse with their shrinking and ageing population largely dependent on state handouts. Russia is significantly poorer than the UK and with much higher demands, in every sphere, for basic infrastructure. It’s a massive country and they don’t even have enough military trucks or transport aircraft.

The number of aircraft designers in Russia is 10% of Soviet numbers, how much knowledge have they retained and new technology developed? The Indian opinion that paying $230m per Rafale is possibly worth it, give the unreliability and horrendous running costs of hand made Russian aircraft. I think India will give up on the PAK FA/FGFA and a dozen examples will be it.

[MSOCS]

Mel,

I'm not saying this is new. I'm saying this is a typical insertion of a heated topic in the face of a significant milestone. Other major milestones are nothing to compared to this one - the first military Service declaring Initial Operating Capability? To some it means nothing, to others it really does. It effectively removes any chance the Program will be financially unsupported in future in my opinion. The USMC have fastidiously worked to this goal for years and I really do support and commend their ethic for doing so; I wish them every success and want to learn from them as they achieve it. I'm also fairly well read in many of the claims and counter-claims over 300-odd pages here, but contextualise this in that these really are relatively early days in a Program which will be a focus of countless more pages over the next 35 years.

Sure, you'll always get people who will continuously wheel out the, "it's late" and the, "it's expensive", even when this thing goes on operations and kicks a** like Bruce Lee (which I personally believe it will). You'll also always get those polarised the other way, who won't have a bad word said about their beloved jet. What the media says (JPO vs War is Boring) is simply accusation and rebuttal; to and fro; political tennis if you will. Public spats akin to this recent one rarely ever inform and normally create doubt on both sides; but then you can't really come out and properly inform the masses about the true capabilities of a highly classified and protected jet. What it has done is brought out the childish, puerile nature of certain individuals here and revealed them truly for what they are.

Nope - personally, I prefer to take the stance that F-35 will never silence its critics. Those involved who deservedly get to celebrate their F-35's success over the coming years shouldn't look back, other than to (re)learn some very valid and salient lessons for future acquisition (concurrency, requirements etc).

Happy 4th July to our US brothers and sisters and best of luck to the USMC who IOC with F-35B this month.

SF!

[peter we]

the USMC going IOC this month

The next stage from that should be the 4 year buy of 4-500 aircraft. That would be a deciding factor.

[LowObservable]

MSOCS

I would not be too sure that the leak was timed for IOC, although it's possible. The test in question took place in January and was first publicized in April, so this could just be slow-boil.

But it does underscore the capabilities that the Marines are getting (or not getting) with IOC, which is another story. This is not a strong IOC, even if the jet performs as advertised, because what a Block 2B can do (fixed target strike against reasonably heavy defenses) has not historically been a big part of the MEU mission. The focus of Marine air has been CAS, undeniably, and the F-35 needs a higher load-out, moving target capability, improved sensors and better comms to start doing that well.

I agree that all these things can be done in time. But the Marine IOC capability would be more accurately called "service test", like we used to do with YF aircraft and the Sovs did with things that had -A reporting names.

[typerated]

Ken,


I am interested in your comments on the Zero.I feel you just have focussed on turn rate exclusively.
I suspect if you look at the energy manoverability spectrum a P-40 would have places where it can dictate the fight - probably by staying fast.
No so sure how the Wildcat would compare though.

I think the F-35 can be more compared to the F-105 or the 104 in European duty than the A-7
I wonder if the 104 was also touted as an Air-Air machine when Lockheed and the US govt decided they were just what Europe needed

Of more relevance I'm interested how you think the F-35 stacks up? Draggy, low power to weight and high wing loading. Where does the F-35 win out on energy manoverability? Or do you assume the opposition is carrying lots of missile, bombs and ferry tanks, while the F-35 is clean?

[Courtney Mil]

Typerated,

Maybe chasing the wrong history. A short while ago we were treated to this,

Bill Flynn, Lockheed test pilot responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for the F-35 claimed that all three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter will have better kinematic performance than any fourth-generation fighter plane with combat payload, including the Eurofighter Typhoon (that during last year’s Red Flag Alaska achieved several simulated kills against the F-22 Raptor) and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

“In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter,” Flyinn said.

According to the Lockheed pilot, (besides its stealthiness) the F-35 features better transonic acceleration and high AOA (angle-of-attack) flight performance than an armed Typhoon or Super Hornet.

It seems the arguments have moved on and, frankly, I feel more comfortable and familiar with the stance being taken now.

There was certainly a time, not very long ago when F-35 was being hawked as the wonder jet. I have no doubt it will do a good job, but it will only fulfil the RN's requirements if they are not severely tested in their defence of the fleet role. Suggestions here about the current state of potential enemy orbats need to take account of the timeframe involved for the FAA's IOC, let alone any meaningful capability.

How times have changed.

[typerated]

CM,


I don't understand how his statement can be true? Unless it has far better power to weight and less wing loading than we thought?


Still, it seems from LM"s latest spin that it does not need to manoeuvre to win. Phew! I wonder though why they bothered putting thrust vectoring on the F-22?


For the USAF, with a (small) fleet of F-22's clearing the skies first the F-35 will do a job. For other nations the F-35's limited Air-Air capability will surely become problematic - if not now certainly in 20-30 years time.


If Canada does drop the F-35 go for Rafale or Gripen I wonder if many more nations will follow.

[Turbine D]

What the hell has happened to this thread?:eek:
After going back and reviewing the first 30 pages, it was both full of debated points (the F-35 is the best thing since sex and sliced bread or is an absolute expensive pile of sh$$). But then what bridged the gap between the two opinions was humor and it struck me, that is what is now missing.:uhoh: Back then, 2010, the Navy version was questionable at best but humor dissipated the furor of conflicting opinions:

Originally posted by:Ian Corrigible
U.S. Navy testing back-up alternative for F-35 from latest Nimitz-class carrier
http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q609/DaveK72/web_101115-N-3885H-265_zpsre2i79xq.jpg (http://s1166.photobucket.com/user/DaveK72/media/web_101115-N-3885H-265_zpsre2i79xq.jpg.html)

Certainly looks lightweight and somewhat stealthy with a simplified magic helmet, the weapons are neatly tucked away in his pockets (my attempt at humor).

And then there was the suggestion by:Finningley Boy
Perhaps someone might start an F35 fund?! You know, like they had thins like Spitfire funds back in the Second World War. For example, ppruners could get together with people on Fighter Control and UKAR in order to co-ordinate a fund raising campaign in order to buy a F35. That way the R.A.F./R.N. would be sure of getting at least one!

Furthermore, we could have the right to have personalized messages carried on the airframe or something.

We should have taken his suggestion, by now the various PPRuNe experts would have been able to disassemble the purchased F-35 and fixed all the problems producing the best damn plane, ever. Or, it could have resulted upon reassembly in a one hump, two hump or three hump camel instead of a race horse without some intervening humor. Oh well, carry on…;)

[peter we]

I don't understand how his statement can be true?

It was quite obviously not and never could be based on the published figures as it would defy the laws of physics. CM has been saying the same thing for years.

but it will only fulfil the RN's requirements if they are not severely tested in their defence of the fleet role. Suggestions here about the current state of potential enemy orbats need to take account of the timeframe involved for the FAA's IOC, let alone any meaningful capability.

There isn't any other aircraft that fulfil that role, is there? Presumably you are talking defence from land based aircraft.

Potential enemies are subject to the economic, time and design issues but more so. Not something to depend upon, admittedly.

[Courtney Mil]

Agreed, Peter. There is no plan B. The B will work, as you say. I just hope the carriers have some good air defence stuff on board.

[Just This Once...]

It would be a pain to list all the carriers with an integrated, organic and layered air defence system.

A lot easier to list the 2 in build that do not.

[Frostchamber]

Easy enough to list I guess - F35B (with whatever limitations/shortcomings it has when fully operational), Type 45 / Aster, T26 / FLAADS, CIWS and softkill.

[Courtney Mil]

Easy enough to list I guess - F35B (with whatever limitations/shortcomings it has when fully operational), Type 45 / Aster, T26 / FLAADS, CIWS and softkill.So now it looks like we didn't want/need an air superiority fighter on a capital ship. Strange choice.

[John Farley]

“In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter,” Flynn said.

I must say I would hesitate to suggest there is any inaccuracy in this statement as I believe the words were very carefully chosen (as one would expect!)

Firstly instantaneous turn rate is a no brainer. It is determined mainly by the AoA you can snatch without loss of attitude control. Given the alpha they have been to with the F35 I would not doubt the snatch capability is considerably more than many earlier aircraft.

Sustained turn rate is of course quite another matter. This is dependent on the thrust used and the induced drag present at the conditions where it is measured. Since we don’t know those details it is quite possible that there are circumstances where they are in favour of the F35 (and others where they are not!)

The “just about every other performance metric” clearly copes with the acceleration side of life.

[Courtney Mil]

Well, we do know that the F-35 bleeds energy quickly in the turn, reported many times in the past three years or so. No, we don't have the SEP graphs, John, but we do know the airframe is draggy and the SEP figures not as good as they may have been. We also know that very high aoa manoeuvre bleeds energy very fast, so peak instantaneous turn is likely to be just that, over in an instant.

I think the claims made by Flynn look over-inflated to me. There are quite a few legacy types that were better optimised for rate/radius and the more recent news supports that. Maybe we'll see more results as the USMC start to put their Bs about a bit.

[Frostchamber]

I am unworthy to be in the same debate as some of the names on here, but it seems to me that whether the B will be the best dogfighter in the world and whether it will be a capable AD asset for a UK carrier group are different questions; and bearing in mind eg the Flynn comments (even allowing for some over-inflation) coupled with such factors as sensors, sensor fusion etc, to write off the B as a turkey in AD terms strikes me as simplistic and probably wrong. In any polarised debate the truth is usually to be found lurking somewhere in the middle. Given where we are and the niche we've made for ourselves, I suspect the B will to a capable and valuable job for us in the years ahead, including in terms of contribution to layered AD, imperfections notwithstanding.

[Courtney Mil]

As described a couple of pages ago, Frostchamber, more of a self-escorting bomber.

[Frostchamber]

I suspect it will add up to a bit more than that, for the reasons I mentioned, but happy to agree to differ.

[Finningley Boy]

I was reading in an old article in the Daily Mail that the rotating weapon bays are unable to carry the full specified load, indeed, only half that specified?

This is on the B variant again. Altogether, I've never heard of such an awful predicament in terms of defence procurement. Firstly, the country's broke and daren't spread the misery of belt tightening evenly (i.e. NHS, Overseas Pocket Money) so defence spending will face more financial surgery to remove a vital organ or two. Secondly, We're only hanging on to the Carriers (not criticism per se) because it would cost more money to have gotten rid. Thirdly, the damn things have been designed so that the only fixed wing beast that can operate from them is the F-35B! Fourthly, F-35B is the runt of the litter. Fifthly, The F-35 project has proved to be the very inverse and opposite of what it was intended to address in terms of various allied countries economies and future air defence requirements, a financial disaster and a complete disappointment as an asset....

So I gather!?!?!?!?!:ok:

FB:)

[Frostchamber]

I was reading in an old article in the Daily Mail...

I think I may have spotted where you're going wrong.

[LowObservable]

FC - Refer you to this post... (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-321.html#post9031874)

One of the first debates over stealth concerned whether it was indeed possible to build a stealth air-to-air combat platform, because at that point all fighters had one thing in common, to wit, a bloody great RF searchlight in the nose.

The solution for the ATF/F-22 was more reliance on passive RF, low-probability of intercept radar, IRST, sensor fusion and offboard (AWACS), to get first-look, first-shot, first-kill with AMRAAM. Basically this is where Team F-35 still hangs its hat in the BVR regime.

This has been chipped away at, in subsequent years. MAWS, better EW and agility say "you may get the first look but you're going to have to get close for a high-Pk shot." A bit of RAM and much, much better passive and active EW conspire to raise the LPI bar a lot higher - trying to detect, much less track, a fighter without giving your own presence and location away gets much harder.

Dealing with leakers in WVR was another issue. Some said "Stealth rules, win in BVR and that's all" - look at the YF-23. The AF wanted belt and braces, so the F-22 ended up with a complex and heavy AIM-9 installation that gave wide-field-of-regard LOBL. The T-50 and J-20 have basically the same thing. It wouldn't fit on JSF.

However, the idea with JSF is to track everyone all the time in ACM with EO-DAS, and blast through the fight in a straight line while launching LOAL AIM-9X at the threat. But as mentioned, it can't carry AIM-9 in stealth mode - and the task of validating that EO-DAS works as advertised and will stitch its six sensors together while trying to assemble a 3D picture from 2D data sounds... interesting.

[Finningley Boy]

My Dear Frostchamber,

The Daily Mail is simply a conduit for another source. Frankly, this is just another report to reach the public domain which highlights yet another F-35 related problem.

FB:)

[Frostchamber]

Sorry FB, I should really have stuck to my own rule of steering clear of the bantery stuff because others on here are so much better at it than me :)

[Finningley Boy]

FC,

You mean joking aside the DM is really a quite reliable rag?!

FB:)

[Courtney Mil]

Don't answer that, Frosty. You'll be wrong either way!

[Finningley Boy]

Ok CM,

Cards on the table, I think the DM is a most interesting read!:E

FB:)

[Frostchamber]

Sound advice Courtney, which I shall follow - although as it happens, life with Mrs Frostchamber has left me well practiced in facing such a situation.

FB I won't answer you question directly, although I will point out that there are better and less harmful ways of spending your precious time than reading old DM articles - for example (to pick one at random) hitting yourself repeatedly over the head with a tin tray.

[Finningley Boy]

FB I won't answer you question directly, although I will point out that there are better and less harmful ways of spending your precious time than reading old DM articles - for example (to pick one at random) hitting yourself repeatedly over the head with a tin tray.

My words we are behind the times, been there done that etc...

But to rescue the thread from its current drift, which I accept full responsibility for, its back to the F-35, personally I think there's not a hope in hell.

FB:)

[Frostchamber]

Yes, back on track. On balance I'm standing by my comment at post 6564. Time will tell.

[Lyneham Lad]

Hmmm, it is all a bit like the Eurozone's thoughts leading up to tonight's result in Greece - hope for the best but plan for the worst. One hopes that there really is a plan... :eek:

[KenV]

And here is my point. The Boeing thing was dismissed many years ago. As such, there is no Boeing JSF.

If you say so. But once again, if you Google "Boeing JSF" you will get literally thousands of pictures of a very ugly airplane. That this airplane was "dismissed many year ago" does not alter its ugliness one iota. If you are offended that someone calls a "dismissed airplane" ugly, that's your problem, not anyone else's.

You are just trying to pick a fight
Am I? Seems to me you've not just tried, but are actively doing so right now.

You are starting to look like either a troll or a Walt.
Don't know what a Walt is, but I deny your troll characterization.

What is your background, by the way?Don't know how that's relevant, but I'll share my background if you share yours.

[Hempy]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mitty

[Biggus]

KenV,

Courtney is more than capable of answering for himself, and probably will soon, but any regular readers of his posts knows he is an ex UK fighter pilot, who has flown F-15s on an exchange tour with the US, and has had completed staff work on various fighter topics, with respect to both Typhoon and the early days of UK involvement with JSF.


You?

[Finningley Boy]

Not to mention having flown with the best ever fighter squadron out of the best ever fighter station!:ok:

FB:)

[LowObservable]

I deny your troll characterization.

I can only think of one Troll who admitted to being a Troll, and he lived under a rickety-rackety bridge and liked to eat goats.

[sandiego89]

Hope it is still OK to talk about the aircraft in here :rolleyes:

Seems live GBU 12 and 32's were air dropped from the B. Previous releases were inert I believe.

Marines on target with F-35 live-weapons release > The Official United States Marine Corps Public Website > News Display (http://www.marines.mil/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/3258/Article/606570/marines-on-target-with-f-35-live-weapons-release.aspx)

Not sure what to gleam from "....the munitions employed by the pilots were the same as those dropped by legacy Marine Corps fixed-wing aircraft, but the dimensions, installation and technology that targets and employs them were different."

I get the targeting systems is different, and hanging it in the weapons bay is different, but dimensions? Is it a different dimension GBU? Maybe a smaller 32 is required to fit? Or I may be reading too much into it.

[KenV]

Ken,

I am interested in your comments on the Zero. I feel you just have focussed on turn rate exclusively.Turn performance was the top design goal and the premier fighting characteristic of the zero.

I suspect if you look at the energy manoverability spectrum a P-40 would have places where it can dictate the fight - probably by staying fast.Precisely my point. Early in the war Warhawk and Wildcat pilots tried to fight the zero on its terms. They lost. Badly. When they fought to maximize their mount's advantages against the zero's weaknesses, they did much better. My point being that while turn performance is important in a fighter, if your mount lacks turn performance (like the F-35) and you fight to maximize your mount's advantages and to exploit your opponent's weaknesses, you can do well in a dog fight, despite the disadvantage in turn performance.

I think the F-35 can be more compared to the F-105 or the 104 in European duty than the A-7.Maybe the F-105. The Thud was primarily an air-to-ground fighter like the F-35 and neither were intended as dog fighters. The 104 (like the Lightning) was designed as a high altitude interceptor, not a dog fighter or bomb dropper. It had mediocre turn performance at best, quite a bit worse than F-35. Indeed, after the Sabre no American fighter had stellar close-in performance until the F-15 and F-16 were introduced. 1950s vintage subsonic MiG-17s used by N. Vietnam could out turn every American jet used in Vietnam (except possibly the F-8) and the US loss rate against Mig-17s was totally unacceptable. But USN's Fighter Weapons School program (Topgun) and other similar programs trained US fighter pilots to maximize their aircraft's advantages against their opponents' weaknesses. And they did very well after that. So decades after learning the lessons flying against the zero, American fighter pilots relearned the lessons of how to fight against an aircraft with better turn performance. And won. Consistently.

Of more relevance I'm interested how you think the F-35 stacks up? Stacks up? Relative to what? Relative to an F-16, its got lousy turn performance and OKish acceleration. Relative to a Tornado (a European air-to-ground fighter) F-35 is MUCH more maneuverable and agile. But USAF claims that when fought to maximize its advantages, the F-35s consistently beat even F-16s in actual air engagements. I would assume that means they avoid the close-in turn-and-burn fight just as the Warhawk and Wildcat pilots avoided the turning fight against the zero. The test some folks here are all upset about did not test nor was it designed to test dog fighting ability. And those same folks insist that avoiding the turning fight in an F-35 makes it "defective". They are welcome to their opinion. I disagree.

Now, let's compare how the F-35 "stacks up" against any other airplane in the air-to-ground role for which it was primarily designed. Both the Tornado and the F-35 were primarily designed for the tactical air-to-ground role. It would appear that NOTHING (not even A-10) beats the F-35 in the air-to-ground role in a contested air environment. I would assume the folks that are buying the F-35 are smart enough to know they've got a stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance. It's certainly MUCH better than a Tornado or even a Phantom in close in dog fighting. And oddly enough, plenty of air arms did quite well flying the Tornado and the Phantom.

Further, it seems to me that although the F-35 is meeting or exceeding its design specs, there are some folks here who insist the F-35 MUST be defective because it does not meet what they think its specs should be. They are welcome to their opinion, but plenty of folks here disagree (I'm one of them), and lots and lots and lots of very high level test, design, and procurement folks also disagree. Of course the handful of local self proclaimed experts insist they know better than all of them combined. And of course I am the bully when I stand up against them even though they significantly outnumber me.

[KenV]

KenV,

As expected, you have quoted my first sentence and ignored the rest. Any chance, for once, of a complete answer?

Quote:
Oh my goodness. The gross ignorance of the above statement is matched only by the certain confidence with which it was stated.

Google "Boeing JSF" and you will get literally thousands of pictures of a very ugly airplane.

If Googling is problematic, dude, try one of the links below



Hmmm.
1. I was replying to glad rags, not you.

2. I did a cut and paste quote of every word of glad rag's post when I replied to him.

[KenV]

So now it looks like we didn't want/need an air superiority fighter on a capital ship. Strange choice. Strange? Why? RN has been doing without any aircraft carrier at all for some time. And for decades it relied on Harriers as the only fighter aboard its carriers. F-35 is an exponential improvement over BOTH. Why is this vast improvement "strange"? Who/what do you think a single medium carrier is going to go up against?

Do you think equipping the new carriers with Rafale (or Su-33) instead of F-35B would have resulted in a better overall result? Really? Why?

[KenV]

Sustained turn rate is of course quite another matter. This is dependent on the thrust used and the induced drag present at the conditions where it is measured. Since we don’t know those details it is quite possible that there are circumstances where they are in favour of the F35 (and others where they are not!)

Hmmm. Sustained turn rate of F-35 is 4.5G, about the same as F-16 and F-18.

[cornish-stormrider]

And none of these facts, arguments and handbags ( and KenV determined attempt to bring facts to the inter web) have changed the fact that it's late, hideously overpriced and still rising, being "spun" by media consultants more than test pilots and worst of all........

It is a bad hodge podge of roles and specs with the result that all the money wasted would have developed three complete different aircraft with much better performance in their designed field....


If this turkey gets into the uk fleet I will be very suprised as they way costs are going we will end up with a Friday afternoon timeshare slot on one European wide superjet - and all the world knows the RAF doesn't do Friday afternoons without a war being on

[Courtney Mil]

I'll take your last post first, Ken, although you may not have meant what I read. I have been in many DACT fights with F-16s and they can sustain 9 g for a long time, as my students and my neck can attest.

Now, not sure if you were using "corner velocity", sustained rate, sustained min radius, or g. Again, we don't have the SEP graphs or rate/radius/g graphs available so it's going to be a tricky one to call. Max energy manoeuvre is probably a better tactical measure, ie where the g limit, altitude and SEP all meet. But only if folks are firing real weapons.

[KenV]

KenV,

Courtney is more than capable of answering for himself, and probably will soon, but any regular readers of his posts knows he is an ex UK fighter pilot, who has flown F-15s on an exchange tour with the US, and has had completed staff work on various fighter topics, with respect to both Typhoon and the early days of UK involvement with JSF.

You? I still don't see the relevance, but very well.

I started out flying A-4 Skyhawks for USN. I ended flying F/A-18Cs for USN. All PACFLEET. My log book has over 200 Hornet combat hours flying in Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. And well over another 300 Hornet combat hours flying in Operation Southern Watch and related operations. I am a quintuple centurion (over 500 traps). I have served at the squadron level, been a squadron commander, served on wing staff level, served on WEET (Weapons Effectiveness Evaluation Team) and JWEET post Desert Storm, and am a graduate of USNA and the Naval War College.

Between my A-4 and F-18 careers I cross-decked and flew P-3Cs for USN for a single tour. I spent 4 months on a "black shoe" exchange tour with the Royal Netherlands Navy aboard HNLMS Evertsen.

Most of my time with USN was as a reservist. While flying in the reserves I was employed full time by Douglas Aircraft Company as an engineer. I am currently a Boeing engineer. Most of my time at Douglas was on the C-17 program, but I also have DC-10 and MD-11 experience and headed Boeing's aborted C-27J effort. I hold an MRB Certificate for all current Boeing commercial aircraft (including former Douglas Commercial aircraft) and a PPPR certificate for the C-17 and F/A-18.

[melmothtw]

Solid responses all round. I wouldn't worry too much about the 'troll' thing Ken, as that seems to be quite a common accusation thrown at anyone here who begs to differ from the accepted PPRUNE orthodoxy. It's unfortunate, but so it goes.

[KenV]

From The Daily Telegraph Online 07/04/2015 Author: Alan Tovey


Air combat is advancing at such a pace and about to head in a new direction that reports of a hi-tech F-35 fighter “losing” a simulated dogfight to a 1970s-design F-16 are irrelevant to the new stealth jet’s future, according to an ex-RAF group captain.

The advanced systems and sensors aboard the F-35 mean its pilots will fly and fight in a new way, and the jet should not be measured using the same standards as older fighters, according to Andrew Linstead, who spent 27 years in the RAF flying in Tornados.

His comments came after a test pilot’s report was leaked that indicated his F-35 was unable to reliably beat an F-16 at close-in dogfighting because it was too sluggish.

The Ministry of Defence is buying a fleet of the jets to equip its new aircraft carriers.

“I can understand the scepticism that people might have,” said Mr Linstead. “People are using metrics they know, understand and may have an emotional attachment to but they have to think about it differently. If you look at the development of air combat over the years then there have been two main themes: aircraft performance and the struggle for situational awareness.

“Speed, height and agility all developed but for many years situational awareness was all visual. It wasn’t until radar in the Second World War that we saw the first mechanism for trying to gain an advantage there.” Performance and technical developments such as better radar and missiles that can shoot targets beyond visual range continued apace to produce so-called “4th generation” fighters such as the Typhoon and F-18 that are the pinnacle of these two streams of technology.

However, in recent years a separate theme has come to the fore with advances in computing power, electronic warfare and stealth technology, which makes aircraft hard to pick up on radar. Combining these attributes with agility and situational awareness to create 5th generation aircraft such as the F35 means aerial combat of the future will be very different, said Mr Linstead.

“All modern aircraft have speed, agility and situational awareness equipment now,” said Mr Linstead. “What discriminates the F-35 is the way it gathers and processes all the information to the pilot in a ‘fused’ way and its [stealth] allows it to operate where aircraft might not have been able to go before.”

The F-35’s sensors can create a picture of the battlefield in the air and on the ground that pilots can easily understand and share with each other – and ultimately with other friendly forces – allowing them to make smarter decisions and pick fights where they have the advantage.

“Previously pilots might have had to fight their way in to a hostile area,” said Mr Linstead, who now works for Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor on the F-35 programme. “The battlefield picture they now have means they can avoid their adversary or choose to fight in a way that will give them a better outcome.

“In the Tornados I flew in during the 1990s, the struggle was to make sense of what was going on. We had a lot of tools to pick up information but they were not fused and you had to put the information together in your head.
“The hardest thing to understand about flying a fast jet is that it is not easy to understand what is really going on,” he added. “Being given better situational awareness is a weapon in itself.”

The F-35’s advanced sensors and difficulty in detecting it mean that the jet’s tactics could see it position itself to shoot down adversaries from a distance before they are even aware it is nearby. However, this doesn't mean that hard-turning, high-speed dogfights such as those seen over London during the Battle of Britain are gone.

“The F-35A is an agile aircraft, it has speed and can pull a 9G turn like an F-16,” said Mr Linstead. “It would be trite to say dogfights are over. But if an F-35 got into a dogfight situation then the pilot would have probably done something wrong.”

[KenV]

I wouldn't worry too much about the 'troll' thing Ken.....
I'm not. I've noticed that a few folks here have very dearly held opinions and don't tolerate well contrary opinions. And they have various tactics to discredit the holders of contrary opinions and/or to shut them up. The "troll" epithet is but one.

[KenV]

Now, not sure if you were using "corner velocity", sustained rate, sustained min radius, or g. I quoted the sustained G turn rate provided by another poster in another F-35 thread. And yes, there are many other different metrics for how to quantify maneuverability/agility. That was the only one cited in the other thread.

[Frostchamber]

Quote "stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance" - yep, on balance I'd say that broadly sums up the sort of package the UK is looking to buy into with the B. People may question the wisdom of that, but given where we are that's the judgment that's been made.

[Lonewolf_50]

I am interested in your comments on the Zero.I feel you just have focussed on turn rate exclusively.
I suspect if you look at the energy manoverability spectrum a P-40 would have places where it can dictate the fight - probably by staying fast. FWIW: The Wildcat "Thatch Weave" approach was another way to deal with the Zero's turning superiority in an actual fight.

About speed: a couple of decades later, Phantom pilots versus Migs tended to abide by the "speed is life" motto ...

I think the F-35 can be more compared to the F-105 or the 104 in European duty than the A-7. I wonder if the 104 was also touted as an Air-Air machine when Lockheed and the US govt decided they were just what Europe needed
Wasn't the F-104 designed as an interceptor? (GCI, run and shoot, run home?) If not then my memory is foggy again .. (EDIT: just noticed that Ken covered this as well).

Of more relevance I'm interested how you think the F-35 stacks up? Draggy, low power to weight and high wing loading. This doubtless has the fighter community over here concerned as well. On thing about that ability to turn and burn is DACM versus missiles shot at you. This will happen, be ye stealthy or no, as our friends in F-117 land discovered.

[Courtney Mil]

My! A lot of posts to read and links to follow, with plenty of sidelines too. I'll get back to you when I've had a chance to do all your posts justice by reading them and considering them.

Purely an initial impression, I'm not quite sure why we're discussing WWII props and Gen 1, 2 and 3 jets. Gen 4 maybe. I would hope that today's Tornado GR4/4a and FOC JSF are not closely comparable - if they are, someone has pulled a real blinder. But even with the generation gap, it's hard to tell if if one can directly compare the Tornado's weapon load, range and TFR with either the Harrier or the JSF. But there are some interesting points.

Later...

[Maus92]

I'm not. I've noticed that a few folks here have very dearly held opinions and don't tolerate well contrary opinions. And they have various tactics to discredit the holders of contrary opinions and/or to shut them up. The "troll" epithet is but one.

Ahem, you should check out F-16.net...

[Mach Two]

Maus92, I could not agree more. But then they're mostly blind to any shortcomings of the platform there. And here's an illustration of the sort of thinking you'll find there, this example strangely found here:

Now, let's compare how the F-35 "stacks up" against any other airplane in the air-to-ground role for which it was primarily designed. Both the Tornado and the F-35 were primarily designed for the tactical air-to-ground role. It would appear that NOTHING (not even A-10) beats the F-35 in the air-to-ground role in a contested air environment. I would assume the folks that are buying the F-35 are smart enough to know they've got a stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance. It's certainly MUCH better than a Tornado or even a Phantom in close in dog fighting. And oddly enough, plenty of air arms did quite well flying the Tornado and the Phantom.


My bold there, obviously. Bold points in order:

"air-to-ground role for which it was primarily designed" - agreed, it's a bomber.

"Tornado" - different generation, different threat, very different conops, different load, different range, not supposedly air-to-air (refer you to John Farley's recent support of claims that F-35 is a magnificent air-to-air fighter). You'd have to be ill-informed or clutching at straws to make that comparison.

"NOTHING (not even A-10) beats the F-35 in the air-to-ground role in a contested air environment" - as yet, it has proved nothing. The Project Office and LM have claimed what you claim. So far, the test pilots have released some weapons. It will be a long time before that bold claim can be proved.

"stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance" - Stellar? And good enough? No proof of "stellar" yet. "Good enough" was not the claim until a few years ago. It was supposed to be indestructible and invisible. Look at the claims and links in the first 150 pages of this thread alone. Why have all those claims suddenly gone away? In who's service will it be only just "good enough"?

As for better than the Phantom and the Tornado (not sure which model you mean), it should be better than the one that first flew in 1958 (Phantom) and it is in a different class (not saying better nor worse, just different) to any Tornado (E, F or GR).

[SSSETOWTF]

If I had to go to war again tomorrow, air-air or air-ground, I'd take the F-35B (at Block 2B standard) every single day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I've flown it, I've chased it in single bubble F-18C, and I've flown F-16, Tornado F-3, Jaguar, Harrier, Typhoon and a few others. The F-35 isn't perfect at everything, but for goodness' sake the RAF & RN have spent the last 30 years flying things like the Tornado, Jag and Harrier (FA and GR) with far above-average results. If you think the world is ending, carriers are going to sink and the UK is about to get invaded by the Faroe Islands because we're buying the very best multirole aircraft available today in the western world might I suggest you're a bit of a glass is half empty kind of a person?

Regards all,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[LowObservable]

Exactly, M2. And that's where I see the behavior as trollish.

-Dramatic overstatement. NOTHING (anyone ought to know what capitals mean) beats the F-35 in A2G. Countering such screaming hyperbole factually takes time and effort.

- The "appeal to authority" fallacy. "I would assume the folks... are smart enough". Sure, these smart folks gave LockMart a contract for an airplane they couldn't build, for a budget they couldn't meet, on a schedule that was a joke.

- As you point out, "stellar" A2G? No HDTV sensor, no Rover, no moving-target weapon... Even in 3F.

Let's be real. The guy is here to derail the discussion, for whatever reason.

[LowObservable]

SS - Really and over what?

The 2B is a 40kft/Mach 1.2/5.5 g jet. If you have to check out a Global Express you watch as it blows past above you. No AIM-9 so in a QRA your options are to use lethal force from min range or to close to where weapons may be unusable. No gun, nothing for CAS except an LGB.

Rafale today does cruise missile carriage. Six PGMs on six DMPIs. LOROP. Antiship. 6+ AAMs, including Meteor by the time 3F arrives. ESM. Nuclear strike, even. And the F-35 is "the very best multirole aircraft available today in the western world"?

My glass may be half empty but it's not full of what some people are drinking.

[SSSETOWTF]

LO,

Not sure what I'm supposed to have been drinking. I was just giving an opinion based on years of working on and flying the F-35, Typhoon and F-18 amongst others. Do you honestly believe that LM's business development folks have pulled the wool over the military, industrial and political experts of all 3 US Services + all the partner nations? And do you really believe that Egypt, Qatar and India (some of whom may not have had the option to buy an F-35 anyway...) have got it right where the UK, Israel, Japan, Australia, Canada etc have all got it wrong?

Is it not a smidge more likely that Bill Sweetman, Karlo Kopp and a number of X-Files conspiracy theory fantasists who don't have access to real data might be more accurately accused of drinking the funny stuff, or having ulterior motives such as self-promotion, exaggerating headlines to sell copy etc?

Wasn't aware we were in imminent danger of attack by swarms of Global Express. But while we're on the subject I'd highly recommend the Global 7000/8000 as a cab to go to war in if you can do it. Especially if you get the cabin with the 3 seat divan - very civilised. FTV-1 is sitting on its wheels now in Toronto and is looking real pretty.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[longer ron]

Do you honestly believe that LM's business development folks have pulled the wool over the military, industrial and political experts of all 3 US Services + all the partner nations?

Not sure if 'pulled the wool' is the correct term , but historically many bad concept aircraft designs have been caused by 'requirements/specifications' etc.... if you have flown the F35 then you might be viewed as biased ; )

[ORAC]

If I had to go to war again tomorrow, air-air or air-ground, I'd take the F-35B (at Block 2B standard) every single day of the week and twice on Sunday I have a suspicion the first British pilot to go to war in an operational F-35B is still wearing a pair of short trousers or a gym slip..........

[MSOCS]

SS,

Welcome back to a thread where , rather than being more appropriately viewed as credible, you are accused of being biased just because you have flown F-35?! I don't know many people with your experience and level of comparison to base your opinion on but as I wrote a page or so ago, there is absolutely no convincing certain people on here.

LO, Longeron,

Once again, we should be using 3F as the baseline capability and you and I both know that in acquisition you lock capabilities down a fair time in advance so that you're not constantly moving the goalposts for those trying to achieve them; I cite Rover, 4K sensors etc as such moves after they locked down 3F. If I was asked to go war tomorrow against a near-peer foe I'd choose F-35 Block 2B over Rafale; in fact pretty much anything save Raptor. Again, like SS, my personal choice based on a significant amount of study and operational practise of the art of flying combat ac. So am I biased? Think what you want.

There is quite a lot of legacy mindset to much of the theorycrafting on this forum, and elsewhere, which purposefully obfuscates the whole point of 5th Gen.

[LowObservable]

Whether anyone pulled the wool over anyone's eyes...

I would suggest comparing the cost, schedule and capability promised in 2001 (after five years and >$4 billion in risk reduction) with the situation today.

If I was asked to go war tomorrow against a near-peer foe I'd choose F-35 Block 2B over Rafale; in fact pretty much anything save Raptor.

That's a fascinating statement, particularly the final two words. However, are we assuming that there is another air force somewhere helping out? Because if not, how do you propose to stop the enemy's land and sea forces with 2x JDAM or a few SDBs per cab?

I don't think a GX is a threat in itself. On the other hand, the mission of QRA these days is often to determine whether something is a lost civvy, diverted with hostile intent or a furrin probe, so it's nice to be able to match its altitude.

I'd accept that 3F should be the baseline (that wasn't SS's case, and as I think I have said before, the 2B/3I should really be called service-test capabilities). Yes, the requirement was kept stable - but the other reason that things like HDTV and Rover aren't there yet is that the program is still not delivering what should have arrived years ago.

And when we talk about Block 4 we confuse the issue again, because we talk about capabilities up to a decade away.

We all have our biases. Me, I am heavily biased in favor of programs that come in on time and schedule and deliver what it says on the tin. Because when they don't, budgets being limited by definition, they suck the life out of other capabilities.

I respect professional experience and qualifications, but also skeptical about people who hang their hats on it, whatever it is, because of history and personal experience of the times that the experts, professionals, great and good, pilots and engineers have collaborated to create epic cock-ups. One of the first stories I had to write about was the service entry of Concorde, a lovely airplane but in business terms an entirely self-inflicted catastrophe.

And as for the "whole point of 5th Gen", if 5thGenTM means so much, why did it take nine years from the start of JSF to the point where anyone called it "5th Gen"? It's the best advertising slogan since A Diamond Is Forever, but is it any more than that?

[SSSETOWTF]

LO,

Totally agree on cost & schedule.

If Typhoon had cost the UK the £7bn forecast in 1988 instead of the £22bn the NAO think it cost us (= 60% of 37bn http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1011755.pdf), and had entered Service in the late 90s then we might still have an Air Force rather than a couple of QRA dets. Even using today's money, take off the $2.5bn we paid to be a Level 1 development partner of the F-35, and spend the rest on procuring F-35s at today's (rapidly reducing) price tag of around $130m and we could buy over 425 of them, rather than the 160 Typhoons we got. But that money's spent and gone so it's all rather academic.

You're right to be skeptical of experts. But shouldn't you be equally, if not more, skeptical of journalists, openly biased and agenda-carrying 'analysts' like Kopp, and the ravings of ignorant web bloggers and Dassault's PR folks? With all due respect I don't think this is a Concorde thing. This is every single western Air Force who are in the market to buy a new multirole fighter (apart from France) doing due diligence with their scientific and military experts and coming to the conclusion that while they may not like the price tag much they think the jet's worth it.

You can call the F-35 whatever Gen you want. Call it 2nd Gen - I don't care. But there are major tactical benefits to flying an airplane with a very small radar cross section, that has some fantastic sensors and that has a cockpit that is a pilot's dream in terms of intuitiveness and information displayed. You can nit-pick all you want about niche capabilities like HDTV or Rover - but they didn't exist when the requirements for F-35 were written, and requirements creep is a major cause of cost and schedule over-runs so aren't you talking yourself in circles? Finally, if the not-terribly-mighty F-3 was good enough for QRA against biz jets, then to suggest that an F-35 isn't good enough seems very odd to me.

Respectfully,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Maus92]

SS,

I'm curious if you concur with the test pilot's report that generated this latest conversation.

[Lonewolf_50]

Respectfully,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
My three friends who ejected from A-7's, over the ocean, came to disagree with that glib point of view. The two engines on the Hornet made them a hell of a lot happier. While engine reliability has increased over the years, I seem to recall that the Falcon/Viper earned it's nickname "lawn dart" for a good reason.

[KenV]

Mach Two, thanks for your reasoned response. I will attempt to respond in kind.

"Tornado" - different generation, different threat, very different conops, different load, different range, not supposedly air-to-air (refer you to John Farley's recent support of claims that F-35 is a magnificent air-to-air fighter). You'd have to be ill-informed or clutching at straws to make that comparison.
Agreed. To a point. My point being that a number of national air arms accepted the Tornado's poor turn performance on the basis that it was optimized for the air-to-ground role, not the air-to-air role. The Tornado's turn performance relative to its opponents did not make the aircraft "defective" and its other features overcome its poor turn performance relative to the opponents it would face. That turn performance did not even make Tornado "defective" when the RAF flew for decades a (supposedly) air-to-air optimized ADF Tornado. In short, I was attempting to point out the inconsistency in arguments regarding turn performance for the Tornado vs the F-35. If Tornado's turn performance was "good enough" to counter its opponents, then F-35's turn performance is more than likely "good enough" to counter its opponents.

"NOTHING (not even A-10) beats the F-35 in the air-to-ground role in a contested air environment" - as yet, it has proved nothing. The Project Office and LM have claimed what you claim. So far, the test pilots have released some weapons. It will be a long time before that bold claim can be proved.Well, very recent (June 2015) Green Flag exercises (similar to Red Flag exercises, but Green Flag is optimized toward Air-To-Ground while Red Flag is optimized toward Air-to-Air) that involved F-35s, ONLY the F-35 hit all the targets and ONLY the F-35 did so without a single loss. Yes this was the first time F-35 was in Green Flag and folks will figure out how to operate against it, but the fact remains, the performance was stellar and nothing beat it.

"stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance" - Stellar? And good enough? No proof of "stellar" yet. "Good enough" was not the claim until a few years ago. It was supposed to be indestructible and invisible. Look at the claims and links in the first 150 pages of this thread alone. Why have all those claims suddenly gone away? In who's service will it be only just "good enough"?
I refer you to the Green Flag exercises of June 2015 for the F-35s "stellar" air-to-ground performance. And maneuverability was "good enough" that the F-35 was able to defeat both SAMS and fighters sent up against it. And by "defeat" not necessarily shoot down the defending fighters, but maneuver (DACM) so as to prevent being shot down while STILL accomplishing the mission.

As for better than the Phantom and the Tornado (not sure which model you mean), it should be better than the one that first flew in 1958 (Phantom) and it is in a different class (not saying better nor worse, just different) to any Tornado (E, F or GR). Again, my intent was not to compare the F-35 against the Phantom or Tornado. My intent was to show that while the Phantom and Tornado were some of the best of their respective periods, BOTH were significantly worse than their opponents (1960/70 vintage Sukhoi's and MiGs) when it came to turn performance. Moving forward to our time, while the F-35 is worse than many other current fighters (21st century Sukhoi's and MiGs) in turn performance, like the F-4 and Tornado before it, it is "good enough" to enable it to use its other characteristics to advantage to defeat them. (and once again "defeat" does not necessarily mean shoot down their opponents, but maneuver to complete the F-35 mission without being shot down.)

Hope this clarified.

[Lonewolf_50]

Again, my intent was not to compare the F-35 against the Phantom or Tornado. My intent was to show that while the Phantom and Tornado were some of the best of their respective periods, BOTH were significantly worse than their opponents (1960/70 vintage Sukhoi's and MiGs) when it came to turn performance.
While true, the Phantom did have those powerful engines which allowed the F-4 to use energy/speed/vertical to overcome that turning differential. (Then again, my memory may be slipping). Speed is life.

So, when we look at energy management (aka Q) ... which SSE can speak to with authority ... does the F-35 have that going for it? I realize that we are once again tripping over apples and oranges comparisons in different eras, but I don't think that the basics of lift, energy management, and physics have changed since the Phantom flew over SEA fifty years ago.
If I am wrong, I am very happy to be corrected.

[PhilipG]

Ken

Do you happen to know what software version etc the F35s that took part in Green Flag?

I only ask as it would be interesting to know what targeting pods or should one say subsystem they were using and communicating to the ground troops with and what besides 1,000lbs bombs they used for this stellar performance.

If I was at all cynical I could read into the press release a good dig at the US Congress that seems to insist that the A10 stays in the armoury when the USAF wants to save money by retiring them all and using the maintenance crews on F35s.

I noticed the other day that there was a report of the first live bomb release from an F35, if the reports of a "stellar" performance as a CAS platform are true when many of the systems do not work with 2B or 3i software and that there are no external stores cleared one can only imagine what the performance will be described as when 3F planes and later versions take part in Green Flag.

[KenV]

-Dramatic overstatement. NOTHING (anyone ought to know what capitals mean) beats the F-35 in A2G. Countering such screaming hyperbole factually takes time and effort. You haven't read the reports of the recent (June 2015) Green Flag exercises, have you? Neither SAMs nor fighters sent to shoot down the F-35 beat it. So yes, NOTHING.

- The "appeal to authority" fallacy. "I would assume the folks... are smart enough".You really should look up the definition of "appeal to authority fallacy". You totally misused/misapplied it.

Sure, these smart folks gave LockMart a contract for an airplane they couldn't build, for a budget they couldn't meet, on a schedule that was a joke.Hmmmm, "hyperbole" much? What has Lockmart actually produced? Does this product meet the current design/performance specs? Yes, you say? So are you now suggesting that the "smart folks" you (trollishly) deride are actually so dumb as to provide "defective" specifications? And you have data (and not just trollish opinion) to back that up?

As you point out, "stellar" A2G? No HDTV sensor, no Rover, no moving-target weapon... Even in 3F. And yet the F-35 beat the SAMs and the fighters sent up against it in the recent (June 2015) Green Flag exercises, and was the only aircraft able to do so. Or are you perhaps suggesting that the folks who design and run Green Flag are not "smart folks" and/or purposely rigged the exercise to enable the F-35 to beat all comers?

And oh yes!! "No HDTV sensor"? Really? You're right, but only because the F-35 has six! Google AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System. If Googling is problematic for you, try this link:
AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) for the F-35 (http://www.northropgrumman.com/capabilities/anaaq37f35/pages/default.aspx)

And no Rover? Really? You're right, but only because the F-35 has a far more capable, more jam resistant, with far lower probability of intercept datalink than Rover.

And no "moving-target weapon"? Really? This time you're trollishly wrong because UK F-35s includes Brimstone integration and all F-35's include AGM-154C JSOW integration. Or are you trollishly claiming Brimstone and JSOW cannot hit a moving target? If so that's a fault of the weapon, not the platform that launches it.

Let's be real. The guy is here to derail the discussion, for whatever reason. Let's be real? Real like your false (one might be tempted to call them trollish) assertions above? I see. And ignoring the outcome of actual recent real-world exercises while making a list of stuff you (and apparently only you) personally think are missing from and should be included in the F-35 does not "derail the discussion?" Really? I remind you that this discussion is about air-to-air maneuverability, and no one (well except perhaps a troll) remotely doubts that F-35 has multiple air-to-air "moving target weapons" and an exceptional datalink (much better even than the one in the F-22). Perhaps you should look up the definition of hypocrisy before using the "troll" epithet.

And on the subject of definitions of logical fallacies: look up "ad hominem fallacy". Then "be real" and explain to us how your post does not fit that definition. Is ad hominem trollish behavior? Hmmmmm?

[KenV]

I have a suspicion the first British pilot to go to war in an operational F-35B is still wearing a pair of short trousers or a gym slip.......... Oh my goodness the hypocrisy! The above is NOT considered trollish behavior? REALLY??!!!!!!!!!!!

[KenV]

So, when we look at energy management (aka Q) ... which SSE can speak to with authority ... does the F-35 have that going for it? I realize that we are once again tripping over apples and oranges comparisons in different eras, but I don't think that the basics of lift, energy management, and physics have changed since the Phantom flew over SEA fifty years ago.
If I am wrong, I am very happy to be corrected.

I doubt that there is a single metric one can point to to quantify energy management. Having said that, perhaps the closest is sustained turn rate. Being able to load the aircraft in a continuous turn without losing either airspeed or altitude seems to address energy management rather well. The F-35's sustained turn rate is around 4.5G. The F-16's about 4.7G. Pretty close. The F-4's is about 4.0G. Of course these numbers are all at different gross weights with different fuel states and different weapon load outs, but they're all at 20,000 ft and the rest are roughly in the same ballpark.

[KenV]

I only ask as it would be interesting to know what targeting pods or should one say subsystem they were using and communicating to the ground troops with and what besides 1,000lbs bombs they used for this stellar performance.
....if the reports of a "stellar" performance as a CAS platform are true....Green Flag is about a LOT more than close-contact CAS, and includes SEAD, SCUD busting, offensive and defensive Electronic Warfare, Cyber warfare, use of space assets, C3I, and lots more. Please don't let Congress's obsession with the A-10 distract you from what the TOTAL mission is.

[PhilipG]

Ken,
If you could answer the points I made.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Why are so many media pundits keen to jump on the anti f-35 bandwagon?

No, the F-35 was not beaten by an F-16 (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-the-f-35-was-not-beaten-by-an-f-16)

...it should be noted that the specific F-35 involved was ‘AF-2′, this airframe is designed for flight testing, it’s designed to fly in certain restricted flight envelopes. It does not feature the majority of systems present in frontline aircraft. The aircraft, due to it being a test aircraft, had also not had the software installed that is required to use the sensors and mission systems that would be used in combat. Additionally, ‘AF-2′ does not feature the radar-absorbent material coating that operational aircraft have.

Despite the claims that the F-35 is inferior to a decades old aircraft, previous exercises tell a different story. Over the last few years there have been occasions where a flight of F-35s have engaged a flight of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios, the F-35s reportedly won each of those encounters because of its sensors and low visibility. This seems to be a case of comparing a test aircraft still in trials, that has a restricted flight envelope, against a mature dogfighter with no such restrictions.

[KenV]

Ken,
If you could answer the points I made. I thought I had. But OK, lets try parsing your post line by line.

Do you happen to know what software version etc the F35s that took part in Green Flag? I only ask as it would be interesting to know what targeting pods or should one say subsystem they were using and communicating to the ground troops with and what besides 1,000lbs bombs they used for this stellar performance.To the best of my knowledge no "pods" were used. And I have no idea what software version or what weapons were used. I presume the latest cleared software and whatever weapons were cleared and appropriate for the mission.

If I was at all cynical I could read into the press release a good dig at the US Congress that seems to insist that the A10 stays in the armoury when the USAF wants to save money by retiring them all and using the maintenance crews on F35s.If you want to characterize it that way, you are welcome to do so. And yes, I agree, I would call that "cynical". However, the prep for the exercises had been ongoing for many months prior to the exercise, and well before the whole A-10 controversy erupted in the first place. If publishing the results (as has been done after each Green Flag) is "a good dig", then so be it.

I noticed the other day that there was a report of the first live bomb release from an F35, if the reports of a "stellar" performance as a CAS platform are true when many of the systems do not work with 2B or 3i software and that there are no external stores cleared one can only imagine what the performance will be described as when 3F planes and later versions take part in Green Flag. I would say, one can let their imagination run as wild as one wants. However, the F-35 folks (including Lockmart, USAF, USN, USMC, RAF, etc etc) don't need to "only imagine". They have used and are using lots of sophisticated hardware and software to simulate/model F-35 performance using its full spectrum of weapons and other capabilities.

Did that clarify/satisfy?

[LowObservable]

I did read the reports on GF. The JSF survived against a set of threats that defeated USAF F-16s and A-10s. That doesn't make it best in the world given the EA equipment of those aircraft. Indeed it's a pretty low bar.

Far from being HDTV, EODAS has cellphone-like resolution - a megapixel sensor scanning a 60 x 60 deg. field. That's why a different sensor is fitted to the helmet for landing.

The F-35 data link (MADL) is no substitute for Rover because there is no ground-based terminal for it, and none is planned.

Brimstone is not in Block 3. JSOW is a moving maritime target attack weapon and its procurement is being terminated.

All these things could have been checked easily, which leads me to conclude that your mission here is to jam the thread.

PS - The use of all caps on the Internet is the equivalent of screaming. Do you not know this?

[LowObservable]

WEBF - The UK Defence report was written without reference to the full leaked document, rendering it of little use.

[MSOCS]

LO,

In turn:

That's a fascinating statement, particularly the final two words. However, are we assuming that there is another air force somewhere helping out? Because if not, how do you propose to stop the enemy's land and sea forces with 2x JDAM or a few SDBs per cab?

How many cabs are you talking about? Define the enemy's land and sea forces in size, capability and dispersion. Define the battlespace and the synergy of all air, sea and land power combined in the face of the enemy. I'm sorry but there are too many variables within that statement as it's a totally subjective argument to point at the limited internal carriage capability of F-35 (which I think you're trying to do here).

but the other reason that things like HDTV and Rover aren't there yet is that the program is still not delivering what should have arrived years ago.

A technophile argument from my perspective - technology often moves on much faster than an acquisition program does, because being better than the other company is key, along with profitability. The consumer market demands more of their Go Pros and home movie experience. Militarily, by far the biggest advance and edge to a fast jet was the jump from older pods such as TIALD to Sniper or Litening III. A jump to 4K is nowhere near as great unless the General is demanding that you ID individual hair widths on an enemy combatant to satisfy ROE (hint: he isn't!) Where is the 4K sensor on Raptor, Typhoon, Tornado; none of which are in concurrent development? If technology insertion was rapid on a concurrent Program like JSF all the latest gadgets would be delivered at Block 3F, trust me - hell by 2017 there could be a 8K Carl Zeiss™ sensor for all I care and if it wasn't immediately on the F-35 would you start crying "shame on you again F-53 Program!" I can't answer that....but please, let's get a grip of such paper thin arguments and nit-picking.

Me, I am heavily biased in favor of programs that come in on time and schedule and deliver what it says on the tin. Because when they don't, budgets being limited by definition, they suck the life out of other capabilities.

I am heavily biased in favour of Unicorns. Both statements are imaginary i'm afraid LO and don't reflect the real world however I've never seen the fauna around Oakdale, MN, so they may actually exist!

5th Gen isn't an advertising slogan - it's a concept. Being literally unable to get one's head around that, and truly understand what it is and how it changes and challenges one's prejudices and preconceptions, is analogous to the struggle of trying to explain to a religious zealot why gay marriage is 'ok'. If you don't like 5th Gen as a term, use another which you're happier and less cynical about - it doesn't change what it means.

[longer ron]

The reason I posted about 'bias' is merely because somebody who has flown the F35B presumably works for Lockmart or flies for the USN/Marines or RAF/RN - either way their future employment may depend on the F35B going into full production ; )
My general comments are not about Flying/Operational capabilities (I am not qualified to comment on these areas) but I am qualified to comment on technical aspects of the whole sorry concept ; )

[KenV]

The reason I posted about 'bias' is merely because somebody who has flown the F35B presumably works for Lockmart or flies for the USN/Marines or RAF/RN - either way their future employment may depend on the F35B going into full production

Sounds like a reasonable theory. But how does this explain the "leaked" information from the pilot who allegedly flew the F-35 against an F-16 and lost? By this logic, the many pilots who provide good F-35 news must be biased and/or corrupt, but the lone pilot who provides bad news must be a saint and/or heroic. From that perspective, this theory does not sound so reasonable after all.

[LowObservable]

MSOCS - The "final two words" were something about Raptor, so I was wondering how you intended to fight a combined arms campaign with Raptor. However, even with F-35 and Block 3F, what do you tell the theater commander when he asks for armed overwatch with live video to the ground, or near-real-time LOROP, low-collateral-damage attack on a moving target, or would you mind taking out that frigate?

Yes, these things will come later, possibly - but the Raptor history is one of slow and very expensive upgrades, for one reason or another. I know there is an Advanced EOTS in the work, but it's one more item in the Block 4 list.

Some people are better at delivering on time and on schedule than others. I'm not aware of any program that has slipped as badly as JSF, absent outside factors (budget cuts, requirement changes).

5th Gen isn't an advertising slogan - it's a concept. Being literally unable to get one's head around that, and truly understand what it is and how it changes and challenges one's prejudices and preconceptions, is analogous to the struggle of trying to explain to a religious zealot why gay marriage is 'ok'.

If it's a concept, it was one that was defined five years after the JORD was written, because nobody except the Russians talked about it until 2004-05. I'm very well aware of what the three pillars of 5GenTM - F-22/35-like stealth, sensor fusion and networking - are supposed to achieve, and why all three were incorporated into the F-22. Indeed, sensor fusion and networking (which support EMCON) are pretty fundamental to a stealth aircraft that does more than hit ground targets.

But permit me to be skeptical, because the notion of an entire air force using this technology was enshrined in Pentagon planning 30 years ago - ATF, NATF, ATA (A-12 Avenger) - and we have spent $$$ billions for 140 fighters that we can barely afford to sustain (and 40-some more that are not yet to op standard).

Meanwhile, our adversaries and their armorers are chipping away at non-broadband, limited-aspect stealth via VHF Aesa and IRST - since we conveniently gave them 25 years' notice of our double-or-quits master plan to rely on that technology until 2060 (and put all other approaches out of business).

[LowObservable]

SSSETOWTF

I don't hold a major brief for Typhoon, but the NAO report notes that development costs doubled and unit production costs went up by 45 per cent or so.

None of this is good, but on the other hand I missed the bit where the USAF spent five years wondering whether to scrap F-35 completely while it fretted over the budgetary stresses of Texan re-unification, and then spent another decade or so grudging every penny spent on production, foot-dragging over each batch &c. Of course this did not happen, but it's just about what Germany did to Typhoon.

And I really don't know what Rafale PR people you talk to, but in fact my briefings from there have been far more consistent and reasonable than what I've heard out of JSF. The F1/F2/F3 plan was executed pretty much as advertised in the late 1990s, I believe.

Nobody other than JSF has published claims of being 400-600 per cent better than others in A2A or eight times better A2G. Nobody other than JSF people has told me how they would go (in 09) from being the slowest flight-test program in the world to the fastest, in 12 months' time. (They didn't. Not by a light year.) Nobody other than JSF has given me a Potemkin-village production line tour, told me that a final assembly area that was obviously as well organized as a Mumbai naughty-house during a typhoon was going according to plan, while concealing a bunch of supposedly completed aircraft being stripped, updated and reassembled in flight-line barns.

It gets to you, after a while.

[Lonewolf_50]

Some people are better at delivering on time and on schedule than others. I'm not aware of any program that has slipped as badly as JSF, absent outside factors (budget cuts, requirement changes).
V-22 Osprey? :}
NH-90? From inception to ... :}

LO on 5th Gen:
But permit me to be skeptical, because the notion of an entire air force using this technology was enshrined in Pentagon planning 30 years ago - ATF, NATF, ATA (A-12 Avenger) - and we have spent $$$ billions for 140 fighters that we can barely afford to sustain (and 40-some more that are not yet to op standard).
Amen, Deacon.
Meanwhile, our adversaries and their armorers are chipping away at non-broadband, limited-aspect stealth via VHF Aesa and IRST - since we conveniently gave them 25 years' notice of our double-or-quits master plan to rely on that technology until 2060 (and put all other approaches out of business).
And that's the sick part. Industrial base erosion ...

[SSSETOWTF]

LO,

You have my sympathy if you take it all so personally and you believe LM are lying to you and the rest of the world. In the years I was hanging around the plant in FW I'm afraid all I saw were very enthusiastic passionate people busting their nuts and working very long hours to make things happen as fast as they possibly could. Did you miss that bit out on your tour and go to some other Ministry of Truth type of facility that I never stumbled upon?

I didn't realise Typhoon was allowed to make excuses, and Rafale too (5 years late according to Wikipedia but you may have better info?), while LM aren't allowed any latitude. Arguably Eurofighter and Dassault really didn't do much in the way of advancing technology - all the RAF got in 2003 with the Typhoon was a twin-engine version of the F-16C of 1984. (That's a probably a bit unfair as the F-16 cockpit and hotas are quite well designed and intuitive, whereas the Typhoon cockpit and hotas are an absolute disgrace.) LM made a pretty good effort at designing 3 different airplanes simultaneously including the world's first STOVL supersonic stealth fighter. They were just a little bit more ambitious than the Europeans so you might want to cut them a little slack? Or not - up to you.

So far, all those literally hundreds of informed analysts from a dozen or more countries have verified and validated LM's air-air and air-ground capability figures and generally agreed with them. Not really sure what the pedigree of your challenge to their figures is other than a feeling in your waters after reading too much Sweetman and PPruNe. Again, I sympathise for you if you weren't given a full read-in to the appropriate compartments and given the capabilities brief to satisfy your general and passing interest while you were at FW. But I saw many a highly skeptical Secretary of State, Minister, MP, General, Admiral, dstl expert and more who did, and not a single one left the room thinking they'd been Potemkin-villaged or 'got to after a while'. I suppose LM might have been filling the air conditioning ducts with mind-altering hypnosis drugs. Maybe the moon landings were faked too - but if so how did the WW2 bomber get up there that the Sunday Sport found?

LM have wheeled airplanes off the production line, through final finishes and into the run stations for upgrade and completion for decades. I don't think they changed anything because they heard you were coming. If you're that much of an expert on organising aircraft assembly areas then you could probably make some serious dime by offering your services as a consultant to LM? One school of thought might be that a company that has built several thousand of the world's best fighters over the last 4 decades might know more than you about that sort of thing. Or not I suppose - believe what you will.

Respectfully,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[longer ron]

KenV

Sounds like a reasonable theory. But how does this explain the "leaked" information from the pilot who allegedly flew the F-35 against an F-16 and lost? By this logic, the many pilots who provide good F-35 news must be biased and/or corrupt, but the lone pilot who provides bad news must be a saint and/or heroic. From that perspective, this theory does not sound so reasonable after all.

I was not posting about that particular post - mine was more relevant to SSS post 6601 ; )

[longer ron]

They were just a little bit more ambitious than the Europeans so you might want to cut them a little slack? Or not - up to you.

Far too ambitious - as a taxpayer I do not want to cut any slack -
The whole F35 program(me) is bizarre,as we have said many times - the non stovl versions design is compromised by the stovl version design.LM have bitten off a whole lot more than they can chew with the F35B and from a technical/maintenance point of view it will be a bit of a nightmare !

[MSOCS]

Longeron,

LM have bitten off a whole lot more than they can chew with the F35B and from a technical/maintenance point of view it will be a bit of a nightmare !

I'd like you to back that statement up with proof please. What do you know?!

:E

[MSOCS]

LO,

If it's a concept, it was one that was defined five years after the JORD was written, because nobody except the Russians talked about it until 2004-05.

I must be imagining things - perhaps the US and partners are better at keeping such things out of the public domain compared to the Russians - I certainly spoke, heard and discussed the concept way before 2004-5. Yup - that stuff in the ducts must be true then....

You really do seem to have LM and the F-35 permanently in your hurt locker though. It's a shame because, like SSSETOWTF says, their folk work tirelessly and as a company I regarded them as extremely open and very, very good.

[kbrockman]

PM's floating fighter jet plan quietly sunk by Defence | afr.com (http://www.afr.com/news/politics/pms-floating-fighter-jet-plan-quietly-sunk-by-defence-20150707-gi6qxj?stb=twt)
Prime Minister Tony Abbott's proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy's two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped ahead of the government's defence white paper after it was found the ships would require extensive reworking and the project was too costly.

F35B's might not have been a bad idea for them but it seems it's not doable (for now?).

[t43562]

I suppose this is close to completely irrelevant please do not take too much notice.

I worked for a big technical company full of nice people of whom many were extremely clever and able. We nevertheless spent many many many millions trying to "take hills" that could not be taken because that was what we were told to do.

Our competitors had a long time to look at our failing ways, chose different priorities and now cannot spend the billions of dollars they earned while we were all made redundant and the company exited the business.

I'm just saying that it seems emotional to claim that X engineers are good people or evil people. They are totally constrained by what they have been told to do - by the excessive optimism of the people writing the cheques. With the wrong goals, the quality of the engineers is not really relevant to the outcome.

What is more, each of them in their narrow area can do superlative work, making the best tradeoffs possible without the end product being successful.

[ORAC]

and from a technical/maintenance point of view it will be a bit of a nightmare !
I'd like you to back that statement up with proof please. What do you know?!

If there's anything which in comparison with the F-35 which shows it in a good light, its ALIS.....

Troubled Logistics System Critical to F-35’s Future (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/April/pages/TroubledLogisticsSystemCriticaltoF35sFuture.aspx)

[Finningley Boy]

Does anyone have any idea by what significant margin the F-35B will fall short of the performance standard of the F-35A and F-35C?

FB:)

[FODPlod]

If there's anything which in comparison with the F-35 which shows it in a good light, its ALIS.....
Things appear to have moved on since that report published in 2014. F-35 training system, logistic system ready for operations (http://www.marines.mil/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/3258/Article/602477/f-35-training-system-logistic-system-ready-for-operations.aspx)

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION YUMA, Ariz. – -- The U.S. Marine Corps’ F-35 program took another step forward as two key capabilities were delivered to support the service’s first operational squadron...

ALIS 2.0.1 is the latest release of the software and has been released to the USMC on new mobile equipment. Aircraft maintenance, mission planning and debrief capabilities continue to be enhanced under an incremental development approach...

ALIS and the F-35 Lightning II Training System will continue to advance over time, improving the capabilities of the F-35 series as a whole, from the mission capabilities of the aircraft and the pilots to the maintainers on the ground. The systems will help the Marines of VMFA-121 declare Initial Operating Capability in July. The aircraft will be ready for future deployments aboard U.S. Navy amphibious carriers following the declaration of IOC.

[cornish-stormrider]

Alis says that this plane cannot go to war today because it needs to be plugged into widget xyz124 - sadly this widget is back being calibrated.......

Does Alis have a STFU override?

[FODPlod]

Does anyone have any idea by what significant margin the F-35B will fall short of the performance standard of the F-35A and F-35C?

FB:)

When taking off from one of our carriers or a US or any other nation's amphibious platform, I imagine the opposite would hold true. Ker-splash!

Significant enough?

[glad rag]

Does anyone have any idea by what significant margin the F-35B will fall short of the performance standard of the F-35A and F-35C?

FB:)

;) Internal bomb load.

:ouch: having to go back twice to deliver the equivalent number of weapons (after the glide bombs have been AAA'd out of the sky)

:ok: still less payload means more performance :cool:

[LowObservable]

First, MSOCS & SS - T43562's post is dead on. Everyone looks hard-working and dedicated from the inside. I'm sure the Boulton-Paul production line was working flat out, night and day, delivering Defiants to our boys.

And as for the people walking away as converts from the classified briefings - I would be far more impressed if I hadn't had the same line from people trying to sell me the F-22. That was before LM realized it had far more upside in the F-35, and consequently (in 2009) backed up Bob Gates' decision to cut the F-22 line off (over the severed heads of AF leaders), assuring Gates that F-35 was on schedule. Since then, nobody's talked about the F-22's super-classified superpowers.

SS

I didn't realise Typhoon was allowed to make excuses, and Rafale too (5 years late according to Wikipedia but you may have better info?)

Talking about "excuses" is judgmental and unrealistic. I'm not saying either program was problem-free, but that you can't set the timescales alongside F-35 without considering the macro factors, not excuses, that delayed them. Germany's huge post-cold-war wobbly came close to freezing Typhoon in place, spending lots of money but making little progress except playing with the DAs.

France's PCW action was to retire their oldest fighters and upgrade M2000s and Super Etendards, deferring the need for Rafale. You need to be aware of these facts before you criticize Dassault's performancee.

Arguably...

I try to avoid this word because all too often it means "I just pulled this dubious assertion out of my ear."

...Eurofighter and Dassault really didn't do much in the way of advancing technology - all the RAF got in 2003 with the Typhoon was a twin-engine version of the F-16C of 1984.

In 2003, perhaps. Typhoon and Rafale today (according to what I have heard) offer a larger controllable/usable maneuvering envelope, the ability to carry large A2G and A2A loads at the same time, all-digital, automated and DRFM-based EW. Typhoon has supercruise and Rafale can haul a lot more than an F-16. Both have some degree of built-in RCS reduction that works in tandem with the EW.

LM made a pretty good effort at designing 3 different airplanes simultaneously including the world's first STOVL supersonic stealth fighter.

I'll agree with that. The original design is about as good as it could be, although its execution was not good (FW tried to insert new assembly tech while adhering to an unnecessary call for 9g, resulting in the 2003 weight crisis). The requirement they were working to was a disaster, resulting in the $150 million Marine jet, even with compromised goals for the USAF and USN.

To invoke Concorde again, it was a huge technical achievement and it met the requirement to haul 100 people from Paris to NY at Mach 2.

[LowObservable]

FB -

The B has 440 nm combat radius, versus 590 nm for the A. That's with internal fuel and 2 x 1000 lb JDAMs + 2 x AIM-120, (2000 lb bombs on the A), and it's HHHH versus HMMH.

The B has no internal gun.

Air combat performance will be affected by 3200 lbs greater OEW and somewhat smaller H-tails.

[KenV]

The whole F35 program(me) is bizarre,as we have said many times - the non stovl versions design is compromised by the stovl version design.LM have bitten off a whole lot more than they can chew with the F35B......

Bizzare? "We?" That's your opinion and one held by no one other than the very few "we". Certainly the program was ambitious. In the extreme. But the ambitious nature of the program was dictated by the customer, the US gov't. It was not LM's idea. The gov't demanded a single airframe for all the services despite past attempts at a one size fits all approach having failed. But the US gov't was convinced that new technology would make it possible this time around and demanded it. And a lot of smart folks from a lot of different countries agreed. Or at least agreed enough to buy into the program. Were they right? Mostly. Certainly sufficiently so that USAF and USN are now collaborating on a common (or at least mostly common) 6th gen fighter to replace both Super Hornet and Raptor. That was previously unheard of. Will other nations join in? Maybe. Maybe not. Will USAF and USN part ways before the aircraft is built? Maybe. Maybe not. But one thing is pretty much certain. F-35 development taught a lot of lessons that will inform the design and the programmatics of the next fighter.

.....and from a technical/maintenance point of view it will be a bit of a nightmare!Hmmmmm. That's raw speculation without the smallest bit of data to back it up. Indeed the data that is available appears to contradict it. USMC is making great progress towards IOC. And by the time RAF/RN get their F-35s, the "technical/maintenance" aspects will be largely sorted out. That's just one advantage of a joint program like this. Solving problems for one customer benefits a bunch of other customers.

[Courtney Mil]

Just to add a couple of bits of detail to your post, LO. Rafale was actually help up (actually put on pause) by the French Governement due to the country's financial difficulties and political issues. It really had nothing to do with the programme itself, which also introduced three new models.

Typhoon's delays were also political, significant requirement changes post Cold War and the enormous problems created by the partner nations, mostly Germany as it went through its massive change of life.

As for what tech advances those two aircraft bought, they were huge in their day. As I have said before, every generation appears to be a greater leap forward than the last.

SSSETOWTF,

It's odd that so many of the test community during Typhoon development were singing the praises of the Typhoon cockpit, as were the members of the pilot cockpit working group - you were clearly not a member of that if you regard the result as such a disgrace.

[KenV]

In 2003, perhaps. Typhoon and Rafale today (according to what I have heard)......Fascinating. 2003 was a dozen years ago. So they get a dozen years to finesse their (far far less ambitious, yet more expensive) design while some folks demand Lockheed get it perfect right out of the gate. And that's reasonable?? Really?

[KenV]

Does anyone have any idea by what significant margin the F-35B will fall short of the performance standard of the F-35A and F-35C?Biggest short coming of the B vs A & C is internal weapons bay. Much smaller so it can't handle internally many of the weapons the other two can handle. Second is range. Less fuel and more drag. But its much much much better than Harrier or any other STOVL, so things are relative.

[glad rag]

Bit it's not "right out of the gate" is it!

lol

[KenV]

Indeed!!! It's not even out of the gate yet and you folks are demanding it be perfect. And "perfect" as defined by the very few ill-informed who (among other things) insist it have stellar air superiority dog fight performance when it was never designed to be an air superiority dog fighter.

[glad rag]

Ken, you are indeed Alistair Campbell and I claim my $10!! :D

[Heathrow Harry]

Ken, ken... will it EVER come out of the gate....

In horse racing terms this is a non-runner................

[PhilipG]

Ken,
AS we know the F35 is not out of the gate yet however in 2009 a LM Press Release said : -

"While we acknowledge schedule and cost pressures in the development phase of the program and are working directly with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to resolve them, program trends are very positive overall, and have us on path to meet each of the services’ F-35 Initial Operational Capability Requirements beginning in 2012.

"We are on track to field the F-35’s tremendous capabilities to our war fighters and recapitalize our nation’s aging fighter fleet. The program enjoys solid funding support from the Office of Secretary of Defense and Congress. The president’s budget recommendations reflect DoD’s commitment to international partnerships and common defense solutions."

Some Experts Warn Of 'Death Spiral' for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (excerpt) (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/110865/some-see-%E2%80%9Cdeath-spiral%E2%80%9D-for-f_35-jsf.html)

The above suggests to me that in six years the IOC has slipped 3 years, after having had basically unlimited amounts of funding, a slightly different set of rules of the game from that for the Euro Canards.

It may not be out of the gate yet but it should haver been out of the gate and should be in front line service with Block 3F software, let us forget that it should be cheap to run and cheap to purchase.

One would have hoped that having had an extra three years at least to polish the product up for its IOC that it would be gaining plaudits from all comers, sadly it would seem that this is not the case.

[KenV]

One would have hoped that having had an extra three years at least to polish the product up for its IOC that it would be gaining plaudits from all comers, sadly it would seem that this is not the case. Indeed, there is much to be sad about the F-35 program. No one can deny that. As for "gaining plaudits", there's lot and lots of that as well and there are a few here who insist on ignoring and/or denying those many plaudits (Or more ominously, make personal attacks on those who provide those plaudits.) And no, its gained no plaudits for being a stellar close-in dog fighter. But the point remains, it was never intended to be. And that's what this discussion is all about. You can (rightly) dredge up all the past and present programmatic difficulties, but that does not alter the fact one iota that the F-35 is not nor ever was intended to be an air superiority fighter, contrary to the claims being made by some in this thread.

[Courtney Mil]

I'm interested in your last sentence there, KenV. Before the JORD was written in 2000 (maybe four years before, if memory serves), one of the design goals was, "F-35 to be the premier strike aircraft through 2040 and to be second only to the F-22 Raptor in air supremacy". "Someone" even did some trials to evaluate the possibility. I guess the last bit disappeared at some point, but none-the-less it was an intention early on, it just isn't now.

[LowObservable]

It's a case of who you believe, CM.

Who's right?

The people who say that the JSF is worth the money and time, because it outclasses its competition (Typhoon and Rafale) and its adversaries (Su-35) in all respects?

Or....

The people who tell you that it's unfair to expect the F-35 to outmaneuver an F-16D Block 40?

Who has more credibility?

The people who dismiss capability comparisons with competitors, because it's barely (well, really, not at all) "out of the gate"?

Or...

The people who say Block 3F is the war-winner as its stands and that Block 4 will just be gilding the lily?

Who should we trust?

The folks who explain the delays and overruns by saying what a huge challenge it was to meet three service requirements?

Or...

Those who deny that there were any major compromises in the design at all, and that the F-35 would not have looked any different if the B had never existed?

ANSWER - Beats the hell out of me because they're all the same people.

[LowObservable]

Not only is the F-35 not out of the gate, it's still in the stable. And eating everyone else's oats.

[longer ron]

KenV
Bizzare? "We?" That's your opinion and one held by no one other than the very few "we". Certainly the program was ambitious. In the extreme. But the ambitious nature of the program was dictated by the customer, the US gov't. It was not LM's idea. The gov't demanded a single airframe for all the services despite past attempts at a one size fits all approach having failed. But the US gov't was convinced that new technology would make it possible this time around and demanded it. And a lot of smart folks from a lot of different countries agreed. Or at least agreed enough to buy into the program. Were they right?
Of course they were not right ! - any 9 year old spotter could have told them that LOL
It was not LM's idea
Agreed and to quote myself from post 6605
historically many bad concept aircraft designs have been caused by 'requirements/specifications' etc....

But LM are at fault for believing their own marketing bull$hit - the F35 has always been a really bad concept.

.....and from a technical/maintenance point of view it will be a bit of a nightmare!
Hmmmmm. That's raw speculation without the smallest bit of data to back it up. Indeed the data that is available appears to contradict it. USMC is making great progress towards IOC. And by the time RAF/RN get their F-35s, the "technical/maintenance" aspects will be largely sorted out. That's just one advantage of a joint program like this. Solving problems for one customer benefits a bunch of other customers.

I do not need data to back up anything Ken - I have been an aircraft engineer for 40+ years and I know a Turkey when I see one ; )
The technical/maintenance aspects will get worse with age because of the complexity of the airframe systems and structural issues !
All the clever technical folk will have ensured that the Turkey is nice to fly,but from an engineering point of view the F35B looks like $hit - as a taxpayer I am not impressed !!

[LowObservable]

The other point is that "the government" doesn't "demand" anything and automatically get it. The requirement is the outcome of a long process in which the customer says "we want this - can you do it?" and the contractor says either "Yes, and it will cost $$$ and take x years" or "No". So blame-the-customer is disingenuous.

[Turbine D]

Original quote by KenV: Bizzare? "We?" That's your opinion and one held by no one other than the very few "we". Certainly the program was ambitious. In the extreme. But the ambitious nature of the program was dictated by the customer, the US gov't. It was not LM's idea. The gov't demanded a single airframe for all the services despite past attempts at a one size fits all approach having failed. But the US gov't was convinced that new technology would make it possible this time around and demanded it. And a lot of smart folks from a lot of different countries agreed.
We used to call this customer dumping, the customer is alway at fault or wrong. But, nobody forced the tiny little company, Lockheed-Martin, to take this big contract, did they? Today's F-35 problems date back to how Lockheed ran or really may not have run the program. Did L-M really have the knowledge and experience to run a Concurrent Engineering program? If the company didn't the out come tends to be worse than a traditional develop, manufacture and correct deficiencies older programs, program time extends and costs soar.
The implementation of Concurrent Engineering addresses three main areas: people, process, and technology. It involves major organizational changes because it requires the integration of people, business methods, and technology and is dependent on cross-functional working and teamwork rather than the traditional hierarchical organization. Concurrent engineering takes a different organization and a different structure to be successful. In the Concurrent Engineering approach to development, input is obtained from as many functional areas as possible before the specifications are finalized. This results in the product development team clearly understanding what the product requires in terms of mission performance, environmental conditions during operation, budget, and scheduling. Did L-M do this? Concurrent Engineering brings together multidisciplinary teams, in which product developers from different functions work together and in parallel from the start of a project with the intention of getting things right as quickly as possible, and as early as possible. Did this take place at L-M?
If L-M ran the Concurrent Engineering program correctly, we would not still be only halfway through the development program and have over 100 development aircraft instead of a population of production aircraft. The program would not be 3-4 years or more behind schedule. I am sure you don't agree, but listen to Lt. General Bogdan in an interview two years ago with the Australian press (not much has changed):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFM9myJ4KQc
The elephant in the tent is yet to be known, the operations and sustainment costs for the F-35. AT this point in time, nobody knows for certain what the capabilities of the F-35s are, there are no production aircraft yet just various stages of development aircraft. There is no experience in actual combat conditions. Again you can read a more recent question and answer session with Bogden:
Q&A: Lieutenant General Christopher C. Bogdan (http://www.kmimediagroup.com/navy-air-sea-peo-forum/445-articles-npeo/q-a-lieutenant-general-christopher-c-bogdan/6197-q-a-lieutenant-general-christopher-c-bogdan)

[NITRO104]

Indeed!!! It's not even out of the gate yet and you folks are demanding it be perfect. And "perfect" as defined by the very few ill-informed who (among other things) insist it have stellar air superiority dog fight performance when it was never designed to be an air superiority dog fighter.
The issue isn't whether the F35 is a good dogfighter, or not.
The issue is why the people in position used that position to talk rubbish to other people who aren't and who look upon them to honestly and rationally report the state of the program and its issues.

[GTPerformer]

CM, you are right, the HOTAS isn't a disgrace as SSSETOWTF states, the poor guy struggled, it was all fingers and thumbs, you should have seen the attempts at the undercarriage handle (down position below 500ft helps on A&L)..............:}

[SSSETOWTF]

LO,

I'll try to sharpen up with my choice of words and restrict myself to using the ones you like. Didn't realise I was getting my English homework marked against LO's Rules of Usage of the English Language.

I'm sure the folks at Boulton Paul worked hard. I made the point about the hard work and dedication of LM employees that I saw because many folks on here, including you, like to portray LM as the Evil Empire that is only interested in spinning lies, deceiving Joe Public and conning everyone. An alternative viewpoint is that the pedigree of U-2, SR-71, F-16, F-117, F-22 (amongst others) suggests LM aren't exactly in the business of building kippers and spinning lies to cover up their failings. They're confident in their sales pitch because they're very good at building cutting edge airplanes and can prove it to the people that count.

They don't have to impress you (or anyone else on this forum) - unless you own a bucket load of their stock, pay their bills or fly their airplanes? If they didn't give you a nice pen to take home after your factory tour and you're all bitter about it, I'm very sorry for you. I didn't get one either. But they do impress the people that matter, using data that stands up to extremely close scrutiny from experts in their field. Some of those experts may well be wrong, but in many cases they stake their reputation and career on the calls they make so they put a bit of thought into them. If I had to invest a few £bn into a program and potentially put my pink body on the line in a combat zone, I'm afraid I put my trust in those folks rather than the relatively uninformed musings of Kopp, Sweetman and many a PPruNer who have no skin in the game.

I've seen LM's press releases, and I've had a pretty good look under their kimono; I've seen Eurofighter's and had a long look under their bath robe too. In my opinion, the stuff LM push out about capability is a country mile closer to the truth than the Eurofighter stuff that you appear to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. If you disagree, no hard feelings, we'll just have to agree to.

Not quite sure what the repeated relevance of Concorde is to any of this. Derek Wood's 'Project Cancelled' is a thoroughly depressing read about what can happen to your aerospace industry if you walk away from airplanes late in their development cycle. How about TSR-2, CF-105 Arrow, MRA-4 - are you happy the plug was pulled on those when it was, amongst others? Was there no value in Concorde over and above whether or not BA could make a profit flying it after the FAA brought in regulations that limited its commercial success? Did the UK not get any prestige, no technology base growth, no Anglo-French political partnership, nothing else out of it? Is your argument that Concorde wasn't as financially successful as the 747 so we should pull the plug on F-35 because you don't like it? Then what do we do, buy some Harriers to put on our QE carriers? Even if the F-35 were as bad as you seem to want to believe, have you ever looked at the staggering value of the program to UK industry?

There are a lot of folks on here who have picked up on the leaked report, taken it completely out of the context in which it was written, made enormous leaps to conclusions and then leapt on the Outrage Bus. Ding ding. Here we go. Yet again. I think this is the bit where I say 'it gets to you after a while'.

Respectfully,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[SSSETOWTF]

GTPerformer. You lost me. What on earth are you talking about?

[ORAC]

Certainly sufficiently so that USAF and USN are now collaborating on a common (or at least mostly common) 6th gen fighter to replace both Super Hornet and Raptor. Excuse me? The lesson learnt is that the common airframe concept was a disaster (nothing learnt from the F-111 then) and that for the next generation they should develop common modules, such as engine, sensors etc, which can be incorporated into task specific airframes (just as the F-14 was designed around modules intended for the F-111, reinventing the wheel again).

In fact, the total opposite of that which you claim.....

Where Commonality Can Work in a Sixth-Gen Fighter (http://www.rand.org/blog/2015/03/where-commonality-can-work-in-a-sixth-gen-fighter.html)

[BEagle]

Ah yes - the wonderful F-111B for the USN! What an expensive folly that was.

Conflicting RAF / RN requirements also helped to kill the P1154. No loss though - I don't think that aircraft would ever have proved successful.

As for the F-35B.........:hmm:

[LowObservable]

SS

I don't think it's grammar-pedantry to point out what words mean.

As for LM: I have had the great good fortune to talk face-to-face with the people who made the U-2, SR-71, F-117 and F-16 happen. None of them still works for Lockheed Martin, which no longer resembles (IMHO) the Lockheed or General Dynamics of the past.

I'm sure that there are talented and diligent people there, but I don't think that there's anyone who would (for example) point-blank refuse to brief a swing-wing F-X (F-15 competitor) to Wright-Pat, on the grounds that it made no sense whatsoever.

You question my attitude to LM (and may I add that since I lost my favorite Rotring my pens are from Costco) but you seem to have exactly the same attitude to Dassault and Eurofighter. I've provided chapter, verse and citations for LM claims that I see as over-the-top...

Concorde comparison: I think that there may be a parallel between the Pentagon's pursuit of an all-stealth force, 1985-2015, and the SST history. It was expensive, it resulted in compromised aircraft (small and range-limited) and in the end it wasn't right for the operational requirements that emerged (quieter airplanes and sybaritic B-class cabins). I'll admit that is a big, squishy idea and that many people will disagree.

The best things that came out of Concorde were some basic technology (mostly avionics), a trained workforce and (I am only half joking) an Airbus program that was founded on looking at how things were done on Concorde and doing exactly the opposite.

TSR2, MRA4 - The plug should have been pulled earlier in both cases, but neither could or should have continued. MRA4 (as has been detailed here) was unsound. TSR2 was at best on the same trajectory as F-111 (the RAF Historical Society review is excellent). The difference was that the US could afford to build 250+ deficient F-111As and F-111Ds, and still build Es and Fs.

[kbrockman]

The lesson learnt is that the common airframe concept was a disaster

I'm not so sure that a common airframe is that bad of an idea as long as the emphasis remains on common, the F35 is certainly not the way to go with very substantial differences in weight, wingarea, fuel-load and propulsion systems leading to 3 competing ideas for 1 common airframe.

The RAFALE however seems to have done it as it was intended to be, basically the same frame with very similar performances and weights, tons of commonality and a truely allround fighter/attack platform, discipline seems to be the keyword here.

[KenV]

I think that there may be a parallel between the Pentagon's pursuit of an all-stealth force, 1985-2015, and the SST history.


"The pentagon's pursuit of an all stealth force?" Where do you guys come up with this stuff? "All stealth" MIGHT be true for USAF, but even they said they intend to keep the non-stealth F-15 flying for another two or three decades. And USN has yet to get a single stealth aircraft and even after they do, they'll have many more non-stealth aircraft than stealth aircraft for the foreseeable future.

[KenV]

The issue isn't whether the F35 is a good dogfighter, or not.
The issue is why the people in position used that position to talk rubbish to other people who aren't and who look upon them to honestly and rationally report the state of the program and its issues.
This is precious. The folks on this forum are able to easily see thru the "rubbish" LM is selling while hundreds of well paid experts from several different nations cannot. May I suggest looking up the word "hubris".

[KenV]

Of course they were not right ! - any 9 year old spotter could have told them that LOLIsn't that precious? 9 year olds can see what hundreds of experts from several nations cannot. And these guys insist on being taken seriously.

I do not need data to back up anything Ken - I have been an aircraft engineer for 40+ years and I know a Turkey when I see oneAnd you actually fantasize that your 40 years with zero data trumps the combined centuries of experience of engineers with mountains of data and hugely sophisticated simulation/modelling systems to process that data. And you insist on being taken seriously? Really? Apparently your four decades of experience neglected to include an understanding of the words arrogance and hubris.

[Snafu351]

"hubris" could be defined as insisting that a product that has cost rather a lot to not yet be developed, that has taken rather an extended timeframe to not yet get to market despite not having any funding issues is a quote "world beater" or will ever be one.


Common sense suggests that said product is rather more likely to be a dud than a good un.


If the F35 was a purely commercial product, development being self funded by the company seeking to make a return on selling the product, it would have been canned long ago.
Anybody with a modicum of business savvy can understand that.


That fact in itself screams dud.

[glad rag]

This is precious. The folks on this forum are able to easily see thru the "rubbish" LM is selling while hundreds of well paid experts from several different nations cannot. May I suggest looking up the word "hubris".

KenV I would like to read your opinion on the points raised on TurbineD's post #6660

thank you.

[kbrockman]

You might as well turn these kind of arguments around and wonder why all these experts from all these companies and all these countries never predicted/foresaw and anticipated all the big problems the whole JSF project encountered, why did they chose so many other faulthy, severely underperforming or hideously expensive defense projects in the past.

Same thing goes for so many other sectors in the past, present and undoubtly the future.
In 2007/2008 the vast majority of economists, bankers and affiliated experts never really foresaw the huge problems in the financial sectors and we all know what happened there, don't we?

The list of failed or underperforming defense projects is long and undistinguished, I'm not saying the F35 is already that bad but it certainly is sometimes heading that way.
If it will ever come online in the predicted numbers with all the different forces it will be eventually made to work(by the people in the field), I'm certain about that but at what expense, if we're lucky the future will be a lot like the post WWII era where we never have to use our weapons of war against a truely equal opponent and the F35 will do just fine but I'm willing to bet that a somewhat simpler , lighter and less expensive fighter (a true new LWF) would have been just as good and certainly more maintainable and affordable and most likely in bigger numbers.

[O-P]

It appears that Australia have just cancelled their F35B requirement. Story in Aviation week.

[Mr Oleo Strut]

Every time young Cameron spouts off about defence expenditure and the two new carriers that are coming along, and shifty old Fallon mumbles on about the F-35 and its evolution I keep thinking, these people just never learn. One size fits all just doesn't work in the world of aircraft (except, perhaps for the esteemed Mosquito). Was it common sense to get rid of our well-established carrier/Harrier force before tried and tested replacements were ready and available. No it wasn't and now we face a great, big black hole in our national defences, and are locked into a massively risky and expensive F-35 development and production programme. As an interim measure I would either buy-back those Harriers and some AV8s so as to preserve our field expertise, and/or rent a few Rafales. By so doing we would at least be protecting our practical knowledge base, whereas at present we have nothing to show but loads of very expensive wind and waffle. Apart from our looney politicians, I hold the be-medalled and scrambled-egg covered members of our senior military responsible for this mess. They have acted incompetently and disgracefully.

[Courtney Mil]

Aviation Week seem to have the scoop. I can't say I'm entirely surprised, but I'd like to see the paper, if indeed it is published next month.

[Lima Juliet]

Australia Abandons Proposal To Order F35B | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/australia-abandons-proposal-order-f-35b)

Australia has dropped consideration of buying the short takeoff and vertical landing (stovl) version of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning for its two largest assault ships, a defense source says. The decision was made during preparation of a defense white paper that may be published next month. Deploying stovl fighters, proposed last year by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, would have required costly modifications to the two ships, says the Australian Financial Review newspaper, which first...

Dated 8 Jul 15

http://airheadsfly.com/2015/07/09/australia-drops-f-35b-jump-jet-plans/

Australia has dropped plans to buy Lockheed Martin F-35B Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) fighter aircraft for its Landing Helicopter Ships HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, various sources report on Thursday 9 July.

Plans to operate the F-35B from both ships first emerged last year and were even confirmed by Defense minister David Johnston. Those plans have now been quietly ditched, the apparent reason being the large number of modifications needed to both brand new ships.

Australia therefore will only operatie the standard F-35A variant, of which 72 are on order and two are currently used for training in the US. The first Royal Australian Air Force pilots are learning to fly the F-35A at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.

Dated 9 Jul 15

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/pms-floating-fighter-jet-plan-quietly-sunk-by-defence-20150707-gi6qxj?stb=twt

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy's two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped ahead of the government's defence white paper after it was found the ships would require extensive reworking and the project was too costly.

Mr Abbott asked defence planners in May last year to examine the possibility of putting up to 12 of the short-take-off and vertical-landing F-35 Bs on to the two ships – the largest in the Navy – which carry helicopters and are likely to be primarily used to transport troops and equipment to war or disaster zones.

The first of the assault ships was completed last year and commissioned into the Navy in November as HMAS Canberra.

But defence officials conceded to a Senate estimates committee late last year that the jump-jet proposal would involve extensive modifications to the ships, including new radar systems, instrument landing systems, heat-resistant decking, restructuring of fuel storage and fuel lines, and storage hangars.

Defence sources have told The Australian Financial Review that the proposal was "still in the white paper mix" up until some weeks ago.

But one source close to the white paper was emphatic on Tuesday that "it will now not make the cut".

"There were just too many technical difficulties involved in modifying a ship which takes helicopters to take fighter jets and it is also very expensive," the source said. "You can safely say it has been dropped."

'BETTER WAYS TO SPEND THE MONEY'

The white paper, which lays down the Abbott government's 20-year vision for defence – including a $275 billion-plus weapons wishlist – is expected to be released next month.

The Prime Minister's proposal would have brought Australia into line with the United States, Britain and a number of other nations that plan to operate F-35s from their assault ships.

The F-35B version of the joint strike fighter is being built for the US Marines and British forces to replace their British-built Harrier jump jets.

The Spanish Navy's version of the troop transport assault ship, which utilises the same underlying design as the Royal Australian Navy's troop assault ship, is equipped to carry Harrier jump jets.

Mr Abbott announced in April last year that Australia would buy an additional 58 conventional take-off and landing versions for the Royal Australian Air Force at a cost of $12 .4 billion, bringing the number of orders to 72.

But the RAAF version was not suitable for the troop transport assault ships, which would have required the purchase of extra fighters to equip the ships. And the radar-evading stealth fighter program has been plagued by delays and cost overruns, as well as software issues with the F-35B – the worst-afflicted version of the aircraft.

In an independent report on the jump jet proposal, defence think tank the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warned that the purchase of aircraft and ship modifications would involve "multibillions of dollars".

Analysts Richard Brabin-Smith and Dr Benjamin Schreer also warned in the report that the cost was unjustified and could also "raise unrealistic expectations" that Australia was adopting a "much more muscular strategic posture" in the region.

"The cost-benefit analysis is not in favour of developing [the assault ship-jump jet proposal]," the paper said.

"The scenarios in which the capability would be realistically required and make an important impact are operationally vague at best.

"The 2015 defence white paper should not announce a decision or intention to acquire jump jets for the ADF… there are likely better ways to spend the money."

Dated 1 Jul 15

[Courtney Mil]

It's been a while since this forum got into the fatuous arguments about which report or source is valid and which is invention or propaganda, but you guys are certainly making up for it now. Too much attacking other programmes to justify this one. Too much legacy jet X didn't have these problems so why does this one.

Personal views (or opinions, as they are sometimes called) seem to be dangerous things to express around here right now, but I'm going to do it anyway. In my opinion, this thread has too much squabbling about source, people's motivation for their position on the subject and way too much emphasis on the perceived polarisation of of every poster's (so called) position. Not everyone here needs to be a fan or a, what was the term? "Nay-sayer". Might be more educational for all of us is the extemists dropped their holier than thou stance and actually discussed, rather than counter-attacked the whole time.

If you don't think I have the right to say that, screw you.

Moving on...

In my opinion, the stuff LM push out about capability is a country mile closer to the truth than the Eurofighter stuff that you appear to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. If you disagree, no hard feelings, we'll just have to agree to.

This is the first programme that has been run so fully in the public gaze - one of the reasons it has attracted so much criticism (warranted and unwarranted) from all quarters. The Eurofighter programme didn't do many press releases during the development phase (by comparison) and the various trials weren't so openly reported, so I really don't think there's much of a comparison. Cold War secrecy habits may have had some benefits after all.

Sorry, Leon. I overstepped your post there. I was not refering to you or your post.

[MSOCS]

Cold War secrecy habits may have had some benefits after all.

My thought also.

[kbrockman]

Dunford Says F-35 Fleet Size Under Review; Supports F-35 Buy « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunford-says-f-35-fleet-requirement-under-review-supports-f-35-buy/)
Dunford Says F-35 Fleet Size Under Review; Supports F-35 Buy
By Colin Clark on July 09, 2015 at 9:30 AM
........
He also said the Pentagon is looking hard at just how many F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to buy.
......


Proverbial first cracks in the armor???

[LowObservable]

You might as well turn these kind of arguments around and wonder why all these experts from all these companies and all these countries never predicted/foresaw and anticipated all the big problems the whole JSF project encountered, why did they chose so many other faulthy, severely underperforming or hideously expensive defense projects in the past.

Good point. Although the fact that said experts are, as Ken said, "well paid" might explain a lot.

By the way, if the experts were always right, a few months ago we'd have seen the Queen, the Kaiser, the Tsar and the Arch-Duke get together to commemorate the centenary of the Christmas Armistice that ended the European War of 1914...

[LowObservable]

The prospective chairman calls the F-35 a “vital component of our effort to ensure the Joint Force maintains dominance in the air.” But there is a big but.

He likes big buts and he cannot lie?

He discloses that the requirement for the size of the fleet is being reviewed: “Given the evolving defense strategy and the latest Defense Planning Guidance, we are presently taking the newest strategic foundation and analyzing whether 2,443 aircraft is the correct number. Until the analysis is complete, we need to pursue the current scheduled quantity buy to preclude creating an overall near-term tactical fighter shortfall.”

This means less than it may seem, since most of those 2443 aircraft don't get funded for a decade or more. Rate is the big issue for the next decade.

[KenV]

The blog post about the F-35's less than stellar in-close dog fight maneuverability has caused some on this thread to declare Europe doomed because they have committed themselves so deeply to the F-35, while USAF can fall back on the Raptor, and USN on the Super Hornet. I believe such gloom and doom to be unrealistic given that the Eurofighter Typhoon is destined to be the backbone of European airpower for the next few decades and France plans on keeping their Rafales for at least that long.

Typhoon will be "backbone" of future European air power - 7/7/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/typhoon-will-be-quotbackbonequot-of-future-european-air-414385/)

[KenV]

KenV I would like to read your opinion on the points raised on TurbineD's post #6660. thank you.

We used to call this customer dumping, the customer is alway at fault or wrong.Hmmmm. The customer is the one who demanded industry produce a single airframe that could do CTOL, CATOBAR, and STOVL. Industry had no choice but to try to meet the customer's demands. It is YOU guys who insist that this approach was wrong if not utterly foolish. If what you guys claim is true (I'm not entirely convinced of that) then yes, it must be the "customer's fault".

But, nobody forced the tiny little company, Lockheed-Martin, to take this big contract, did they?[/QUOT] Hmmm. If Lockheed had not competed, they would now have........nothing (well except an F-16 line that has very little future). McDonnell Douglas lost in the first round and without JSF they ended up getting bought my Boeing. What happened to Boeing when they lost JSF in the second round? All they have is F-15 with a bleak future and F/A-18 with an even more bleak future. Every US fighter manufacturer saw JSF as a "must win" project with the high probability of going extinct as a fighter manufacturer if they lost. So to dneclare that no one was "forced" to accept this project is to deny history.

[QUOTE]Today's F-35 problems date back to how Lockheed ran or really may not have run the program. Did L-M really have the knowledge and experience to run a Concurrent Engineering program? (followed by blah blah blah of what concurrent engineering is and why its bad.Maybe. Maybe not. But if not Lockheed, who did? Did Boeing? McDonnell Douglas? BAE? Dassault? Airbus? Concurrent engineering was another requirement imposed by the customer. The vendor was required to propose concurrent engineering and how they would accomplish it. And that proposal was evaluated by the customer. Lockheed won. Boeing lost.

If L-M ran the Concurrent Engineering program correctly, we would not still be only halfway through the development program and have over 100 development aircraft instead of a population of production aircraft. Really? And you know this how? Your years and years of experience running a concurrent engineering program? And LtGen Bogdan can complain all he wants about Lockheed's approach to concurrent engineering, but what actual experience is that based on? None you say? Concurrent engineering is inherently risky. Designing an airplane that can do CTOL, CATOBAR, and STOVL is risky. Integrating stealth into all three versions is risky. Developing AND concurrently integrating all sorts of other new technology is very risky. And integrating requirements from multiple nations added even more risk. The customer(s) imposed all this risk on the vendor. Risk is not free. It costs money. Lots of money. And time. Lots of time. And now we're shocked and dismayed that the project is over budget and behind schedule? Really?

Finally, I have previously agreed that there is much to be sad about this project. The vast majority of the sadness is the fault of the customer who demanded all this risk AND strongly implied that whoever would not take on such risk would no longer build fighters for the US government.

And the bottom line is that NONE of this has absolutely ANYthing to do with a blog post about the F-35s close-in dog fight performance. NONE. You folks are so busy crying wolf, you are now crying out when a kitten crosses your path.

[KenV]

By the way, if the experts were always right.....For the record, I never stated nor suggested the "experts are always right." I DID suggest that the experts probably know a thing or two about close-in dog fighting, about the F-35's OVERALL air-to-air capability, and about the F-35's design mission set. And with that knowledge they have far less misgivings about a single blog post concerning F-35 maneuverability. You guys have strayed far from the topic I was discussing and then attributing my comments to those other topics.

[KenV]

Proverbial first cracks in the armor???

a few comments:

1. The F-35 program has never had crack free armor. Folks have been taking pot shots at it and penetrating from day one.

2. The opening sentence in the cited article states: "WASHINGTON: The presumptive Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, has told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the most pressing areas of concern for the US military are its cyber (http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/clapper-ids-china-as-the-leading-suspect-in-opm-hacks-russia-more-subtle/) and space capabilities (http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/us-commits-5b-in-new-to-countering-space-threats-china-russia/); modernizing its nuclear weapons (http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/navy-wants-to-work-air-force-on-new-nukes-vadm-benedict/) and their delivery systems (http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/forbes-leads-house-battle-for-ohio-replacement-fund/); and assuring that American forces can penetrate any set of defenses (http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/no-mans-sea-csbas-lethal-vision-of-future-naval-war/) anywhere in the world."

Did you folks notice that close-in dog fighting is not on his list? But "penetrating any set of defenses" IS on his list? Was F-35 designed to do the former, or the latter? The latter you say? Then why all the handwringing about the F-35s close-in dog fight capability?

[kbrockman]

KenV,

Just a question but who do you think came up with the one-size-fits-all, one-winner -takes-all concept next gen fighter, do you really believe that in a single client vs limited suppliers market, the suppliers have absolutely no say in the set-up of specs and ideas of entirely new fighter jet platforms ?

The Defence market is nothing like the free civil market with a number of suppliers going after contracts with a large number of potential buyers/clients
(I know I don't have to tell you this but for the sake of the argument...).

The idea that all this came out of the heads of some politicians without input from the defence contractors is just laughable IMHO.

Show me where LM beforehand ever stated that the whole idea of 1 size fits all is a bad idea and I'll gladly eat my words ,I've been wrong about more things before so I'm eagerly awaiting to be rectified.

[kbrockman]

Did you folks notice that close-in dog fighting is not on his list? But "penetrating any set of defenses" IS on his list? Was F-35 designed to do the former, or the latter? The latter you say? Then why all the handwringing about the F-35s close-in dog fight capability?

This is some kind of false dichotomy it's not 1 or the other, it's more like the former (WVR-fighting) is a necessary part of of the latter (penetration capabilities).

[KenV]

This is some kind of false dichotomy it's not 1 or the other, it's more like the former (WVR-fighting) is a necessary part of of the latter (penetration capabilities). Really? I flew A-4s and F/A-18 for decades. If on a strike mission an opponent sucked me into a close-in dog fight, he had already won, even if I managed to shoot him down. The LAST thing you want to do when on a strike mission is get sucked into a fur ball. Even when you win the fight, you've lost the mission.

[Courtney Mil]

Who pushed for concurrency, when and where? I'm aware it's been done before, in fact one could argue that every programme in the last sixty years or more has had some degree of concurrency, if you blur the boundaries between further development and actually producing operational airframes before they even reach IOC. I think you could level that at ADV Tornado, which was a disgraceful introduction. And that may well be where some RAF folks here get our scepticism from - when you know there are problems, the more people tell you it's OK, the more you seek to know how it will be so.

[kbrockman]

Really? I flew A-4s and F/A-18 for decades. If on a strike mission an opponent sucked me into a close-in dog fight, he had already won, even if I managed to shoot him down. The LAST thing you want to do when on a strike mission is get sucked into a fur ball. Even when you win, you've lost the mission.

Dog fighting surely is a last resort scenario but in an all out conflict within contested airspace certainly a likely possibility ,I would think.
Why then be OK with a jet that doesn't give you that last resort option to live and fight another day if it is possible to have a jet that gives you that option?

Like I said, the ability to do....
the former (WVR-fighting) is a necessary part of of the latter (penetration capabilities).

[KenV]

Just a question but who do you think came up with the one-size-fits-all, one-winner -takes-all concept next gen fighter,It certainly wasn't the contractors. They were eminently happy to sell one airframe to the Navy for dog fighting, another for strike, another to USAF for dog fighting, another for USAF strike, another to the Marines, another for jamming, another for photo recon, etc etc. When McNamara demanded USAF and USN share a common airframe (F-111) he was laughed into derision, but that mattered not. He required it. And we know how that turned out.

When the Hornet came out there was supposed to be a separate F-18 and A-18. The Navy combined them into a single airframe and the die was cast. If one airframe can be do both missions for the Navy, why can't one airframe do both missions for USAF? And the F-15E was born. But wait. If USAF and USN can have one airframe that does both, why can't they share a common airframe? And let's throw STOVL for the Marines into the mix while we're at it. And JSF was born. JSF was as much government driven as was TFX (which led to the F-111) in the 1960s. The contractors were dragged into by the government.

And if you really think the contractors like the idea of "one winner take all", you might want to reconsider where you obtain that stuff you've been smoking.

[KenV]

Dog fighting surely is a last resort scenario but in an all out conflict within contested airspace certainly a likely possibility ,I would think. Why then be OK with a jet that doesn't give you that last resort option to live and fight another day....
Because when things get to the "last resort in an all out conflict" the point is to COMPLETE THE MISSION, not "live to fight another day". If the mission is really important and intercept is likely, you provide an escort that is optimized for air to air so the strike guys can get in and do their job while the fighter guys get in a fur ball with the defenders.

....if it is possible to have a jet that gives you that option?You haven't been following this thread long have you? It is NOT possible to be a superlative strike aircraft AND a superlative air superiority fighter. If it were possible, we'd have F/A-22s. And they are a bigger fantasy than a close-in dog fighting F-35.

[kbrockman]

Because when things get to the "last resort in an all out conflict" the point is to COMPLETE THE MISSION, not "live to fight another day". If the mission is really important and intercept is likely, you provide an escort that is optimized for air to air so the strike guys can get in and do their job while the fighter guys get in a fur ball with the defenders.


So basically the whole JSF concept is wrong if not supported with F22's and/or Typhoons as it in itself is no Air Dominance fighter, we're basically buying an A iso an F35.
Or you have such fiduction in Stealth + sensor fusion that you don't need the AD fighter support in which case the F35 concept is wrong again as it could just as well have been a stealthified GULFSTREAM with an even better intenal weaponsload, lower IR profile, quieter, more economical and carrying an even more elaborate sensor package.
Both of these option where not what was originally sold to both the US and its partners.

It is NOT possible to be a superlative strike aircraft AND a superlative air superiority fighter. If it were possible, we'd have F/A-22s. And they are a bigger fantasy than a close-in dog fighting F-35.

There are those that say that the RAFALE and lately also the TYPHOON are exactly that, both sublime attackers and fighters with sensor fusion and advanced latest gen weapons (METEOR,BRIMSTONE,....).
The F16 became exactly that for us in the 90's after the MLU program.

It certainly wasn't the contractors. They were eminently happy to sell one airframe to the Navy for dog fighting, another for strike, another to USAF for dog fighting, another for USAF strike, another to the Marines, another for jamming, another for photo recon, etc etc. When McNamara demanded USAF and USN share a common airframe (F-111) he was laughed into derision, but that mattered not. He required it. And we know how that turned out.

When the Hornet came out there was supposed to be a separate F-18 and A-18. The Navy combined them into a single airframe and the die was cast. If one airframe can be do both missions for the Navy, why can't one airframe do both missions for USAF? And the F-15E was born. But wait. If USAF and USN can have one airframe that does both, why can't they share a common airframe? And let's throw STOVL for the Marines into the mix while we're at it. And JSF was born. JSF was as much government driven as was TFX (which led to the F-111) in the 1960s. The contractors were dragged into by the government.

Sure Politicians ultimately (rightfully) take the decision and if you feed them ridiculous info and let them get away with it they make dumb decisions , Les Aspin and the JSF and as you said Mc Namara before are a case in point.
But they get their ideas from somewhere and someone (LM in case of the JSF) certainly put them on track for said stupidity, enough blame to go around.
The Military seem to be the biggest real opposers (Gen McPeak in case of JSF) but have the smallest voice it seems.(sorry to say).

And if you really think the contractors like the idea of "one winner take all", you might want to reconsider where you obtain that stuff you've been smoking.

They might not like it before but LM sure likes their position now.

[KenV]

So basically the whole JSF concept is wrong if not supported with F22's and/or Typhoons as it in itself is no Air Dominance fighter, we're basically buying an A iso an F35.The F-35 is a big "A" and a little "F" fighter. If it has to go up against big F fighters to do its job, it should probably have a stealthy big F escort fighter go along.

Or you have such fiduction in Stealth + sensor fusion that you don't need the AD fighter support in which case the F35 concept is wrong again as it could just as well have been a stealthified GULFSTREAM with an even better intenal weaponsload, lower IR profile, quieter, more economical and carrying an even more elaborate sensor package.If you really believe that fantasy, you're welcome to try and sell it to anyone who will listen. I'll wager you will get few takers.

Both of these option where not what was originally sold to both the US and its partners.
You appear to be clueless about "what was originally sold to both the US and its partners."

There are those that say that the RAFALE and lately also the TYPHOON are exactly that, both sublime attackers and fighters with sensor fusion and advanced latest gen weapons (METEOR,BRIMSTONE,....).Indeed, just as there are those who say an F-35 is inferior to a Stealthified Gulfstream. But folks like that have little credibility. And by the way, for a "sublime attacker" to survive a near peer fight on the first day of war, it pretty much has to have stealth. Good luck stealthifying Typhoon and Rafale.

But they get their ideas from somewhere and someone (LM in case of the JSF) certainly put them on track for said stupidity, enough blame to go around.You're clearly clueless about JSF history. The government came up with the idea and got five contractor teams to submit proposals for their idea. LM did not sell them on the idea. The government demanded contractors come up with ways to build their idea.

They might not like it before but LM sure likes their position now. So, you're conceding that the contractors, including LM, did not like this "winner take all" project foisted on them by the government?

And does LM really "like" where they are now? LM are masochists who enjoy getting raked over the coals trying to deliver a very very ambitious product, using a very ambitious process, on a very ambitious schedule? If you say so.

[SSSETOWTF]

LO,

It's not grammar pedantry to point out what words mean. It's a little odd to correct someone because they use words like 'excuse' and 'arguably' within the generally accepted definitions of the words but outside the way you personally like to use them.

I'm envious of your contact list of former LM employees. The people who designed the U-2 weren't the same ones that designed the F-22. Just as BAE Systems (in all its former guises and merged companies) has a long history of coming out with mediocre compromised collaborative projects, arguably (just for your benefit) LM has a pretty distinguished history of making best-in-class airplanes. As a Brit, I would love it to be the other way round, but that's how I see it and judging by the success of F-16 & F-35 in the export market compared to Jaguar, Tornado & Typhoon I'm not the only one.

You have indeed provided chapter and verse for your opinions of LM. I've provided the basis of my opinions of both LM/F-35 and Eurofighter/Typhoon - first hand experience of working the programs and flying the airplanes over several years in both cases. When I was at school I was encouraged to give greater weight to first hand sources rather than second hand ones, but perhaps you were taught differently. My inherent bias is that as an ex-mil pilot, I want the best military capability for my buddies who still have to fly into harms way.

For the sake of everyone else on the forum, let's save the Concorde, TSR-2 and F1-11 vs Tornado etc debates for another thread. Maybe we could debate wotif Concorde had a bomb bay...?

Respectfully,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Courtney Mil]

It's not grammar pedantry to point out what words mean. It's a little odd to correct someone because they use words like 'excuse' and 'arguably' within the generally accepted definitions of the words but outside the way you personally like to use them.

I'm envious of your contact list of former LM employees.

FFS stop it. Move on from personal attacks and just express your views. Please.

[FODPlod]

KenV and SSSETOWTF - Thank you. To this bear of very little brain, you have established your credentials to speak with authority on the F-35. In the main, you have presented facts clearly and rationally, even though it is obvious to me that they been obfuscated, conflated and deliberately misinterpreted by your detractors in pursuit of their negative 'argument'. I regret there are those who seem to resent your knowledgeable stance and currency and have responded abusively but please do not be deterred and do not stoop to their level. I enjoy being educated by people prepared to present the 'other side' of the argument in such a refreshing and illuminating fashion.

We all know the F-35 has suffered developmental snags and will even have deficiences in certain areas such as dogfighting against a peer enemy (which it should be more than capable of avoiding if its systems are utilised properly) but some seem to have condemned it from the outset for not being the answer to quite every maiden's prayer.

[O-P]

CM,


Concur, the bickering is getting girlishly silly, nothing against Girls BTW.


O-P

[Turbine D]

KenV,

“The program has not yet completed the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase, and is not due to enter full rate production until 2019, 17 years after its inception,” the committee’s question starts. “Do you believe the nation can afford to procure these aircraft at a cost of $12B to $15B per year for nearly the next 20 years for an aircraft design that will be 30 years old at the completion of the program procurement phase?” Then the committee asks Dunford if he supports the requirement for 2,443 Joint Strike Fighters.
Is the reevaluation of the 2,443 buy quantity because of the cost per copy, or because it is becoming more recognized the F-35 is incapable of accomplishing its mission?
Hmmmm. The customer is the one who demanded industry produce a single airframe that could do CTOL, CATOBAR, and STOVL. Industry had no choice but to try to meet the customer's demands.
Really! The customer asked for these attributes in the early stages of the program definition, demands only come later when you are in deep s**t having accepted the order when you haven't produced what you promised, product, cost and timing combined. It is usually a result of a disconnect between the sales department and those who have to come through with the goods.
Concurrent engineering was another requirement imposed by the customer.
The absolute prerequisite to run a successful Concurrent Engineering program is that you not only must have a properly staffed organization setup that differs from traditional program organizations, but one where the designated participants know more about what they are developing than they don't know. For L-M, the scales tipped to more of what they didn't know having the most weight.
Really? And you know this how? Your years and years of experience running a concurrent engineering program? And LtGen Bogdan can complain all he wants about Lockheed's approach to concurrent engineering, but what actual experience is that based on? None you say? Concurrent engineering is inherently risky.
Too bad you stopped fly fast jets so soon, those like the F/A-18E/F. Had you stayed longer you would have flown on two engines that were designed developed and produced using the risky process of Concurrent Engineering. The time for design and procurement cycles were reduced by 20-60% in the development phase and cycle times for key components were reduced from 22 week to 3 weeks by the design and manufacturing team members working together from the onset of the program. I might add that the CF6-80C and the GE90 engine programs used the same Concurrent Engineering process. Yes there was some risks, but more was known what wasn't known for each of these programs. Since my engineering experience goes all the way back to the TF-30 and SST engines, while you were busy learning how to and then flying fast jets, I was busy making things to help you to fly (safely).
Developing AND concurrently integrating all sorts of other new technology is very risky.
Only if you don't know as much as you need to know, then Concurrent Engineering is not right for you.

Now that you are on the other side of the fence at Boeing (assuming that is true), I wish you well. I had some really good engineering experiences with both MD on the military side and Boeing on the commercial side helping them with items we were doing that they could do to reduce costs, lead times and improve performance. Should you ever get into a position dealing with the US DoD, as the famous C&W song goes "Know when to hold them and know when to fold them", don't try to BS them as L-M did on the F-35 program…:ok:

[SSSETOWTF]

Courtney & O-P - valid point. Apologies.

Here's a thought then, and run with me on this. Perhaps the flight report that was leaked was but one of a number about the same subject? For something as qualitative as BFM performance in offensive/defensive/neutral sets there was almost certainly a Lockheed pilot flying the exact same points and giving his opinion. I'd be surprised if they didn't let a bunch of pilots have a go at the exercise. But we didn't get leaked those reports - perhaps because they wouldn't have made such dramatic headlines? It goes against the AvWeek and PPruNe narrative to have anything remotely positive written about the program.

Now what about the pilots involved? I would guess that the F-16 pilot was one of the other test pilots from the ITF, flying one of the chase airplanes. It's an educated guess, but it's highly likely the pilot of that F-16 had a bucket-load of hours flying a Block 40 F-16 doing BFM manoeuvres. He probably knows that F-16 inside out and can fly it to its best advantage in his sleep. The guy in AF-2 was probably flying his first ever BFM sortie in an F-35. He might still have a bunch of Aircraft Operating Limitations to observe - I don't know. But anyone with a fighter background will know that they didn't max perform their jet or fight very intelligently on their first ever BFM sortie in it.

I could go on and bore you all senseless (again). My point is that there are entirely understandable and rational reasons for that leaked report that don't necessarily mean the F-35 isn't as good as an F-16 in a WVR fight. It's a valid data point and shouldn't be ignored, but context and the bigger picture shouldn't be ignored either - and we don't have that in this case.

And even if, in the end, the fact of the matter were to be that the F-35 can't fight on even terms with a Block 40, I'm afraid I'm firmly in KenV's school of thought. BFM capability is right up there with 'capability as a 2-seat trainer' and 'air-air tanker capability' for the F-35 in terms of relevance. That's not why you buy an F-35.

Respectfully,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Turbine D]

KenV,
One thing I forgot to comment on:
And LtGen Bogdan can complain all he wants about Lockheed's approach to concurrent engineering, but what actual experience is that based on? None you say?
Actually, I never commented on Lt. General Bogdan's experience relative to Concurrent Engineering. However, I would suspect that he has a very good feel for a good Concurrent Engineering program and experience and a bad Concurrent Engineering program and experience. From his resumé:

ASSIGNMENTS
17. June 2005 - May 2006, Deputy Director, Directorate of Global Power, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.
18. May 2006 - May 2008, Senior Military Assistant to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.
19. May 2008 - May 2009, Senior Military Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.
SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS
May 2006 - May 2009, Senior Military Assistant to Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and Senior Military Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Program Management, Level III, Acquisition Professional Development Program
Think his experience is good or bad on the F-35 program?

[NorthernKestrel]

Interesting contribution on the F-35Bs air-to-air combat potential posted today on the AeroSoc blog using a detailed unclassified air warfare simulation...


Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | Does the F-35 really suck in air combat? (http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/3272/Does-the-F35-really-suck-in-air-combat)


(Apologies for giant pic - anyone know how to resize images in posts?)

http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Images/Insight%20Blog/Does%20the%20F-35%20really%20suck%20at%20air%20combat/Baltic%20F-35%201.jpg

[gr4techie]

Does the above simulation have any credibility? Was it done by some ammatuer in his bedroom with a computer game? Are all the variables just a guess?

[LowObservable]

It depends on your assumptions. MBDA will like it, and the next question is whether four Meteor-armed Typhoons or Gripens (with IRST and EW) would do as well.

[LowObservable]

SS

Lockheed Martin and JSFPO are big kids. If you read the defense media you will find that there are many reporters out there who seldom if ever quote F-35 critics and therefore rely almost exclusively on official sources for information about the program.

So if this is one of a number of conflicting reports, and if the the perceived results in BFM may have been due to a test pilot's familiarity with the F-16, there would be nothing simpler than to call some reporter and say "We feel this has been a bit one-sided and would like to see some balance - would you, personally, like the chance to sit down and talk to the pilots involved? We're just extending this to you right now..."

I can assure you that someone would jump on this in seconds. No major secrets would have to be spilled. The second-wave strike would be from LM's consultants, opining gravely on the way that a single out-of-context report could be so crassly exploited by self-described experts.

This hasn't been done so far.

As for "BFM isn't why you buy an F-35" - whether or not this is true, it begs the question, in that the assumptions underlying it are (1) that the EM deficit doesn't extend into the rest of the A2A arena and (2) that the F-35 weaponry and performance permit the avoidance of BFM.

[Courtney Mil]

I see you have your usual thinking head on, LO. Interesting theory with interesting implications.

[melmothtw]

Oh dear

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/no-the-f-35-can-t-fight-at-long-range-either-5508913252dd


Two dozen Chinese J-11 fighters brought nearly 250 long-range missiles to the mock fight. The same number of F-35s carried fewer than 100 AIM-120s. Beijing’s jets easily overwhelmed the Americans.

From me on 2 July:

China's 400+ J-11s will blow right through the USAF's 184 (ish) F-22s before they know what's what. That's before you even start to take into consideration the J-20, J-31 etc. The same is true for Russia and its Su-27-series aircraft, plus PAK-FA.

From Ken:

You're welcome to believe your wild fantasy. USAF and USN both disagree. And they have some hard data to back up their opinions. You have less than none.


It would appear that my 'fantasy' of the massed ranks of the PLAAF (and others perhaps) blowing through the West's comparatively small number of frontline fighters is shared by others....

[KenV]

Is the reevaluation of the 2,443 buy quantity because of the cost per copy, or because it is becoming more recognized the F-35 is incapable of accomplishing its mission?I don't know, and neither do you. However, I believe neither of your speculations are correct. I believe a more likely answer is that after evaluating the actual threat (rather then the threat estimated years ago when the 2443 number was established) it was determined that 2443 is excessive, especially in the face of the fairly recent decision to keep the F-15 flying for another few decades, rather than retire them. In addition, priorities have changed in the intervening years. Tactical aircraft procurement is no longer at the top of the list of priorities.

The customer asked for these attributes in the early stages of the program definition, demands only come later when you are in deep s**t having accepted the order when you haven't produced what you promised,With due respect, this statement shows gross ignorance of the history of the JSF program. You appear to be uninterested in historical facts, but I will provide a (over simplified) synopsis for those who are interested.

Two forerunners of JSF were JAST (Joint Advanced Strike Technology) program and ASTOVL (Advanced STOVL - the Harrier replacement) These two SEPARATE programs were merged at the direction of Congress in 1994. This was a political decision, and not one proposed by industry

JAST/JSF was also heavily influenced by the A-X program. This was a Navy program to develop a stealthy twin-engine, two-crew attack aircraft after the ATA and NATA programs failed. USAF decided to join this program and make it joint. This was a pure attack aircraft along the lines of a stealthy A-6. Congress (not industry) got into the act and required by law that this program also produce a fighter and it became A/F-X. The law also required a dem/val phase that included flying prototypes. Another program with a big influence on JSF was MRF (multi-role fighter). This was to be a small, cheap lightweight fighter to replace the F-16 and the Harrier and would include a conventional version and an ASTOVL version. Congress (not industry) directed that all these programs be merged. USN was very unhappy that their twin-engine, two-crew airplane was being forced by Congress to be single engine, single crew, but USN was not able to overcome the political pressure.

There were FIVE contractor teams competing for what would become JSF. Lockheed was a team member (but NOT the prime) on three of those teams. The five teams were reduced to three, with McDonnell Douglas the prime for one of the three. But MDC's proposal failed the next cut when its STOVL proposal failed to meet tCogress's requirement, even though its CTOL and CATOBAR proposals were superior in many ways to those of its competitors. It was only after the teams were reduced to two that Lockheed became the prime for one of those teams (Boeing was the other, with MDC joining Boeing). And by the time the teams were reduced to two, the major specs were cast in concrete. The airplane (by LAW) had to be single engine, had to be single crew (Congress' way of attempting to keep growth in check), and had to have CTOL, CATOBAR, and STOVL versions (Congress' way of maximizing commonality between the services.) And like A/F-X, there had to be a dem/val phase that included flying prototypes. And BTW, the basic kinematic performance of both the Boeing and the Lockheed prototypes was fairly firmly established during dem/val. So this whole "less than stellar in-close dog fight performance" has been known for literally over a decade. This latest blog post is nothing new.

The absolute prerequisite to run a successful Concurrent Engineering program is that you not only must have a properly staffed organization setup that differs from traditional program organizations, but one where the designated participants know more about what they are developing than they don't know. For L-M, the scales tipped to more of what they didn't know having the most weight.You fail to realize that those scales were equally tipped against every other contractor. I highly ambitious development program is NOT a candidate for a highly ambitious concurrent engineering program. But Congress directed it. And Congress both writes the laws and signs the checks, so they almost get their way.

Too bad you stopped fly fast jets so soon, those like the F/A-18E/F. Had you stayed longer you would have flown on two engines that were designed developed and produced using the risky process of Concurrent Engineering. Oh please. Now you're just being juvenile, while remaining utterly clueless about history. The F414 engine in the Super Hornet is an uprated development of the F404 engine in the Classic Hornet. Indeed the original design goal was to make the F414 fit an F404 installation so F404s could be replaced by F414s. Clu4U, programs that upgrade mature products are ideal candidates for concurrent engineering. Programs that are developing multiple new technologies that are still in their infancy are very poor candidates for concurrent engineering. And if it has escaped you, JSF/F-35 is attempting to integrate more new tech in a single airframe than has ever been attempted before.

Now that you are on the other side of the fence at Boeing (assuming that is true)......Yet more juvenile rantings.

I had some really good engineering experiences with both MD on the military side and Boeing on the commercial side helping them with items we were doing that they could do to reduce costs, lead times and improve performance. Should you ever get into a position dealing with the US DoD, as the famous C&W song goes "Know when to hold them and know when to fold them", don't try to BS them as L-M did on the F-35 program…How precious! I'll be sure to keep your sage advice in mind......for the next 30 seconds or so.

[KenV]

Think his experience is good or bad on the F-35 program?Probably good. Certainly not bad. But nothing in his resume speaks to concurrent engineering. NOTHING.

[t43562]

Is "Concurrent Engineering" a well understood practise in the production of military jets that anyone could be expected to have experience in?

[LowObservable]

Since Ken is once again following his "With due respect" by a string of insults, let's review his history lecture.

"Two forerunners of JSF were JAST (Joint Advanced Strike Technology) program and ASTOVL (Advanced STOVL - the Harrier replacement)"

Wrong. ASTOVL was long dead. It had been superseded by CALF, a nascent DARPA project already aimed at Marine, RN and USAF needs.

"Congress (not industry) got into the act and required by law that this program also produce a fighter and it became A/F-X. The law also required a dem/val phase that included flying prototypes."

It was never close to being funded.

"Another program with a big influence on JSF was MRF (multi-role fighter). This was to be a small, cheap lightweight fighter to replace the F-16 and the Harrier"

MRF could barely have been described as a program. In any case it was AF and CTOL only.

"USN was very unhappy that their twin-engine, two-crew airplane was being forced by Congress to be single engine, single crew, but USN was not able to overcome the political pressure."

It was the JAST office that reached the conclusion that a single aircraft could meet all service needs. This was actually an idea that originated with Boeing's internal studies.

"There were FIVE contractor teams competing for what would become JSF."

Wrong again. Initially, it was Northrop, Macs, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Northrop threw in its lot with Macs before proposals went in.

"MDC's proposal failed the next cut when its STOVL proposal failed to meet tCogress's requirement"

False. There was no Congressional requirement in that area that Macs failed to meet, although there was customer prejudice against LPLC.

[kbrockman]

KenV,

I'm going to be as polite as possible and ask you to do the same in return and refrain from commenting about smoking habits or belittleling my understanding of the 'history of all things JSF'

You make it sound that it is solely the fault of the politicians that the JSF turned out the way it is today (said it before, I don't think it's a turkey but it has some serious flaws<= disclaimer) and I don't follow you in that reasoning.

It was the wish of the MARINES to have a supersonic follow up for their HARRIERS and it was LM that sold them the solution against the advice of the congessional comittee that deemed the DARPA STOVL project (an LM project) promissing but far to immature to work.

They pressured the congress and used those that still believed in the Mc NAMARA doctrine to get their way, enough blame to go around , certainly from every party involved congress, partnering nations(UK), the industry (LM) and to a far lesser extent the military top that was too weak to avoid this bad idea.

Furthermore I'm sorry to say this but you seem to be rewriting history on some of the initial JSF selling points, it was sold to us (maybe not the USAF, MARINES, NAVY and UK), the smaller partners as the next gen F-16/ F-18 and likewise aircraft , not just as a very advanced A but also a very capable F, there are no other ways of explaining this.

I won't even comment on the very onorthodox contracting about upgrades, shared work ,property rights and acces to all the software, I've seen some of the initial offerings and they are very strange to say the least, we will basically be tied hand and feet on LM and whatever they come up with (and associated costs) during the lifespan of the F35, no more in house MLU program, very little possibilities on doing some customer specific upgrades without handing all design over to LM/NORTHROP/Bae/ELBIT/PW and paying them for integration.
I'm almost rooting for us to step in as a OTS buyer like Udvar Hazy proposed, financially that might give us more room to haggle and offset in JSF work is worthless anyway, better to get some work that is worth someting from another project.

finally , and I think you know this, I was not really advocating for a stealthified GULFSTREAM, I just used it to make a point about the JSF's shortcomings.


Respectfully, and I mean that from one dutch speaking aviation lover to another, BTW like the 748, flew LH 2 weeks ago and it was like the 744 but better.

[KenV]

Oh dear

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/no-...r-5508913252dd

Two dozen Chinese J-11 fighters brought nearly 250 long-range missiles to the mock fight. The same number of F-35s carried fewer than 100 AIM-120s. Beijing’s jets easily overwhelmed the Americans.

Oh dear indeed. From the cited blog:

In any air-to-air duel, the pilot who spots his target first and shoots first is, nine times out of 10, the victor.Dead on.

To this end, the F-35 does have a high-tech radar, high-fidelity cameras and other advanced gear that can detect airplanes. But foremost, Lockheed optimized these sensors for spotting targets on the ground — and at relatively short distances. The F-35 can see great. It just can’t see all that great into the air. At least not compared to modern Chinese- and Russian-made jets — the planes the F-35 is most likely to face in battle in some future war.An absolute crock!! F-35's AAQ-37 DAS has successfully tracked ballistic missiles. As has the F-35's APG-81 radar. And incidentally, the APG-81 is a direct descendant of the APG-77 in the F-22 Raptor and retains ALL of the APG-77s superlative air-to-air capabilities while improving on them and adding air-to-ground capability. OK, the author of the article is ill-informed, but you guys citing him claim to be knowledgeable about air-to-air combat. Surely you guys know this obvious truth about the APG-81 radar. But if so, why on earth would you cite this grossly ill-informed article?!!

While the specific details remain secret, Kopp estimates the APG-81 can detect an aircraft with a radar cross-section of three square meters—a MiG-29, for example—just over 100 miles away. Russian radar-maker Tikhomirov claims the Su-35’s Irbis-E can spot a similar-size target at greater than twice that distance.Hilarious. Even assuming this "estimate" vs this "claim" is accurate (a HUGE assumption), the F-35s radar cross section is a tiny fraction of the MiG-29's "three square meters", with the J-11 being significantly larger than the MiG-29!

But wait, it gets better. The missiles have terminal radar guidance. How well will a radar guided missile do against a stealth target vs a non stealth target? So even if thru some miracle the J-11s radar detects the F-35s first, how will their missiles lock onto their targets? "Oh dear".

OK, the author of the article is ill-informed, but you surely you air-to-air knowledgeable folks are aware of the radar equation, which states power at the receiver is a directly proportional to radar cross section and inversely proportional to the square of the range, times 2! In short, radar cross section is a HUGE deal in radar detection, radar tracking, radar intercepts, and radar terminal homing. But if you do know this, why on earth would you cite this grossly ill-informed article?!!

But it’s possible radar range is irrelevant. In an aerial battle between stealthy jets — with each side trying to stay undetected as long as possible — it’s likely that none of the opposing pilots would even want to activate their radars at all. That’s because most fighters carry gear that can sense radar waves and pinpoint their origins.

Instead, modern planes in a high-tech war would probably rely on their undetectable, “passive” infrared sensors to locate each other in the air.

Really? "Would probably" not use radar? The author of this article failed to include that the F-35's APG-81 radar has all of the APG-77's LOD (low probability of detection) and LOI (Low probability of intercept) characteristics. Meaning the F-35 pilot can leave his radar on and remain pretty damn stealthy. In addition, the F-35's stealthy MADL datalink means the F-35s will be linked together into a network. Meaning they can share sensor data in real time and effectively enlarge the effective aperture of their individual sensors. And (what a coincidence!) sensor range is directly proportional to aperture size. "Oh dear" indeed.

But let's assume the F-35 pilots are all stupid or very poorly trained and don't take advantage of their superior radar, nor network their radars, and instead turn their radar off and rely solely on passive sensors.

The F-35 has a damn sophisticated passive RF system that can detect the Russian built radar emissions at more than twice the range the radars can detect targets (that pesky radar equation raises its ugly head again.) So things get even better (or worse, depending on who's side you're one. Our local "experts" seem to be on the side of the Chinese and Russians.) when using passive RF sensors. Because the F-35s are networked, this enables them to use their passive sensors to compute a highly precise 3D location of the emitter(s), and not just a bearing to them. Precise enough to provide launch guidance to their radar guided missiles. That means the F-35s can use just their passive RF sensors to launch their radar guided missiles. "Oh dear."

What happens if the opposition stops emitting RF? Great. Let's look at IR.

But take a look at the F-35’s engine nozzle. It’s round. Highly stealthy planes such as America’s B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter both boast flat engine nozzles that spread out their exhaust plumes, cutting back on the telltale IR signature.Hilarious. The Chinese/Russian engines nozzles are......wait for it....round also! "Oh dear!"

The F-35 has an IR detector (actually it has 6 to provide full spherical coverage around the F-35) that can track a ballistic missile at considerable range. But let's ignore that and assume both sides' IR sensors are equally sensitive. The F-35's sensors are networked, effectively increasing their aperture size, and thus their detection range. "Oh dear!" And that networking gives them a passive 3D picture precise enough to provide targeting data for radar guided missiles. A picture all fused together on their helmet displays. The F-35 can launch a radar guided missile with their aircraft radar turned off and guide them to the target area where the missile switches on its own radar. "Oh dear!" The J-11 is limited to a short range IR missile with it's aircraft radar shut down. "Oh dear!"

And since this discussion is all about long range air-to-air, what matters here is forward aspect IR signature. And the F-35s forward aspect IR signature is even lower than the F-22's, never mind the J-11's So in a long range engagement (which is what this discussion is all about) the F-35's IR emissions are far below their target's emissions. "Oh dear!" And their IR sensors are fused and networked. Oh dear.

There's plenty more (like the F-35s built-in RF jamming capability), but this will suffice. Perhaps it would be wise to peruse web sites with just a modicum of veracity and that don't have an axe to grind.

[KenV]

You make it sound that it is solely the fault of the politicians that the JSF turned out the way it is today.

Ummmm, no. There's lots and lots of blame to go around. My point was to rebut your (utterly false) assertion that the government had little or no responsibility, when in fact they carry the biggest burden of blame. Congress put the contractors AND the armed services into a box they are struggling mightily to live with.

And my apologies for the tone of my post. I will endeavor to fix that.

[Turbine D]

KenV,
Oh please. Now you're just being juvenile,
Yet more juvenile rantings.
How precious! I'll be sure to keep your sage advice in mind......for the next 30 seconds or so.
Clu4U, programs that upgrade mature products are ideal candidates for concurrent engineering. Programs that are developing multiple new technologies that are still in their infancy are very poor candidates for concurrent engineering. And if it has escaped you, JSF/F-35 is attempting to integrate more new tech in a single airframe than has ever been attempted before.
Well KenV, do you have any more insulting words of non-wisdom you would like to throw out? We need to be told.
In case you missed it, I said in a couple of posts that you have to know more about the project than you don't know to do a successful Concurrent Engineering program.
I guess heaving insults is all that you have left.

[glad rag]

"There's plenty more (like the F-35s built-in RF jamming capability),"


Ken, how can it be stealthy if it's a Jammer?

Never heard of HOGE before??

rgds

gr.

[Courtney Mil]

In any air-to-air duel, the pilot who spots his target first and shoots first is, nine times out of 10, the victor.
Dead on.

Absolutely not true. For so many reasons. For example, the guy that takes a low energy, max range shot against a high, fast target that subsequently manoeuvres, shoots and cranks (at high g and high energy) is likely to have his missile defeated kinematically and take one in the face a few seconds later.

And that also illustrates what I've been saying before about F-35's energy manoeuvrability. The extra 43 seconds acceleration time, relatively low top speed, OK rate of climb and poor (and reduced) sustained g all become relevant in the example above - hopefully you don't need me to explain that.

Yes, it's important to consider the second shots, but that gets a bit complex for a short post.

No doubt you will now want to come back with numerous personal insults, as is your recent habit in this thread, and you will want to challenge the relevance of that example. On that subject, I would like to add my voice to previous posters about your attitude. Like many others here, I like to debate with you, but I am finding your aggressive, unpleasant personal attacks inappropriate for this forum and rather detracting from the discussion. Please lighten up a bit and behave better. You never know, people may then read your posts so that your points actually reach their targets.

[Just This Once...]

:D





___________

[LowObservable]

(Our local "experts" seem to be on the side of the Chinese and Russians.)

My goodness, Ken, would you mind elaborating on this? Which "local experts"? If those experts are "on the side of the Chinese and Russians" are you suggesting that if they're not Chinese or Russian, they're actively disloyal to their home nations?

Please clarify, because the common word for that is not a nice one.

Also, DAS did not, as far as I know, detect any ballistic missiles. It did image a Falcon 9 space launch vehicle, much bigger than even an ICBM and two orders of magnitude larger than many TBMs - or rather, it detected the 3000 lb of fuel/LOX combustion product coming out of its back end every second.

[KenV]

Since Ken is once again following his "With due respect" by a string of insults, let's review his history lecture.

"Two forerunners of JSF were JAST (Joint Advanced Strike Technology) program and ASTOVL (Advanced STOVL - the Harrier replacement)"

Wrong. ASTOVL was long dead. It had been superseded by CALF, a nascent DARPA project already aimed at Marine, RN and USAF needs.

Oh my. I said at the outset that my synopsis was oversimplified. ASTOVL was the publicly acknowledged portion of the black project SSF (STOVL Strike Fighter) that was a collaboration between NASA and Skunk Works. SSF ran from 1987 thru 1994. ASTOVL/CALF ran concurrent with the later stages of SSF (93-94) and in various quarters CALF was also called JAF (Joint Attack Fighter). ASTOVL/CALF came into being when Skunk Works successfully got USAF and USN to collaborate on SSF, and SSF started moving out of the black. In short, the white world cover story for the black world SSF program was called ASTOVL and was headed up by DARPA. And note that these are all programs for an aircraft optimized for the attack role, not dog fighting.

It was in 1994 when Congress passed the 1995 budget allocation legislation that Congress declared that ASTOVL be immediately merged into the JAST (Joint Advanced Strike Technology) program. JAST was effectively the forerunner for JSF, with a huge difference. JAST was a technology development program, designed to mature and do risk reduction for new technologies that would be applied to whatever program (whether USAF or USN) developed a new attack airframe. But by merging ASTOVL with JAST, what resulted was an aircraft development AND technology development program. It was this Congressional action that effectively killed ASTOVL and SSF, and moved everything out of the black world and into the public eye.

So the characterization that ASTOVL was "long dead" is both false and absurd. ASTOVL, JAST, and SSF all existed in 1994. Congressional legislation that year directed the merger of ASTOVL/SSF with JAST and did so by name, and effectively removed the black program cover from SSF. And it was that merger that effectively created JSF. And contrary to your history, all of this was was influenced by both MRF (which lasted until late 1993) and A/F-X, which lasted until Dec 31, 1993. Both MRF and A/F-X were merged into JAST in late 93/early 94. These were non-STOVL programs. Then CALF (Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter), another STOVL project, was merged with JAST. CALF was unique in that it started out as a STOVL design but then Paul Bevilaqua of Lockheed noted that when stripped of the lift fan, it would make a great conventional fighter. JAST was then merged with ASTOVL in late 94. The 93/94 period was extremely pivotal in the gestation of JSF, a program that effectively merged all those programs under a single umbrella. Indeed JSF inherited its dem/val fly off phase directly from A/F-X.

As for the rest, let's just say I disagree with the interpretation of history that was presented, much of which was as far off base as the above. For example MDC's loss. MDC's design was similar to what became Lockheed's design in that the STOVL variant had a swiveling main jet exhaust and a separate lift fan. The big difference was that MDCs lift fan was gas coupled and Lockheed's was mechanically coupled. The gas coupling scheme failed and MDC, with no time left to go to a mechanical coupling, proposed a separate lift engine for the STOVL variant. This proposal violated the "single engine" requirement imposed by Congress and MDC was out. Another example is the teaming. JSF initially also inherited the five teams that had been brought together for A/F-X, which were:

Grumman/Lockheed/Boeing
Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics
McDonnell Douglas/Vought
Rockwell/Lockheed
General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas/Northrop

These teams eventually dissolved and/or were absorbed with all the aerospace mergers that were going on back then. This was whittled down to three for the first competition phase. In that phase the MDC/Northrop/BAE team got a late start, only agreeing on an aggressive high risk configuration after the other two had begun testing theirs, and they lost. And Lockheed won with what many called the lowest risk approach of the three. And clearly in this case "lowest risk" is very much relative because in absolute terms, the program was exceptionally ambitious and high risk.

[KenV]

My goodness, Ken, would you mind elaborating on this? Which "local experts"?The local experts that agree with the "War Is Boring" web site which clearly advocate that Russian/Chinese air forces will decimate Western air forces. And no, I did not mean to convey the idea that they literally "support" either China or Russia, although I understand in retrospect that one could have read what I wrote that way. And for that I apologize.

[Lonewolf_50]

It was the JAST office that reached the conclusion that a single aircraft could meet all service needs. This was actually an idea that originated with Boeing's internal studies. Well, how'd that work out for Boeing ... uh, not so good. Fruits of the poisoned tree, perhaps?

Also, JAST didn't occur in a vacuum.

ASTOVL merged with JAST merged with CALF and we eventually got the correct acronym out of the deal: JSF. Alphabet soup. Let's remember that this was going on as the Aspin Dec Def reign began -- oops, that only lasted a year -- and Clinton had replaced Bush, and the increased reductions in defense spending (the slope of the ramp down increased form the original Cheney-Bush model) hit the operating and acquisition systems, and programs, with increasing savagery as the 90's went on. The Roles and Missions wrangling that came after the Desert Storm deal were still alive and well in the mid 90's. I got involved in the air power/air doctrine wars to a modest extent for a few years during that period, and you could argue that the one thing the services could NOT agree on was ... anything.

Heck, as modest a program as JPATS (Now the T-6 Texan II) was a stew of epic foulness.

The JSF (as a program) was a child conceived in a clusterfcuk. No wonder it's got issues. Jast sayin' ... :}

PS: it's a testimony to the people in it, and their efforts, that it is still alive and growing.

[KenV]

No doubt you will now want to come back with numerous personal insults, as is your recent habit in this thread,

Guilty as charged. I've got plenty of excuses why I allowed myself to slip into this posting mode, but that's all they are. Excuses. Point taken and accepted. And my apologies to all.

[O-P]

Ken,


Thank you for that. This thread was in danger of slipping into a "Cat calling diatribe".


I have never been known for my diplomacy, as those who know mw will attest!


Can we now (all parties) leave the insults, however guarded, behind and concentrate on the details of this project.


I understand that the F35 is a very polarizing topic, I just hope we can all remain civil.

[Bevo]

I contend that the ASTOVL program resulted in McDonnell Douglas being forced to merge with Boeing.

At that time of ASTOVL both P&W’s F119 engine and GE’s F120 engine were in competition also. There were two main propulsion concepts that were submitted. McDonnell Douglas submitted concepts for both gas-coupled lift fan and shaft-coupled lift fan which were both rated as top proposals, while Lockheed submitted a shaft-coupled lift concept. DARPA awarded two contracts, one to McD for the gas-coupled lift system for the F120 and one to Lockheed for the shaft coupled lift fan for the F119. That decision sealed the fate for McD as the F119 was selected to power the JSF and McD was told it would have to include the development cost of the F120 in its JSF cost estimate. As a result McD had to find lower cost alternative lift system and eventually teamed with Northrop who had developed a separate mid-mounted lift engine. The separate engine was considered unacceptable by the Marines.

With the loss of the JSF program, McD was left with no new fighter program and felt it had to merge with Boeing.

[Turbine D]

t43562,
Is "Concurrent Engineering" a well understood practise in the production of military jets that anyone could be expected to have experience in?
Yes, I would expect that would be the case. Here are a couple of papers relative to Concurrent Engineering, the first being the development leading to production of the Navy F/A-18 E/F and F414 engine that dates to 1997.

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td1801/white.pdf

The second US Government report discusses the role of Concurrent Engineering in weapon systems acquisition that dates to 1988. I think there is no rigid model of Concurrent Engineering structure that every company has to follow, but there are certainly some very good control and measurement processes that need inclusion for the overall process to work its best. There must be an ironclad commitment to the process from the organization top down and the people in the process must be the most knowledgeable of the product, processes and technologies required for the program to be successful.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA203615

[Glaaar]

F135 engine, 28,000lbf military with a TSFC of .9lb/lb/hr.


F-35B internal fuel, 14,000lbs, likely reduced to 10-12,000lbs when they realize they cannot put GBU-53 in and have to go with the old cheap stuff (GBU-12/38/49/54) lying around in the dump or even newer kit (Brimstone/JAGM/APKWS) which happen to all be forward fire.


Pylon kits cost weight and drag and so a 2,000lb fuel penalty may be generous, especially hot'n'hi, when you consider that gas is also a refrigerant for the extremely hot EHAs and various other heat exchanger goodies.


Flight Idle = 60% IRT. 28 X .6 = 16,800lbf X .9 = 15,120lbs per hour. Twelve thousand pounds divided by two hundred fifty two pounds per minute = 47.61 minutes of flight time. If you assume you need at least 5 minutes of naval reserve at the boat, and 10 minutes over the target area, that's a total of 16 minutes each way.


Sixteen minutes at 400 knots (which is beyond generous for a jet with external stores at flight idle) = 107nm radius of action.


The very notion that the aircraft is going to be useful, even to a beachhead or SPOD seizure mission thus requires the acceptance of the idea that 8 jets delivering 1 mission per hour as a 'detachment' on an LHD is somehow a better investment than the modern equivalent of this-


LCT(R)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/LCT%28R%29_459.png


Equipped with Spike-NLOS, Netfires/Jumper or even Hoplite.


The F-35 is not a 440nm machine. Even if you assume a 100% error in my math due to changing cycle effects on TSFC as the throttle is pulled off, it is going to be a 200nm jet, at best.


Add to this the fact that it cannot take off while helicopters are spotted, bringing back casevac and loading second wave assaulters (both more important than CAS to sustaining ops tempo as the prevention of being shoved back into the waves) and that the V-22T and LHA-6 class as 'CVE not LHD' are _unpaid for_. And you have a royal mess.


Because the Marines want to be a replacement Air Force for the Nuclear Navy (having realized the end of SWA meant the end of funding SUW for bush beating wombat hunts while tacair is a goldplate glory hound mission 'all the time') but the Marines cannot figure out how they are going to do that without TWO carriers in their ARG, one a gator freighter and the other an SCS wannabe with all of 25 jets onboard.


Which is to say, each deployment will cost more with the USMC solution to airpower than the USN/CVN equivalent and will be MORE vulnerable to ICD/A2AD because the minidecks have to come that much closer in to deliver effects (barely over the radar horizon if you want to seriously stage an amphibious assault, say 35-50nm in the greenwater).


If this isn't a 'shortfall' I don't know what is because you would NEVER equip an interdictor with a .9 TSFC engine. That overfanned monstrosity is in the jet, sucking fuel and fattening the fuselage, solely because they need the torque generator to run the SDLF lift module.


And with the SDLF and no tanker (and likely no EFT, given how the thing wobbles, sinks and then climbs back up off the Wasp in clean configured videos) the F-35B has less legs than the Harrier II /even accounting for/ the fan water to boost landing thrust.


What a joke.

[BEagle]

I am deeply suspicious of any aircraft which needs a $400K pilot helmet....

I wonder how much in-life servicing these expensive helmets will require.

As for believing Lockheed-Martin, I recall a Brit on the C-130J programme resigning in disgust from a well-paid job with L-M, "Because I'm not prepared to carry on telling lies for you lot!", or so we were told...:uhoh:

View manufacturers' statements with caution!

[LowObservable]

Glaar, you run the risk of making me look like an optimist. We do know that the Marine combat radius spec is all high-altitude - see this chart, old as it is:

F-35KPP20070402.jpg Photo by SpudmanWP | Photobucket (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/SpudmanWP/media/F-35KPP20070402.jpg.html)

We do know that the F-35B has about the same internal fuel fraction as most other FJ types (around 0.3).

The status of drop tanks has been a little uncertain. They were shown in early briefs but were certainly dropped for the F-35A service-entry configuration around 2007. However, Israel indicated that they wanted tanks, and Elbit's Cyclone subsidiary had a design - but that's gone quiet lately.

There's been no recent visible activity regarding tanks for the F-35B, but FWIW, there is this:

F-35 external fuel tanks.... ? FighterControl ? Home to the Military Aviation Enthusiast (http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=287&t=88902)

[NITRO104]

Does the above simulation have any credibility?
Well, it's (to quote the article) "a hyper-realistic tactical PC simulation/wargame". :}

[LowObservable]

To be fair, Nitro, some of the high-end "PC games" can crunch data as fast and in much the same way as military-grade sims of a couple of decades ago, and I know of at least one defense company that has used H3MilSim quite seriously. One advantage is that you can perform a reasonable campaign-level sim and avoid the huge secret-squirrel complications that arise at a national level.

It does all come down to open sources and some educated guesswork - but then, that's what you have on at least one side, unless you are very high in the secret squirrel tree.

[t43562]

Re Sims. If it was me, I'd want to see how the results changed when you perturbed the parameters slightly. You'd want to know if the outcome was very dependent on any of the variables that you've had to make guesses about.

[Woff1965]

Speaking of Command, BAE has just signed a deal with the developers.

Matrix Games - Slitherine and BAE Systems to start collaboration (http://matrixgames.com/news/1736/Slitherine.and.BAE.Systems.to.start.collaboration)

[Courtney Mil]

The sim on question is available for purchase on the Internet. It is a very interesting game and allows the player to try all sorts of tactics in all sorts of environments with all sorts of aircraft and all sorts of weapons, etc, etc. It costs about €80 and is a beautifully designed piece of software.

It models the aerodynamic performance (not the aerodynamics) of the aircraft, their fuel, number of weapons and such.

It models missile flyouts.

It models loads of stuff and makes me think I could spend a few hours on a rainy Sunday afternoon running loads of engagements against my favourite enemies with a glass of wine in my hand.

IT DOES NOT model the full 3D RCS of all players dynamically (or in any way really, given the availability of such data, not to mention their sensitivity). It does not model missile datalink during flyout, exhaust plume interference, differences between skid-to-turn and Roll-to-turn, command link roll off due to the position of the missile relative to radar scan, anaprop..... And that's just stuff during post launch command and guidance.

So what assumptions does the simulation make? A single RCS figure for and aircraft based on "it's the size of a marble"? I don't know. But I can promise you all the dynamics of an active, long range, radar and command guided missile are NOT modelled in this simulation.

So how credible is it? If you are simulating this type of engagement with the above limitations, not very.

[glad rag]

Indeed, CM.

I noticed, from the simulation screen shot, that those F-35 were to return to HMS QE2?

I wonder, in that simulation scenario, who would have got there first, those F-35 or a swarm of BrahMos...

[typerated]

Ken and SSSETOWTF,

Personally I have a toe in the against camp. I don't doubt the majority of what you say- and I'm sure the aircraft will do a good job for a while- If the stealth, networking and sensors work as advertised it will be a "game changer"

But what I can't shake is the thought that the energy performance of the aircraft is not what it should be - and this comes directly from the compromises made to make a common VSTOL version.

If I had had the chance of playing god and was program director I would have:

1) Killed the B at birth and recommended a separate lower tech VSTOL machine for the Marines
2) improved the air/air capability of the aircraft - at the expense of its air/ground capability if necessary.

Would you have produced the 3 versions just as they are today or how would you have changed the specs?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this?

Cheers

TR

[ORAC]

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/ZNC2MvHz700R3.ricg3hAQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTI5MztpbD1wbGFuZTtweW9mZj0wO3E9 NzU7dz02MDA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/dt150712.jpg

[KenV]

Would you have produced the 3 versions just as they are today or how would you have changed the specs?

If I was in charge and could have over ridden Congress, yes, I would have taken a different approach, especially if I had the benefit of hindsight. For starters I would have stuck to the paradigm of separate A/F-X, JAST, and ASTOVL programs, with A/F-X defining the non-STOVL airframes, ASTOVL defining the STOVL airframe, and JAST defining the systems to be integrated into all the airframes. And A/F-X would almost certainly have been (or at least included) a two-engine, two-crew layout.

But it's rather easy to say what might have been. And totally pointless. It seems to me the point now is so to focus an what we have and make the most of it. And by that I mean what we really have, and not the cripple that a few folks insist we have.

[KenV]

Yes, I would expect that would be the case. Here are a couple of papers relative to Concurrent Engineering, the first being the development leading to production of the Navy F/A-18 E/F and F414 engine that dates to 1997.

May I respectfully point out that F/A-18 E/F was a development of the fully mature F/A-18 A/B/C/D? Such a program is ideal for concurrent engineering. And even though it was a development of a fully mature airframe E/F still ran into some serious snags. The same applies to the F414 engine which was a development of the fully mature F404.

The JSF on the other hand used NOTHING that was fully developed, much less mature. Not even such "simple" things like comm radios and data links were developed, never mind mature. Even its APG-81 radar was based on the APG-77 which was still not fully developed when JSF became the F-35 program. Concurrent Engineering is very high risk when developing a new technology airframe, never mind when simulataneously developing a new tech airframe, new engine, new stealth tech, and new systems.

[Engines]

Perhaps I can add a couple of observations that would assist the discussion.

First is the presumed role of 'Congress'. In my direct experience in DC, the people pushing the JSF concept were not 'Congress' - is was the Office of the Secretary for Defense, known as OSD. This is essentially the 'Centre' staff for the Pentagon, and they had, and still have, real power in the area of programme decisions and even more importantly, budgeting. In truth, Congress don't have the depth of technical analysis required to reliably develop their own programme assessments - they rely heavily on what they get from OSD via the Oval Office.

The concepts for JAST and JSF were, in large part, developed within and promoted by OSD. And the main driver for this push was a perception that trying to go forward with single service programmes for large, twin engined tactical aircraft (mostly with two seats) was always going to be unaffordable. I heard senior OSD staff refer to the F-22 as a 'failed program', and looking at the original versus actual ISD and costs for the aircraft, I couldn't disagree. (I would add that the F-22 is (in my view) a great design and a fabulous performing aircraft - but unaffordable, even for the USAF).

OSD, USAF and USN technical assessments, based on ASTOVL and many other test programmes, was that engine and airframe technology wasn't capable of producing a viable twin engined, two seat, STOVL airframe. As a result, OSD staffs prepared the briefs that pushed for a single engined, single seat, aircraft, using STOVL as the prime reason for that configuration. All these years on, some posting on this thread will disagree with that assessment. All I can say is that is what I saw happen.

OSD, the USAF and the USN had also studied (and modelled at some length) the relative impacts of airframe and avionics systems on combat efficiency. The USMC had also seen what the RN were doing in the mid 90s with the Sea Harrier FA2 - a badly limited airframe given a massive combat efficiency boost via an excellent radar/missile combination. All of that fed into the early iterations of what eventually became the JSF requirements set. This has led to the sort of aircraft that has emerged from the programme. Again, OSD people were key players in this process.

Second, concurrent engineering. I was at Fort Worth in the early days of the programme, and I didn't detect any huge focus on 'concurrency'. I did pick up that the programme had set itself some incredibly ambitious goals (and dates) for freezing the airframe and systems design. In part, this optimism was based on the depth of the X-35 programme, and the other precursor technology programmes the US had carried out. Finally (and in hindsight mistakenly) there was an assumption that new CAD systems would give LM's design team a much higher 'right first time' figure.

All that unravelled in 2004, when the customer told LM that the aircraft was badly overweight. What followed was a huge structural redesign, but the schedule screws were kept firmly 'on' - my own assessment of what followed( and that's all it is) is that LM were simply not able to get the aircraft to the level of design maturity (stability) in the time allotted. I'd also add that LM had some weaknesses in the slightly arcane areas of configuration control and change management. (I'd further add that they were by no means alone in this - BAES had learned some hard lessons on Typhoon by this time).

In my view, concurrency was something that happened to the programme, but was not planned. With hindsight, they should have slowed the move to production more than they did. But then LM Fort Worth are an outfit who are dominated by their production people. (again, my own view).

The key point (at least in my view) is that the US has 'bet the farm' on the F-35. It will be made to work, and (again my own view) it will be a very successful aircraft, mainly due to its highly advanced sensors, communications, displays and weapons systems - things that (for obvious reasons) don't often get very detailed attention on this forum.

I hope these musings help a little - and I very much endorse the pleas from other (better) contributors for civility and patience. None of us know it all. Some of us know a little. Some know a lot (not me, by the way). On an open forum, we all get a chance to contribute. We can all learn. Bad manners and sarcastic points scoring will deter those (like me) who just try to help. Let's keep it nice, shall we?

Best Regards as ever those who are working the hard stuff in the free world under the scrutiny of a free press,

Engines

[Turbine D]

KenV,
I would like to point out a couple of things:
The development of the F-18 E/F did come from the earlier F-18 airframes. But, there were changes. The length increased 4 feet, the height by a 1 foot and the wing span by 4 feet (a new wing). The maximum gross take off weight increased by 14,100 pounds and the range increased by 200 miles. This is from the US Navy Fact File. Also, from the file:
The F/A-18 E/F acquisition program was an unparalleled success. The aircraft emerged from Engineering and Manufacturing Development meeting all of its performance requirements on cost, on schedule and 400 pounds under weight. All of this was verified in Operational Verification testing, the final exam, passing with flying colors receiving the highest possible endorsement.
The first operational cruise of Super Hornet, F/A-18 E, was with VFA-115 onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) on July 24, 2002, and saw initial combat action on Nov. 6, 2002, when they participated in a strike on hostile targets in the "no-fly" zone in Iraq.
This was written in 2009. There always are some problems but seemingly no serious snags on the F-18 E/F program.
As far as the engines are concerned, the F414 is a derivative engine of the F404 but with significant changes to gain an extra 4,300 pounds of thrust per engine.
One of the changes made in the F414 engines was to use one piece blisks in the LP compressor, similar to what P&W did on the F135 engines to save weight.

The F135 engine is a derivative engine from the F119 engine used on the F-22. The F135 engine is not a completely new from scratch engine. There are differences in the rear end due to afterburner configurations and total engine length due to engine placement in the airframe. The F135 engine is about 135 pounds heavier than the F119 engine due to the addition of a second stage added to the LP turbine. The F135 was designed to provide 8,000 pounds additional thrust compared to the F119 engine. So we can discuss whether or not the F119 engine was/is mature or not, but it seems to be performing pretty well with no serious snags in terms of problems.

[ORAC]

The key point (at least in my view) is that the US has 'bet the farm' on the F-35. It will be made to work, and (again my own view) it will be a very successful aircraft, mainly due to its highly advanced.... communications,

Ummmm. MADL which can't talk to any other platform and, until some future block has no SATCOM? As a result of which standalone, non-stealthy, datalink/comms platforms are going to have to be procured? Which have to penetrate far enough up threat to relay the F-35 gathered int to other platforms?

I could go on, and the problem is similar to that of the F-22 which prevented it being deployed on joint ops for decades ( and the 30 year saga of rolling out L16 etc). But to boast about it as a success..... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[LowObservable]

Very accurate post, Engines.

By the way, I was rooting around in the 'tubez the other day and found this:

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA292094

It also locates key decisions (including the single engine) within the OSD. However, one antecedent that is easy to overlook receives little attention in this document: the export angle.

Back in 1987, I recall, Weinberger memoed the Navy and AF to the effect that their new stealth aircraft (ATF, NATF, ATA) would all be too costly and too classified to replace the Viper and Hornet on the export market. That kicked off a series of studies that led to the Japanese F-2 and the Super Hornet... But neither was really expected to be the full replacement. That became part of the JAST plan.

[Engines]

ORAC,

I'd like to come back. I think what I said was that in my view (and that was deliberately phrased), the F-35 will be a success. I don't think I 'boasted' in any way. Sorry if I gave that impression. I stated my view. There's a difference. I try not to bash my head against walls.

On comms, the MADL link was designed to allow F-35s to fight more effectively as a team. I think it's going to do that quite well. (Note - just my view). Whether it's adopted more widely across other platforms is another matter. But at present, it's on the way to meeting the requirement it was designed for.

LO, thank you. Yes, you are quite right - the OSD plan also aimed at generating an aircraft that was more likely to meet a wide range of needs and so win export orders. Affordability was a key metric. F-22's lack of export orders shows they might have been right - again, purely my view.

Best Regards as ever to those having to make big calls in the early years,

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you, Engines, for another good account of the route to were we are. Carefully crafted as ever. :ok:

MADL is, as you describe, essential to networking F-35s and making the sensors more effective. In terms of passive sensors it is the key to passive detection, ranging and targeting. It is, in essence, a core element in the capability and it is a great strength.

Right now it also precludes easy integration with other platforms. That runs contrary to many years of work to try to hook platforms into any kind of network - Link 16 was the vehicle of choice - but we struggled due to funding (the radio wasn't that expensive), integration and clearance costs.

Now, which way do we go? Start from scratch and have all the other platforms move to MADL, buy into the "portal" to connect the two networks or accept that we may have two, unrelated networks.

Yes, I know there are other data transfer methods.

[Engines]

Courtney,

I thought I'd come back to you on one aspect - but with the alert warning that I'm no comms specialist.

Your last post seems to infer that the F-35's MADL system precludes use of other systems such as Link 16. Again, as far as I know, the aircraft has a fairly comprehensive range of comms links, including:

MADL
SATCOM receive
Link 16
Secure VHF/UHF (incl. Havequick)
SINGCARS
Plus others

So, unless I have missed a key point (highly possible) the F-35 can use Link 16, while using MADL. I don't think it's an either/or situation.

I do recall that at one stage on the programme, the stock answer to any question about how data was to get on and off the platform was: 'We'll use Link 16'. That view was somewhat altered once a quite excellent pair of young RAF aircrew came over to Fort Worth and told an agog LM Mission Systems team just how Link 16 operated in the real (NATO) world.

In my earlier post, I was trying (and not very well) to make the point that the whole point of MADL was to allow F-35s to move very large amounts of data around an F-35 formation. To some extent, the issue of how to reconcile physical bandwidth limitations with the ever increasing desire for more and more 'data' to be passed back to central commands is not one that F-35 could solve on its own.

I do know that data communications linkages were closely examined and modelled in the many sets of scenarios run in the US (and also the UK) during the build up to release of the JORD, which specified the required data linkages. Again, as far as I know, none of those comms/interoperability requirements were 'traded away' during development.

Sorry if my lack of knowledge here is too apparent,

Best regards as ever to those making the ones and zeroes move around,

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

Thanks, Engines. Yes, I agree entirely with your premise there. The only snag with the other comms is the stealth issue, which is MADL's niche. My interest here is how best to share the air picture which F-35 can build without many or any emissions without blowing the whole game. Perhaps under such circumstances they simply don't and just get on with their day one missions in isolation.

[ORAC]

Just to be explicit, to remain stealthy the F-35 cannot use use L16 in combat, which is a bit of a handicap. MADL currently has to use a gateway for communication with other platforms and HQs, and the US is investigating stand-alone airborne platforms (http://aviationweek.com/blog/talking-stealth-usaf-pushes-5th-4th-gateway), which is less than optimum - and not an option for many other customers.

The F-35 is planned to network MADL through satcom using MUOS. But that slipped to Block 4 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/satcom-snag-hits-jsf-networking-213131/) (one of the things the Norwegians need at their northerly elevation), but access to non-US customers is not guaranteed (http://spacenews.com/38051news-from-global-milsatcom-us-allies-access-to-muos-debated-after-north/).

So, at the moment, non-US customers will have an asset which when stealthy can only talk to other F-35s, and have no guaranteed path to achieve stealthy networked data communications.

[glad rag]

That is very interesting ORAC, thanks for sharing.





:}

[Radix]

...........

[Courtney Mil]

Agreed, Orac. That was my point entirely.

[KenV]

KenV,
I would like to point out a couple of things:
The development of the F-18 E/F did come from the earlier F-18 airframes. But, there were changes. The length increased 4 feet, the height by a 1 foot and the wing span by 4 feet (a new wing). The maximum gross take off weight increased by 14,100 pounds and the range increased by 200 miles.
Indeed. Which was exactly my point. When making changes to an existing mature product that effort is an ideal candidate for concurrent engineering. Yet even when doing a (seemingly) simple thing like scaling up an existing design, not everything scales well and brand new, completely unforeseen problems arise. Like the slots in the upscaled LEX causing transonic drag, and the wing fold mechanism causing stall issues. When the product is all new, there are far too many unforeseens and unknowns to enable concurrent engineering.

The F135 engine is a derivative engine from the F119 engine used on the F-22. The F135 engine is not a completely new from scratch engine. Indeed. But no one anywhere had ever modified ANY turbo fan engine to extract 15,000+ HP, and mechanically couple it to a lift fan. Nor had anyone anywhere ever built an airplane with a clutch that could reliably engage/disengage that level of power. Nor had anyone anywhere ever built an engine nozzle that could reliably swivel 90+ degrees. Nor had anyone anywhere ever integrated an engine with all the above plus roll control jets into a stealth platform. Nor had anyone anywhere ever built control software that controlled all the above, especially during the extremely critical transition from engine borne to wing borne flight. Not only are these all massive unknowns that do not lend themselves to concurrent engineering, no one anywhere had ever attempted to concurrently engineer all the above into an entirely new airplane with entirely new avionics that were themselves being concurrently engineered. Huge problems were essentially guaranteed.

[KenV]

Interesting point with regard to the $400,000 or so helmet. The helmet capability of launching high-off-bore-sight missiles is moot, because the F-35 is such an abysmal dogfighter and specifically designed to never be in that situation anyway. And if it carries the weapons for a dogfight (Aim 9X), it can't maneuver for it. Bit of a contradiction in the design.

$400,000 helmet on a F-35 is (partly) like throwing pearls to a pig?

Two comments:

1. The whole point of the helmet is being completely missed. The F-35 is the ONLY fighter that has spherical coverage in the RF and IR spectrum. A conventional HUD does great when all your sensors are optimized/limited to a narrow tunnel in the forward hemisphere. Making a HUD with spherical coverage (including backward and down) is literally impossible. The solution was a helmet that becomes a HUD with totally spherical (4Pi steradian) coverage. This enables the pilot to literally look down through the bottom of the airplane or backward through the engine and tail of the airplane and see (at both long and short range) EVERYthing that his sensors are seeing. That's why the F-35 has no HUD. And the helmet is integral to the ability of the avionics systems to display fused sensor data. That simply cannot be done on flat panels and HUDs in a single crew airplane. And BTW, has anyone priced a conventional holographic HUD lately? No you say? Well a holographic HUD costs only slightly less than the helmet system. So cost wise, its nearly a wash. Knocking the price of a helmet display is about as sensical as knocking the price of stealth. It's the cost of doing business in the modern world of air warfare. And calling it a "contradiction in design" indicates (please excuse my bluntness) a rather gross misunderstanding of the design.

2. Characterizing the F-35 as "such an abysmal dogfighter" is in my opinion both utterly false and hugely irresponsible. It's ONLY short coming is in close-in dogfight maneuverability which while not stellar, is far far far from "abysmal". And in every other realm of the dog fight it is stellar and if flown and fought properly, should enable the pilot to avoid the knife fight in a phone booth. Because no matter how stellar a close quarters knife fighter you are, such a fight is immensely dangerous and much better avoided in the first place. This is a lesson learned the hard way by the pilots of zero fighters well over half a century ago and a lesson many on this forum have apparently never learned.