F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by melmothtw; 4th Jul 2015 at 07:06.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
you have taken Borisov's comments about 'a squadron's worth' too literally.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
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.
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?
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?
Typerated,
Maybe chasing the wrong history. A short while ago we were treated to this,
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the hell has happened to this thread?
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$$). But then what bridged the gap between the two opinions was humor and it struck me, that is what is now missing.
Back then, 2010, the Navy version was questionable at best but humor dissipated the furor of conflicting opinions:
U.S. Navy testing back-up alternative for F-35 from latest Nimitz-class carrier
Certainly looks lightweight and somewhat stealthy with a simplified magic helmet, the weapons are neatly tucked away in his pockets (my attempt at humor).
And then there was the suggestion by:Finningley Boy
We should have taken his suggestion, by now the various PPRuNe experts would have been able to disassemble the purchased F-35 and fixed all the problems producing the best damn plane, ever. Or, it could have resulted upon reassembly in a one hump, two hump or three hump camel instead of a race horse without some intervening humor. Oh well, carry on…
After going back and reviewing the first 30 pages, it was both full of debated points (the F-35 is the best thing since sex and sliced bread or is an absolute expensive pile of sh$$). But then what bridged the gap between the two opinions was humor and it struck me, that is what is now missing.
Back then, 2010, the Navy version was questionable at best but humor dissipated the furor of conflicting opinions:
Originally posted by:Ian Corrigible
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.
Furthermore, we could have the right to have personalized messages carried on the airframe or something.
I don't understand how his statement can be true?
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.
Potential enemies are subject to the economic, time and design issues but more so. Not something to depend upon, admittedly.
Originally Posted by frost chamber
Easy enough to list I guess - F35B (with whatever limitations/shortcomings it has when fully operational), Type 45 / Aster, T26 / FLAADS, CIWS and softkill.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 5th Jul 2015 at 12:35.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.