F-35 Cancelled, then what ? [Archive] - Page 26

MSOCS

15th Jun 2015, 12:12

longer ron,

Getting the aircraft to RIAT this year is not about how many F-35B are flying in the USA (availability) or their current capabilities (usefulness). Again, I'm trying to politely suggest to you that it isn't the right comparison to make. I'm suggesting that the USMC putting in the same level of effort which they did for last year's [cancelled] appearance just isn't possible this year because their direction from on high is to focus entirely on IOC in Jul and nothing else.

The alternative situation - in that the USMC were unable to declare their IOC because they didn't put in place what they needed to in time, because they were providing aircraft, manpower and support to a trans-Atlantic trail for RIAT - would be a far more strategic failure than depriving a few thousand spotters the sight of the F-35B for an 8-minute display.

Personally, I would enjoy seeing an F-35B at RIAT this year but I also think that the decision to not expend effort on a month-long UK trip for 2 or 3 F-35Bs plus AAR plus maint/spt pers, thereby risking USMC IOC, is compelling and justified in the circumstances.

glad rag

15th Jun 2015, 13:10

Once again I feel compelled to press you on just what USMC IOT actually brings to the show.

sandiego89

15th Jun 2015, 13:23

longer ron: Non[e] of the F35 supporters seem to even question why the turkey has still not done a ski jump

I know nothing seems easy with the F-35, and yes the ski-jump will be a risk factor. I do agree that doing it sooner to check it off the list makes sense, but I really wonder if it will be somewhat of a non-event once it happens?

With the B having done over 100 flights off the flat deck on the USS WASP perhaps pressing the ramp mode button and thundering away will be no sweat. Yes I recognize there are software, landing gear, mode issues etc. that have not been verified on the ramp.

IIRC these aircraft have taken to the ramp: Sea Harrier, F-14 (with limitations), F-18, First Gen Harrier, Second Gen Harrier, Mig-29, Su-33, Su-25, S-3?, T-2, Tejas, J-15. I seem to recal E-2 was ruled out. Has Rafale?

Perhaps of interest- a US Air Force paper on ski jump analysis. F-4 Phantom ruled out, but others including F-16 and F-15 deemed OK- this was for a less extreeme, non navy type ramp.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a237265.pdf

Engines

15th Jun 2015, 14:22

Longer,

Perhaps I can help here. I have posted before on this.

The F-35B was required to be able to carry out a ski-jump, as set out in the JORD. However, this was a UK only requirement. Ski-jump was regarded as a low risk evolution, as most of the mode and flight control issues associated with the launch are similar to (but not the same as) those that have been wrung out for flat deck STOs. In fact, flat deck STOs are the more demanding of the two ship launch modes. So why, you're entitled to ask, haven't they done ski jumps yet?

My guess (and that's all it is) is that it's a result of the UK's decision in 2010 to abandon the F-35B and go for the C. I do know that ski jump trials were originally planned for around 2012, but as soon as the UK opted out of the B, this very probably removed the requirement for the ski-jump. LM and the DoD would have been very quick (understandably so) to remove any extraneous flight test requirements, so ski-jump tests were canned. However, the Pax River ski jump was built by mid 2012 - I would again guess that having committed the money, they went ahead and finished it just in case another export customer wanted the capability. (I could well be wrong here - just a guess, guys).

So, in 2012, the UK comes back and wants the F-35B UK requirements reinstated. Again, I'm not entirely surprised that amongst all the other test points requiring attention for the F-35B, ski jump launches were not way up the priority list on a crowded test plan. Perhaps that fact that the UK doesn't plan to embark the aircraft for some years yet has also influenced flight test planning.

There were a slew of reports in late February this year that ski jumps were on the agenda for the 'next round' of testing, so it should not be too far off. To repeat, gear loads are not an issue - the max rate VL poses by far the greatest strain on the legs and structure. Again, to reiterate - the F-35B gear is fundamentally different to (and much better for ski jumps) than the Harrier's 'bicycle' layout.

I agree with Sandie, I think ski-jumps should be a non-issue for the jet - but I also stress that thorough tests are required on land before the jet does it for real off a pitching and heaving deck.

Hope this helps

Best regards as ever to those working the ramp takeoffs - it will be the most operationally efficient and safest way to launch the jet at sea.

Engines

PhilipG

15th Jun 2015, 15:29

Picking up on Engines' helpful post, is the reason that launching off the ramp and SSL (Shipboard Short Landings) have not been tried yet a function of the UK Government's decision to change to the C and then back to the B?

What I am postulating is that when to achieve USMC IOC there was no need to tick the box that these two evolutions were possible with 2B software or 3i for that matter as the UK had switched to Cs that the subroutines that dealt with Ramps and SSL were not taken any further forward, if they were actually in the software? Let us hope that the required functionality is developed and appropriately tested in the road to 3F.

Could the reason that there will be no F35s, of any variety, flying to Europe this year be a function of two software problems? The ALICE software does not seem to be providing all the tools that it should at the moment and the 3i software cannot be said to have bedded down if 2B final build as I understand it has yet to be released. Developmental American aircraft with un signed off software displaying, in limited fashion, at European Air Show, could be considered an unacceptable risk by some of the organisers.

MSOCS

15th Jun 2015, 16:20

PhilipG,

Nothing to do with software AFAIK. My understanding is that the jets aren't coming due to Program priorities and effort at this particular time of this particular year. The right call in the circumstances. That news probably upsets the minority of UK tax payers who go to airshows but that's life. Oh, and the jets aren't the developmental ones; they are line aircraft running fully released software (vice test sw).

The reason SSL hasn't been tried is a function of an incomplete QE-Class carrier to complete it on. Those tests happen in 2018 or so, by which time Block 3F sw will hopefully be on the street.

PhilipG

15th Jun 2015, 16:43

MOSCS

I fully understand that the Bs are not coming to Europe due to the pressure on the B Fleet in achieving the first IOC of any of the F35 Variants.

My point was that with the pressure on the software development program, is the required software in the 2B version? No one has come out and said yes the software has been fully developed but not tested, nor has anyone come up and said, as the UK who wanted these evolutions decided to change to the C the reasonable decision was made to focus on Marine required functionality. So it might have slipped to 3F...

As regards SSL, is there a difference between the SL requirement that the USMC has and the length of a QEC class carrier, I do appreciate that surface friction comes into this as an undefined variable.

My other point was that I fail to see why LM and or the USAF do not feel it is appropriate to send some As over, unless they are worried about ALICE and the support issues this brings and the possibility that an aircraft with an un finalized version of the 3i software might not be acceptable for an aircraft displaying.

Philip

Not_a_boffin

15th Jun 2015, 16:58

As regards SSL, is there a difference between the SL requirement that the USMC has and the length of a QEC class carrier, I do appreciate that surface friction comes into this as an undefined variable.

Philip

AFAIK the SSL requirement is UK only, although the USMC may wish to try and exploit the capability when released.

However, given that the LHDs the marines expect to operate off are considerably shorter - and more to the point less beamy at the flightdeck, there tends to be a lot less room available for physical clearance. Air wake will also be different.

Lots of good reasons for the USMC not to want to try it on the ships they have access to.

sandiego89

15th Jun 2015, 17:01

Agreeing that RIAT 2015 does not have the same pull/desire as Farnborough.

Sending an "A" to RIAT does not make much sence, not yet anyway.

I bet Farnborough 2016 will be the major international show debut for the F-35. Although Paris 2015 might have been attractive in some regards, perhaps a UK venue is more appropriate, and perhaps desired by the UK contingent and contractors. I imagine all the stops will be pulled to get to static and flying birds there from the USA in 2016, even if thay have to go by an LHD (first trial deployment?). The First European assembled ones should also be available by then.

longer ron

15th Jun 2015, 17:49

Thanks for the replies guys - (the trouble is and we have discussed all these points before) I am not expecting any airshow appearances anytime soon :)
I however disagree that the non appearance is because of the IOC per se - the non appearance is because the 'B' has always been an extremely bad concept as an aircraft and LM have bitten off more than they can chew !Please do not think that I do not understand the hard work being put in by the engineers etc.
But so many years down the road this aircraft is still waist deep in the poo !
I can understand the reasons why no ski jump has been carried out but it might be naive to rely on it being problem free - the rest of the aircraft certainly has not been easy !

rgds LR

MSOCS

15th Jun 2015, 18:35

the non appearance is because the 'B' has always been an extremely bad concept as an aircraft and LM have bitten off more than they can chew !

That's not the reason and we'll just agree to disagree henceforth. A UK F-35B was a hair's width from taking off from the East Coast to come to the UK a year ago. The infamous engine component failure in the F-35A at Eglin grounded the entire fleet just before the team were about to set off. The crossing was cancelled while all F-35s sat on the ground and heads were scratched. How you can take that indisputable piece of evidence, yet cast it aside and present your own view of the "B" (as a whole entity!) being the reason for a UK no-show, is beyond my ability to fathom. The same no-show would have happened if we were buying/flying A or C models over. :ugh::ugh:

SRVL will drop and get tested in the real jet prior to, and during, QE Class ship trials in 2018.

Expect a UK F-35B at a UK airshow next year.

Davef68

15th Jun 2015, 19:07

Is ski-ramp take off not also a requirement for the Italian F-35Bs?

longer ron

15th Jun 2015, 19:50

Hi MSOCS

The same no-show would have happened if we were buying/flying A or C models over.

Absolutely agree :)

If the aircraft was not such a large pile of poo - it would not be so far behind schedule - not sure why you cannot understand that simple concept - happy to disagree in a friendly fashion :)

It is almost exactly 7 years since our old friend GT took the F35B on its maiden flight !

rgds LR

Engines

15th Jun 2015, 19:56

Dave,

Quite probably, and a good catch. I can say with certainty that it wasn't in the original JORD, but may well have been added when the Italians joined the programme, which was around 2002. The USN certainly provided the ramp profiles for the Spanish AV-8Bs and, I suspect, the Italians. Thank you for correcting my omission.

That would be a good explanation for why the ski jump at Pax went forward after the UK called 'halt' on STOVL in 2010.

Incidentally, the QEC has a UK designed ramp that is designed to optimise launch performance and minimise ramp loads, while meeting UK ski jump launch safety criteria (which aren't the same as those used of the USN ramps).

PhilipG, I'm sure I've posted on this before, but deck surface friction isn't an 'undefined variable'. It's a well known figure that can be produced and tested. Landing gear tests are carried out at a number of stages in aircraft development to ensure that braking distance charts provided to users are as accurate as possible, for both land and ship based operations.

Many thanks

Engines

sandiego89

16th Jun 2015, 02:19

longer ron: I am not expecting any airshow appearances anytime soon......the non appearance is because the 'B' has always been an extremely bad concept

But the B has flown at air shows. What do you can the Yuma airshow in February 2015? The F-35A is also slated for EAA Oshkosh in July 2015- arguably the most important show in the USA. https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-to-make-civil-airshow-debut-at-eaa-airventure unless something has changed.

I fully agree with MSCOS.

Just because it did not make it to your <insert name here> favorite show may not imply anything. Yes they tried real hard to make it to the UK last year, and it was a disappointment to all.

Link to the Yuma airshow demo here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygVlvlvnmTU

title 2015 MCAS Yuma Air Show - F-35B Lightning II Demo

Yes some called it a sedate demo, but note the very short STO, hover, pedal turns, rearward flight, etc. I still think it looks like the "trash bin lid" looks like it should rip off at any time... All this was done at a REAL AIRSHOW (just not "yours")

WhiteOvies

16th Jun 2015, 07:55

As is often the case Engines is spot on. The ramp at Pax was in place well before 2011 and the Italians have always been in the F-35B and Ski Jump game, hence no delay to the SW development and Italian Navy personnel embedded as part of the Integrated Test Force. We officially 'lost interest' in the F-35B in 2010 so the ramp testing moved to suit the Italian F-35B IOC profile while the UK put it's money and manpower into getting F-35C tested on EMALS to de-risk EMALS fitment on QEC (there is YouTube video featuring one of the RN maintainers involved in the EMALS testing).

Come 2012 and the switch back and the F-35B testing schedule was full, but as QEC wasn't going to be ready for First of Class Flying Trials until 2018 everyone agreed that 2015 was plenty soon enough.

Airshows have never been a priority for the F-35 programme, but last year was a great disappointment for the many people both Brits and Americans who worked extremely hard to make it happen. With a programme that everyone says is too expensive already, why waste the money, time and effort that could be better spent on training, testing and development? As MSOCS has said, missing the USMC IOC is not an option for the programme. Note that the I means Initial, FOC (as in Full Ooperational Capability) comes later. There are many programmes that come into service with a limited capability (Tornado F3 with Blue Circle or Typhoon without a cannon and LGB self designating capability anyone??) so why single out F-35?

US airshows even get a Sea Harrier demo... ;-)

ORAC

16th Jun 2015, 09:44

US airshows eeven get a Sea Harrier demo... ;-) Which is closer to a combat capability? :E:E

Engines

16th Jun 2015, 10:44

Whiteovies,

Thank you - as is often the case, the facts are much better than my somewhat out of date speculation. My bad for forgetting the Italian angle - thanks to everyone for being so understanding.

You make a good point about IOC/FOC et al. In my direct experience, these dates are usually massaged to a quite startling degree to 'achieve' dates set years before. Before people start weighing in on the F-35, watch out for glass houses.

In my direct experience, the UK are particularly prone to doing this. I can't name the aircraft, but I can absolutely assure everyone that there are aircraft that have been publicly declared as 'in operational service' with the RAF that are wholly incapable of carrying out any sort of 'operational' sortie that involves going in harms' way - which the taxpayer would reasonably expect. I'd love to see a more informed UK defence press exposing this sort of stuff, because it's simply rotten behaviour and puts our people at the front line in really bad positions.

Best regards as ever to those below the politics, but doing the really hard yards,

Engines

Hempy

16th Jun 2015, 11:40

Engines, with all due respect, none of the aircraft you 'haven't mentioned' has had a US$100million + price tag..

Engines

16th Jun 2015, 12:09

Hempy,

Sorry if I wasn't clear - but I was trying to make the point that IOC/FOC declarations are being 'massaged' (code for straight fibs) to avoid public scrutiny. I don't think the F-35 programme has been exactly hidden from view.

As far as cost goes, actually, I could (but can't) name one particular UK aircraft that was 'accepted' into service at an eventual price tag in excess of $100m a copy, with significant operational shortfalls.

To my (old and infirm) mind the issue isn't about which aircraft does what - it's the lack of proper scrutiny of our defence programmes in the UK that concerns me. I would offer the view that F-35 has had more scrutiny than any other military programme in history - as is quite right and proper given its significance and high cost.

Best regards as ever to those having to go with the flow,

Engines

Courtney Mil

16th Jun 2015, 12:37

Quite right, Engines. The F-35 programme has had a good deal of public air time. Some has been carefully stage managed, but there has been, probably, more publicity about this one than any previous programme I can recall. Not bad for the most challenging to date - although one could argue that each is more challenging than the last.

The F-35A is also slated for EAA Oshkosh in July 2015- arguably the most important show in the USA.

My bold.

Oshkosh is certainly very big, but it is still, essentially, true to its roots as a recreational aviation fly-in. Yes, lots of big and heavy hardware attend, but that hardly makes it the same sort of thing as, say, Farnborough or Paris when it comes to representing industry.

My only point point about going to Europe this year was that the programme could use some really good PR right now. Whilst a visit at this point may not win new orders, it couldn't do any harm in the minds of current customers and tax payers. A no show may not been seen as a negative in the same way that last years was, but there remains the inevitable subliminal message that it's not here again.

Yes, I get the reasons and the programme priorities. Those have been well explained here. The USMC declaring IOC will not have the same effect overseas, especially in view of the perception, as Engines rightly points out, that IOC does not always mean what it says on the tin.

Hempy

16th Jun 2015, 12:43

Engines. Fair enough, and for what it's worth it wasn't a personal 'go at you'. I guess my point is that that F-35 program is broader than those you mention, and involves some of us 'lesser lights', for richer or poorer. And down here, it's a concern..

see above ^^

MSOCS

16th Jun 2015, 12:50

Hempy, with all due respect to your statement:

Typhoon, at £73.2M per copy, is $114.47M (based on today's exchange rate)

Anyway you look at it, modern Fighter Programmes are big bucks and I echo Engines' sentiments about glass houses. The UK could seriously benefit from a fair amount of self-critique in this regard.

Let's get the facts straight before slinging arrows no?

Hempy

16th Jun 2015, 13:00

MSOCS, if they weren't all in one quiver I'd agree with you, but when you are placing all of your eggs in one basket like never before it's a different kettle..

glad rag

16th Jun 2015, 13:03

You just gotta love the information conduit that this thread so aptly demonstrates...

.:ok:

Snafu351

16th Jun 2015, 13:08

Typhoon is twin engine, with rather a lot more flexibility and usefulness than the F35.
The twin engine fact is going to make it more expensive than a single.
The real headline here is that a single engine, limited (single?) role platform is almost as expensive as a twin, multirole platform.

(Yes there are slightly contentious elements to the above ;))

Courtney Mil

16th Jun 2015, 13:17

Anyway you look at it, modern Fighter Programmes are big bucks and I echo Engines' sentiments about glass houses. The UK could seriously benefit from a fair amount of self-critique in this regard.

As I stated before, this programme has been well-aired and, consequently, is bound to draw more interest and discussion.

I think we need to be careful about the "glass houses" line because it can start to sound a bit like, "Well, all the other programmes had difficulties, why shouldn't this one?" But the point is still valid.

MSOCS

16th Jun 2015, 13:26

So many metaphors, I don't know where to start!

Right now the egg basket is planned to have two varieties (or there are two baskets, you choose!); Typhoon and F-35B. That has always been the strategy for the RAF - now for the RN, it will only have F-35B so IF the Program were to fail catastrophically, we would be left with nothing to put aboard QEC. If that was likely, I'd agree with your sentiment. But IMHO I don't see that happening.

Engines

16th Jun 2015, 14:00

Hempy,

My sincere apologies if you thought I took your post as a 'go' at me. I certainly didn't.

I was definitely a 'lesser light' all my career, and was always totally committed to delivering the best kit as soon as practicable to the people at the front line. I really do understand why people are concerned. They should be. I am too. But one thing that really gets my ulcers achin' (to quote the estimable Grampaw Pettibone) is seeing people claim credit (and receive reward) for delivering kit to squadrons that can't actually go to war, and claiming 'IOC'. Even worse, the problems are just shovelled on to the front line to sort out. I've been there, worn the T-shirt, eat the s**t. It ain't right, and I wish that the UK press would get it out there.

MSOCS - my (perhaps longer range, i.e. from an older fart) view - the RAF plan was, until not that long ago (2000), 'Typhoon plus a new UK developed stealth Tornado replacement'. They only bought into what was the RN FCBA programme once it was clear that getting the full '232 Typhoon' buy through SDR98 had swallowed so much money that a new UK financed strike aircraft was out of the question.

At that point, FCBA became FJCA and the current games commenced.

For my own part, I honestly believe that the UK's defence interests would best be served by a mixed buy of F-35As and F-35Bs, with RAF commanded As doing the land based stuff and RN commanded Bs doing the stuff at sea. Common training and support systems would help keep costs down. But hey, I'm not trying to square the budgets,

Best Regards as ever to those who are,

Engines

Thelma Viaduct

16th Jun 2015, 14:21

The Navy should have bought the latest F-18 varient and a carrier with 'cats and traps', then palmed the F-18s off to the RAF once JSF is serviceable and ready to buy with capability, say 10 years from now.

The future of strike is going to be UAV based, catapults and arrestor gear will be a necessity not an option. Not to mention all the other fixed winged assets that could use a proper carrier.

Short sighted muppets pulling the strings.

glad rag

16th Jun 2015, 14:37

Short sighted muppets pulling the strings.

Depends on who the muppets actually were, :suspect::suspect: no doubt easily sorted by a public enquiry into the WHOLE affair....:}

Courtney Mil

16th Jun 2015, 14:39

PIious,

The "should have" arguments are a bit moot now. Engine's A/B mix would have been a good one too. But we are here now and there is no going back, as we have discussed in the last X pages (where X is a large number).

I'm not quite sure that the F-18 is quite what the RAF needs as a Tornado replacement. As I have opined before, I suspect there may be measures ahead that makes Typhoon the Tornado replacement - sooner than we all may have liked. With B and Typhoon on line, there won't be an RAF market for Super Bug. Sorry about that.

P.S. Maybe there's a future for you as a second hand car salesman. :ok:

P.P.S. Glad Rag, I like the way you're thinking. An inquiry would fix everything. :E

glad rag

16th Jun 2015, 14:44

Rumours that Germany "is about" to ground Typhoon due to the 3000 hr stopgap not being approved.....dem holes dem holes dem BIG holes...:ugh:

No smoke without fire, HEY it is the F35 thread after all........................

Thelma Viaduct

16th Jun 2015, 17:47

Courtney Mil,

On the contrary matey boy, I can see requiring a back seater (F/A-18G) for deep strike UCAS missions being a likely RAF requirement in say 10 years time, along with carrier borne UCAS assets, also takes some burden away from the then overstretched Typhoon force. Bit of a no brainer, you'd make a good snake oil salesman btw.

Think of it as a modern day Buccaneer in Iraq scenario. Honk honk.

Courtney Mil

16th Jun 2015, 20:49

"Matey boy"? As you were, Pious!

Yes, your sales pitch is perfect, but we ain't going to have navs in fast jets much longer, or in anything come to that. If things were different I'm sure that would be a great idea.

Now, how are we going to get from where we are to where you're suggesting?

O-P

16th Jun 2015, 21:19

Why bother with an F/A18 fix when you could have a two seat Typhoon with CFTs. We haven't got the Navs, so it doesn't really matter!

I just read an article, can't remember where, that the SuperBug can't use the Ford class carrier if loaded with external stores. It appears that the EM C'pult is so powerful that it wrecks the pylons. That'll be a cheap fix...NOT.

Courtney Mil

16th Jun 2015, 21:29

Big fuel penalty with two seat Typhoon. Better to put the CFTs on the aircraft as it was designed. When I was the EF man at AWC, I had to fight very hard to stop VSOs, who did not understand the issues, from trying to turn it into a two seat jet. I would loved to have had a two seat, long range version, but without another redesign in a four nation consortium the only way to do it would have been to take fuel out to put a seat in.

That is why the two-seat version was not considered an operational model.

O-P

16th Jun 2015, 22:14

It was written with a hint of irony! However, the F is about 440kgs short on the E.

Courtney Mil

16th Jun 2015, 22:41

Bigger delta with the Typhoon, especially if you want to build an operational model.

Kubarque

17th Jun 2015, 11:52

Forgive, if this has already been posted.

Air Force, Marines Cancel F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/06/air-force-marines-cancel-f-35-joint-strike-fighter/)

It seems applicable to the thread :eek:

Duffelblog is always a good read.

sandiego89

17th Jun 2015, 13:32

O-P I just read an article, can't remember where, that the SuperBug can't use the Ford class carrier if loaded with external stores. It appears that the EM C'pult is so powerful that it wrecks the pylons. That'll be a cheap fix...NOT.

Perhaps you were referring to this?:

New catapults need fix to launch jets with fuel pods (http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/03/27/emals-external-fuel-tanks-jets-ford-cvn/70508062/)

Actually reading the article indicates it will be a software adjustment. Sounds like they identifed an issue with the big tanks during testing at Lakehurst- exactly why you do testing. I am sure the EMALS will take some tweaking. All catapults are designed to launch a variety of jets at a variety of speeds and weights.

"The Navy understands the issue, views it as low technical risk, and has a funded plan in place to fix it," he said. "The resolution of this issue is straight-forward because the Navy will leverage this inherent capability of the system to tune the catapult forces for these wing tank configurations. There is no impact to ongoing shipboard installation or shipboard testing and this will not delay any CVN 78 milestones."

"No additional hardware or changes to equipment already installed will be required. Similarly, aircraft will not require modification."

I read it more as dialing things in, not as a showstopper, and hardly "superbug can't use Ford class...." panic.

Ford class is quite a big leap in some areas. Arrersting gear issue sounds more troublesome....

Kubarque- Duffelblog is always a good read.

Maybe, but not everyone knows it is a "joke"/satire site....

Vzlet

17th Jun 2015, 14:12

This article (http://www.sldinfo.com/mag-31-in-transition-the-warlords-at-beaufort/) gives a glimpse of USMC (and RAF) progress in integrating F-35 operations with legacy 4th and 5th generation aircraft.

Maus92

17th Jun 2015, 23:21

SLD Info is an organization funded by Lockheed Martin. Stories generated by that site need to be viewed with that in mind.

KPax

18th Jun 2015, 09:56

Just seen an article in an online magazine called 'Duffelblog' that the USMC and USAF are going to announce the cancellation of their orders for the F35.

The Helpful Stacker

18th Jun 2015, 10:27

Just seen an article in an online magazine called 'Duffelblog' that the USMC and USAF are going to announce the cancellation of their orders for the F35.

You know that Duffleblog is a satirical news site right? This said though, they often sail very close to the truth...

Courtney Mil

18th Jun 2015, 12:05

KPax,

How odd that it appeared in Duffelblog, but hasn't been in any of the nationals, on the BBC or anywhere else of consequence. I can't work that out!

KPax

18th Jun 2015, 12:14

Maybe it was a 'rumour', strange that it should appear on this site.

ORAC

18th Jun 2015, 12:31

Very much an Onion type sarcastic piece. But, You know that Duffleblog is a satirical news site right? This said though, they often sail very close to the truth...

So true.... :\:\

Duffel Blog: Air Force, Marines Cancel F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/06/air-force-marines-cancel-f-35-joint-strike-fighter/)

andyy

18th Jun 2015, 13:23

By Pious Pilot:

"The Navy should have bought the latest F-18 varient and a carrier with 'cats and traps', then palmed the F-18s off to the RAF once JSF is serviceable and ready to buy with capability, say 10 years from now.

The future of strike is going to be UAV based, catapults and arrestor gear will be a necessity not an option. Not to mention all the other fixed winged assets that could use a proper carrier.

Short sighted muppets pulling the strings."

The RN and French Navy should probably have both bought the F18 and the French could then have joined a land centric Eurofighter programme.

All academic now.

Courtney Mil

18th Jun 2015, 14:09

Why would France want to rejoin any Eurofighter programme, especially as they have Rafale?

glad rag

18th Jun 2015, 14:28

The future of strike is going to be UAV based,interesting concept-no human in the loop mega-destruction.. :hmm:

umH0ZpLaAwI

No I don't think strike is going unmanned any time soon....

andyy

18th Jun 2015, 14:53

CM, I was referring to the past, and when France spilt from the Eurofighter programme.

Courtney Mil

18th Jun 2015, 15:01

Ah, I see, Andyy. Maybe the UK should have gone with Rafale, then.

I can't believe I said that.

Just This Once...

19th Jun 2015, 12:56

First UK weapon dropped - PWIV:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzlNg1qNfqM#t=16

sandiego89

19th Jun 2015, 18:39

Just This Once
First UK weapon dropped - PWIV

Thanks Just, youtube blocked at my present computer, so had to look it up:

2 inert Paveways IV dropped from a "B" flying from Patuxent River with a UK pilot.

SEAPOWER Magazine Online (http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20150619-paveway.html)

KPax

19th Jun 2015, 19:44

downsizer

19th Jun 2015, 19:50

LowObservable

20th Jun 2015, 06:21

The outcome is hardly surprising since A-10s don't even have a missile warning system, and were never intended to engage fighters, and USAF F-16s have rather primitive MWS and RWR and no active EW. There is no mention of whether F-15 or Growler cover was provided. If not, the jets were sitting ducks in a scenario that only a lunatic would plan.

Nonetheless this exercise was set up and given unusual publicity at a point where, by total coincidence, the USAF is trying to ditch the A-10 and use its people to support F-35.

No shenanigans here, I'm sure.

orca

20th Jun 2015, 06:47

So, whilst shenanigans may have been in progress, your point is that neither A-10 nor F-16 can operate in a contested environment and require OCA and SEAD, or things get a little unfair..whilst F-35 doesn't?

LowObservable

20th Jun 2015, 07:51

It would depend on the threat, but clearly there are wide range of RF-guided systems that would be dangerous against a USAF F-16 or A-10. Fighters with better self-protection would be different.

Also, different ground situations and weather would affect the F-35's ability to avoid ground fire. Static or slow targets and clear skies, plus RoEs that allow high-altitude releases with the rather dated midwave-only EOTS.

MSOCS

20th Jun 2015, 17:55

orca

:D:D:D

LowObservable

21st Jun 2015, 07:59

Nice emoticons, MSOCS, but are we now celebrating as a grand success the fact that there are some scenarios where F-35s survive and 40-plus year old designs do not?

It would have been a little catastrophic were that not the case.

I would hold the triumphant notes until I knew what the threat was, RoEs &c. Was it 2020s or basic Cold War surplus - MiG-29S/Su-27, Buk-2M &c? Absolutely crucial factors.

Engines

23rd Jun 2015, 07:56

Just thought I'd mention, given the relatively recent conversation about the lack of F-35B ski jumps, that the first F-35B ski jumps took place on 19th June. Link here:

https://vimeo.com/lmaeronautics/review/131439135/07c088ad82

Best Regards as ever to those doing the test stuff:

Engines

Not_a_boffin

23rd Jun 2015, 09:09

But......but......but......but...

Overland........wrong colour skijump......sunny day.......aliens

but......but......must be a fake........we're doomed!!!

LowObservable

23rd Jun 2015, 09:17

Let's not have this devolve into yet another "the naysayers said it would never happen" meme, please.

John Farley

23rd Jun 2015, 09:59

Generally I don’t mind naysayers at all provided they have the education and experience to understand what they are talking about and explain why they hold their view. Sadly several here do not.

Re ski-jumps, it does not take much thought to realise that the ramp delivers any aircraft into free air in a nose up attitude and climbing. This saves the pilot having to arrange all of this when departing from the flat. Indeed back in 1977 when the boffins thought I was exaggerating how easy a jump was compared to a flat takeoff, I gave them the next record with a straight line on the tailplane and aileron traces for 35 secs after crossing the end. At the debrief they showed me the traces and apologised for the instrumentation drop out on the tailplane and aileron channels. I said “It was not a drop out I was not touching the stick - can you have a lower workload than doing nothing?”

John Farley

23rd Jun 2015, 10:19

t43562

23rd Jun 2015, 11:04

I'm sure this is a stupid question, but why not use ramps on land?

Courtney Mil

23rd Jun 2015, 11:28

They do. Didn't you watch the video? :E

Maybe the real answer is, you can, but there's more space available for a runway of proper dimensions.

ORAC

23rd Jun 2015, 12:11

Handy for take-off on runway 04; but a bit of a bummer on finals for runway 22......

Courtney Mil

23rd Jun 2015, 12:24

Unless you match your approach angle to the ramp. It flares for you.

Just This Once...

23rd Jun 2015, 12:30

Incidentally, if you look at any video of a B flat deck takeoff and watch the tailplane activity crossing the end and compare that with the tailplane activity off the ski-jump you will notice that even modern flight control systems find life easier from a ramp.

True but the engine side of the control system on the B is working pretty hard - just look at the thrust vectoring nozzle dancing around.

Courtney Mil

23rd Jun 2015, 12:41

Really, JTO? In the clip that Engines posted? Not sure I can see any movement. Or are you talking flat take offs?

Just This Once...

23rd Jun 2015, 12:50

Yep, visible in that clip on the first take-off.

Dan Dare

23rd Jun 2015, 13:04

the engine side of the control system on the B is working pretty hard - just look at the thrust vectoring nozzle dancing around

Not dancing around, more puckering prior to piloting :eek:

dat581

23rd Jun 2015, 13:37

Courtney Mil

23rd Jun 2015, 13:50

I thought the USMC had decided that ops from the smaller decks were to be VTO and VL - not much room for anything else. Where there's space, the flat TO is fine. USN will have proper carriers and no need for ramps.

The snag with a demountable ramp may be the fact that it's curved. If you could lower it, you'd be left with a big dip in the deck. And what would you do with that deck space if it's going to be needed again for the next launch. Mind you, International Rescue had a retractable ramp for Thunderbird 2, so it must be possible.

PhilipG

23rd Jun 2015, 14:26

Good to see an F35B taking off in a very easy looking way from a ramp, it proves that the software can support taking off on a ramp, a positive move forward.

Courtney you could always have your ramp supported by jacks so that it can be a ramp for F35s and a flat deck from MV 22s...

Engines

23rd Jun 2015, 14:39

Courtney, Dat, JTO, DD,

Perhaps I can help out a bit here. What I can't do is improve on JF's succinct and 'spot on' comments about ski jump takeoffs. They are, by some distance, the lowest workload way of getting a combat jet into the air. The flat STO presented many more challenges to the F-35B team, and the lack of aft control surface movement shows how straightforward the evolution is.

However, it's a lot more than 'straightforward'. It's a little surprising, given that this is a pilots' forum, how few people mention the significant advantages it delivers. Firstly, operational: the ski jump will allow the F-35B to launch on task with at least another ton and a half of fuel and/or weapons. That's a ton (or two) of pure military goodness. Secondly, safety. As JF points out, the aircraft leaves the jump nose up and climbing without the pilot having to do anything. If anything does go wrong, the pilot has many more precious seconds to dump stores/jump out. At night, or in bad weather, or from a pitching deck, that's also a lot of goodness.

I do understand why some posters think this looks like a 'pucker' heavy evolution, but it's really, honestly, not. Every Harrier pilot I worked with said that it was a complete non-event. What's really amazing is that these gains come without penalty to the aircraft, which is fairly rare. The Harrier needed no mods to do ski jumps, save extra servicing checks on the nose leg. The F-35B has needed none. The flat deck STO drove the design, the ski jump came basically free.

Oh, and don't forget that it's another brilliantly simple and effective naval aviation idea from the UK's Fleet Air Arm. Respect.

JTO: Yes, the aft nozzle is definitely moving. I am not familiar these days with the F-35B control laws. but I would guess that what is happening here is that the aft nozzle is being left as far 'up' as possible to get to ramp exit speed in the shortest time (and distance), then programmed 'down' after ramp exit to support the 'fly away' profile. The Harrier did this manually, with the pilot selecting nozzles down to an adjustable 'STO stop' as it neared the ramp exit. F-35B does this for him/her.

For those that might not be familiar with the way a ski jump STO works, the key thing to 'get' is that the aircraft leaves the ramp BELOW flying speed. So the rate of climb starts to decay after ramp exit, depending on how much wing lift and jet lift is being provided. However, the aircraft is still climbing. As it accelerates, wing lift increases and jet lift can be reduced by altering the angle of the propulsion system's nozzles. At some point after ramp exit, the aircraft reaches an 'inflexion point', and the rate of climb starts to increase again. That distance between the end of the ramp and the 'inflexion point' is essentially a 'free runway in the sky' - around 1 to 1.5 km, depending on launch weight, temperature and other factors. That 'free runway' delivers the payload improvement.

The UK legacy performance limit for Harrier ski jump STOs was a minimum ROC of 400 feet per minute at the 'inflexion point'. Other nations have different limits.

A powered lift aircraft can 'schedule' (adjust) wing and jet lift so as to maximise the payload that can be delivered from the ramp. It can also be controlled well below wing borne flying speeds. Unfortunately, conventional aircraft can't do either of these. They have to launch at a speed at which they can fly controllably on wing lift alone. Their only option (with all thrust already applied) to arrest ROC decay is to apply more pitch, which increases drag, which slows the aircraft, which.....you probably get the picture. That's why the STOBAR option, being used by the Chinese and others, is, in my view, always going to be severely limited in effective payload.

Good questions on USN/USMC non-use of the ramp. The answer I always got was that the operational concept for the 'Gators' was a mixed air wing, with the requirement to carry out mass helicopter launches driving the flight deck layout. I know for a fact that many USMC aviators would love to have a ramp for F-35B. They aren't at all hard to fit, and ship handling wasn't affected. The loss of the most forward spot was not a problem for the UK - in any case, trying to operates helicopters from '1 Spot' in anything more than light airs was, in my experience, a bit of a mare. However, I gladly cede to the USMC, who know what they want.

However, there is no doubt that for a given deck (or say, a short expeditionary runway) a ski jump gives improved combat efficiency plus safer operations.

It's interesting that with the advent of the MV-22, short rolling takeoffs (STOs) are being considered as a standard shipboard operating procedure. Perhaps they could use a ramp as well?

Hope this lot of drivel helps - I'm always happy if it fills in any (quite understandable) gaps in some posters' knowledge. After all, that's what a 'forum' is supposed to do.

LO, I hope this isn't a 'meme' - whatever that is.

Best regards as ever to the clever folk who think up this sort of stuff,

Engines

Davef68

23rd Jun 2015, 15:39

Engines,

Does that change in aft nozzle position account for the slight upwards pitch of the nose just after the a/c goes off the ramp?

John Farley

23rd Jun 2015, 16:09

Dave

Perhaps the pilot even forgot himself and interfered in order to exactly perfect the AOA for climb out......

Engines

23rd Jun 2015, 16:17

Dav,

I honestly don't know. However, my best guess (but warning - this IS a guess) is that the aircraft flight controls are designed to get the aircraft to the optimum pitch angle as soon as possible after launch for the 'fly away' - this is a fairly low speed launch, I'd guess (again) at relatively low weight, so the exit speed will be low, giving a low pitch rate at exit.

My guess, therefore, is that what you have noted is the flight control system 'capturing' the aircraft pitch angle - as I understand it, the pilot has no direct control over pitch angle in the powered lift mode - this is all controlled by the computers. However, the pitch angle would be driven by the desired flight path commanded by the pilot.

At no time will I presume to know more than a hundredth of what John Farley knows, though.

Best Regards to all,

Engines

Courtney Mil

23rd Jun 2015, 16:46

Thanks, Engines. An excellent post as always. Yes I do understand the advantages of a ramp, some of my stuff here was a bit flippant. In fact there are even more advantages than you mention. One of the few things I recall from Officer Training was a five minute lecture given by one of my classmates explaining the vectors involved. I recall it was the five minute talk that delayed the whole day because of the interest and questions it provoked. That makes me an expert, by the way:ok:

As our previous generation of through deck cruisers clearly demonstrated, it is the way forward. And now, no one can argue that F-35 cannot do it.

longer ron

23rd Jun 2015, 16:55

hey - a ski jump at last :)

Now all they have to do is prove the heavier AUW take offs and the hundred other serious problems with the aircraft and it will be a winner LOL

MSOCS

23rd Jun 2015, 19:30

Nice video footage.

Well done to the Pax folks and all the people working long hours getting through these test points. BZ!

Davef68

23rd Jun 2015, 20:33

NOted by BAESYSTEMS that the pilot was Peter Wilson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5LdkPaERhI

Not_a_boffin

23rd Jun 2015, 21:50

I wonder why the US Navy and USMC have studiously avoided any form of ramp for their amphibious carriers. I've read several reasons such as a ramp affects the ships handing or the loss of deck space is unacceptable etc. Surely some bright spark could come up with a portable ramp that can be dropped/moved once the Harriers/F-35s have launched?

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/08/10080101.jpg

Because the 30+ m of ramp doesn't just lose number 1 spot, it hems in the aircraft deck park forward, see phot for details. On a ship with 33m beam at the flightdeck, losing half that forward for a ramp means chaos for the handlers.

A moveable ramp that'll support a 25te cab with an entry speed of 80kts or so and remain reliable and bug-free when subjected to salt-water, being goffered, and little or no maintenance will not be cheap or simple.

Courtney Mil

23rd Jun 2015, 22:54

Such a complex and expensive solution to such a primitive question, i.e. to blow up the enemy. Such a curious, insatiable and violent species we humans are. Oh well..

Oh, thank God you came here and commented. Now you've said that I feel terrible about my military past. I must recant. Wait, what am I going on a Military Aviation site?

Oh thank you Evans for saving me.

Hempy

24th Jun 2015, 03:12

It's ok CM, perhaps it'll make him feel better when someone uses one of those complex and expensive solutions to prevent him from being blown up..

John Farley

24th Jun 2015, 13:11

Engines

so the exit speed will be low, giving a low pitch rate at exit

Interesting point that you mentioned about pitch rate at ramp exit.

The fact that the ramp induces a pitch rate on the aircraft really made me lose the plot when I was first asked my opinion about Doug Taylor’s idea for a ramp take off for the Harrier back in 1976. I had just walked into my office after a couple of weeks with the USMC watching them fly from an LPD. On several of their STOs the pilots had the stick pinned on the forward stop for a couple of seconds trying to control a pitch-up as they entered the upflow of air that is ahead of any ship’s bow (which was increasing their AoA). So when the Kingston performance man rang me up to tell me about this ramp idea, the poor (good) bloke got the full benefit of my jetlag plus a real earfull about adding pitch rate to an aircraft which already had inadequate controllability off a flat deck.

However the next day after a bit of thought it was clear there were many advantages to the ramp idea if we improved longitudinal control. In the event further thought made it clear that after the nose wheel left the ramp the aircraft had a split second or two with the main wheels still on the ramp and pushing like mad up behind the CG. A couple of sums suggested this effect would just zero the ramp induced pitch rate on the aircraft. Since there is an aeronautical god that is indeed how it worked out. Bottom line – higher weights and higher speeds did not give (Harrier) greater pitch rates at launch, because as speed increased up the ramp the g also increased and in turn increased the nose down moment in play after the nose wheel left the ramp.

Clearly for any given type the issue is gear position/CG position/longit inertia related but the sums are not rocket science. Dunno about the B but I am sure plenty do.

t43562

24th Jun 2015, 17:27

Another dumb question: what would make a ski jump/ramp (a longer gentler one) not work for a larger aircraft e.g. length of an a380 roughly?

I admit it's straying offtopic but there is a reason for asking. I'm thinking of a huge vehicle which needs a 5.5km long, reinforced runway to take off and I'm wondering if e.g. a jump of some kind might make that runway 1/5 less expensive to build (assuming the jump itself wasn't inordinately expensive to build). The normal takeoff speed would be m0.5. My very dodgy arithmetic says the thrust/weight ratio would be about 0.26 at sea level.

I imagine there are other considerations like extra space for aborting or whatever that might make it all pointless but I'm interested most in just whether it's ridiculous (of course it is) and roughly why.

Courtney Mil

24th Jun 2015, 18:13

It may well work, t43562. But I have to ask an equally numb question. Why would we need to do that?

John Farley

24th Jun 2015, 18:48

There would be no theoretical problem to scaling the ramp principle. The practical issues of a large size one are another matter obviously.

However to obtain any real benefit in respect of reduced take off distance when using a ramp you need two things:

1 A flight control system that enables attitude control at speeds well below the normal aerodynamic stall for the aircraft concerned.

2 A minimum thrust weight ratio of around .85 to .9 so that during the limited flight time the ramp gives you (when lift is less than weight) you can accelerate quickly to where the wings alone will let you fly before your vehicle subsides back to the ground.

Sorry – a T/W of .25 would rule out any real advantage

t43562

24th Jun 2015, 20:43

Many, many thanks :-) I was sure it was not sensible but it's very unsatisfying to have no idea of why. I was thinking of the Skylon single stage to orbit vehicle.

MrSnuggles

25th Jun 2015, 21:35

First, as a Swede, I emphatically encourage everyone to get at least one JAS Gripen. That would be The Best!

Second, I have seen some news about this giant dropped ball that is F-35. Last programme was from Fifth Estate (Canadian). Why are y'all keep funding something that might pan out in 30 years or so, when we already had wonderful, brilliant innovations like the B-2, the Blackbird and Nimrod to name just a few amazing aircraft.

It feels like someone is trying to re-invent the wheel but failing miserably.

Oh and BTW, get a Gripen!

;)

CoffmanStarter

25th Jun 2015, 22:02

If you throw in a couple of cases of Swedish Vodka ... You could have a deal :ok:

draken55

25th Jun 2015, 22:03

MrSnuggles

We do have a Gripen!

http://www.etps.qinetiq.com/school/fleet

sandiego89

26th Jun 2015, 13:19

t43562: ......a huge vehicle which needs a 5.5km long, reinforced runway to take off and I'm wondering if e.g. a jump of some kind might make that runway 1/5 less expensive to build.....

Also remember that aircraft needs a place to land, so you still need a longish runway. And you usually want to take off into the wind, so you would need multiple ski jumps. And you dont want a ski jump in the middle of your landing run :ooh: .......

So good application for non-catapult equipped aircraft carriers, and perhaps a one off very heavy aircraft like a single stage to orbit arcraft, but limited utilty for say an airliner.

MrSnuggles

26th Jun 2015, 18:34

Coffman

You could have as much vodka as you'd need in a lifetime if it was up to me! :ok: The Gripen (translation: Griffin) is really an amazing airplane for European needs. I am sad that the US bribed Norway to buy their plane instead - that was a stab in the back from our dear neighbour. US always want huge planes - Europe is so condensed we really don't have use for them unless we need to go to Mongolia for whatever reason. Oh well, I could talk for hours about this... ;)

draken55

Those are some beautiful pictures! Glad to see someone outside Sweden knows JAS Gripen exists!

One more fantastic airplane I forgot in my list of wonderful innovative and truly special planes I think we could rebuild and retrofit (no need to reinvent the wheel methinks) is the Harrier. Apparently hard to fly (obviously I have only seen those on TV) but an amazing feat of engineering and sadly underestimated. The VTOL is just mindblowing, really. British aerospace companies did a fantastic job in developing the Harrier! (And the Vulcan: a beauty with a horrifying sound, I would be scared ****less just from the howl itself...)

Aaaaanyway, this would be the end of my threadjack. The F-35 is a big clunk of expensive mess that I wonder what it is trying to achieve. Usually when you want it all, you end up with a pile of garbage. I thought this lesson had been learned already but I must have misunderstood things.

rh200

26th Jun 2015, 21:53

So good application for non-catapult equipped aircraft carriers

Also handy when your runway can be tuned into the wind:p

Lima Juliet

26th Jun 2015, 21:58

MrSnuggles

We do have a Gripen!

http://www.etps.qinetiq.com/school/fleet

Particularly enjoyed the picture of the Tornado F3 on the ETPS website labelled Tornado GR4!!! :ugh:

LJ

typerated

27th Jun 2015, 00:09

I agree Mr S.

I think your product will sell more and more over the coming decade.
A lot of countries cannot afford F-35 (or Typhoon) and there are very few alternatives in the west - Rafale or Gripen.

I somehow think that Rafale will not sell that well after this current blip of orders.

It is a shame many countries are not forward looking enough to see what they will end up buying, band together and drive the price of Gripen down.

I find Boeing looking at offering a lite version of Gripen for the TX contract very interesting. If it did come to fruition could anyone imagine ANG F-16s being replaced by a US built Gripens rather than F-35?

Wander00

27th Jun 2015, 07:48

That must be almost the best reason to go to ETPS - fly a float plane...........OK, just dreamimg

glad rag

27th Jun 2015, 10:13

F-35 Unscathed by Hostile Fire in Green Flag, says Aviation Week.
Not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the joint-force Green Flag exercises testing the jet and its pilots’ prowess operating it in a contested air-support role in the Western U.S. this month, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Cameron Dadgar, head of the exercise and leader of the 549th Combat Training Sqdn. at Nellis AFB, Nevada. This is notable because A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions, operating in an environment with hostile aircraft, just another rumour to mull over.

Have another one.

According to Russia's Western Military District spokesman, Col. Oleg Kochetkov, the district will receive an unspecified number of advanced S-400 Triumf and Pantsir-S air defense systems by the end of 2015.
Read more: Russia to Deploy S-400 Air Defense Systems Near Western Borders by End 2015 / Sputnik International (http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150625/1023839025.html#ixzz3eFtksIdH)

USMC IOC mid 2015?

Well what’s the betting ^they^ go nowhere near any kind of "threat"?

Cue "those in the know" :rolleyes: that operating the USMC F35B in such an environment is outwith the initial IOC parameters as [insert BS line here] and unrepresentative bla,bla...

:ugh:

orca

27th Jun 2015, 12:56

But we agree, don't we, that legacy fighters cannot exist in the threat environment currently fielded. So I assume all F-35 knockers are also content that manned aircraft are no longer viable on the high end battlefield?

As drones haven't made anywhere near the impact they were supposed to - it seems they've done the straight forward long persistence stuff but not anything requiring high performance or high end weaponry, one assumes that the SAM has won full stop.

Not to worry. AT and ISTAR should keep us busy enough. Potentially SH as well but the cushion layer is certainly getting more fruity as time goes by.

Maus92

27th Jun 2015, 12:58

Wouldn't be interesting if Boeing acquired Saab AB? Keeps their fingers in the fighter market once the F-18 line closes, and bridges to the F/A-XX competition.

glad rag

27th Jun 2015, 18:24

Lima Juliet

27th Jun 2015, 18:43

Then what? Buy Indian, obviously! Just hope it has better build quality than a Royal Enfield!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB73FdERNBA

Skijump and traps is all that is required and BAESYSTEMS already have a deal with HAL who make the LCA Tejas as seen in the video.

Simples...

LJ :ok:

glad rag

27th Jun 2015, 21:11

Impressive Leon.

MSOCS

28th Jun 2015, 14:58

orca

28th Jun 2015, 16:25

MSOCS,

You obviously haven't read the ROE. This aircraft is not F-35 so is therefore to be applauded for every advance it makes no matter how incremental and however many questions it creates. The two you cite aren't a bad starter...how does it stop might be another. (Hooks and wires are apparently dead easy to design, operate, catch and maintain so maybe not).

Nonetheless - great to see another nation serious about the sea base and all it brings. Better still to see a FRS MK51 (stand by to be corrected) sneak in!

MSOCS

28th Jun 2015, 17:24

I'd assumed that they'd completely nailed the stopping game.

That landing gear doesn't look very suitable for the job though.....but then who am I to dare make a comment on such things.

I guess I'll have to just stick to my comfy armchair, slippers, and opinions founded on media trawling and, "how flying was in my day"

God forbid I ever actually retire....

ORAC

28th Jun 2015, 20:34

LCA Tejas - just about the only programme which makes the development of the F-35 seem short and uncomplicated........

Lima Juliet

28th Jun 2015, 21:21

http://i1381.photobucket.com/albums/ah209/coldfire2005/np2.jpg_zps7wn8fuvh.jpg

Sorry about the size of the photo, but it isn't mine and I can't resize. Nice looking hook though...:cool:

LJ

Lima Juliet

28th Jun 2015, 21:46

PS. I don't think the Indians are stupid. Why would they plough loads of cash into navalised Tejas when they have these for STOBAR ops from their carriers as well...:cool:

http://www.indiastrategic.in/image/MiG-29Ks.jpg

LowObservable

29th Jun 2015, 11:47

Maus92 - I don't think Saab Group is for sale.

Ownership (http://saabgroup.com/investor-relations/the-share/ownership/)

Orca - But we agree, don't we, that legacy fighters cannot exist in the threat environment currently fielded.

As the old joke has it, "What's with the 'we' :mad:, paleface?"

If you say that "fighters with rather creaky analog RWR and, at best, wheezy non-DRFM podded jammers are vulnerable to the current environment", I'm with you.

USAF F-16s are pretty much the GL model compared to most post-1995 exports, let alone a Sufa or the Singapore jets, and don't compare at all with non-U.S. competitors.

Typerated - The Boeing/Saab T-X is a new airplane. My personal opinion is that the JAS 39E/F would be an excellent fit for Guard and Reserve, which will otherwise see their numbers plummet because of F-35's CPFH; the expensive stealth-related stuff is not required for many missions. They'd also be excellent Aggressors against F-35s/F-22s. But it's not going to happen because nobody wants to see Guard/Reserve guys (age and treachery will prevail over youth and prowess) doing velociraptor tricks to the Academy kids in the stealth jets.

Lonewolf_50

29th Jun 2015, 12:44

As drones haven't made anywhere near the impact they were supposed to Orca, what do you mean by that? The USN is moving forward with work on that CV based strike drone thing.

As to what UAVs in general have done in the past 10 years ... I can't agree with your assessment, unless "supposed to" means something particular in this case. :confused:

glad rag

29th Jun 2015, 16:43

Would be interested to see:

1 - What the "deck run" was for the Tejas in the video.

2 - What its AUW was.

If it can launch with a representative weapons load from a non-catapulted 450ft deck run, then it's "impressive".

I was referring to the indigenous nature of the project as being impressive as was commented on later in the the tread.

MSOCS

29th Jun 2015, 17:49

Thanks for clarifying gr :ok:

Wokkafans

29th Jun 2015, 20:46

I can't comment on the veracity of anything reported here but it might be of interest to some.

"A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January."

More here: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875?mc_cid=029df67bff&mc_eid=bbff1c7303

LowObservable

29th Jun 2015, 21:45

Now a matter of authenticating the original document...

But this is the proverbial other shoe from this story...

F-35 Tested Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers)

...which left everyone wondering who came off best in those encounters.

Rhino power

29th Jun 2015, 23:20

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been flown in air-to-air combat maneuvers against F-16s for the first time and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations, test pilots say the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option.

I think that one sentence pretty much says what the outcome of ACM with the F-16's was... :hmm:

-RP

Maus92

30th Jun 2015, 03:55

F-35's got a slow nose; not good. The fanboys will respond with the *fact* that F-35's superior SA will render dogfighting obsolete. Uh huh.

finestkind

30th Jun 2015, 06:54

You mean dogfighting isn’t already obsolete

Rhino power

30th Jun 2015, 10:14

You mean dogfighting isn’t already obsolete
Just because it's not been used for a while does not render it obsolete. There's always a chance where plinking away with BVR rockets won't be possible/acceptable...

-RP

dat581

30th Jun 2015, 10:16

The biggest face palm moment from this latest report is that the helmet stops the pilot from turning his head around quickly or at all since the width of the canopy is too narrow. Can't believe that one.

Martin the Martian

30th Jun 2015, 10:50

Hum... does anybody remember when a pair of F-15s from Lakenheath bounced a pair of early Typhoons from the Case White trials at Warton, and promptly found themselves squarely in the Tiffies' gunsights? It was trumpeted by BAE and the RAF at the time in exactly the way that the results from this evaluation aren't. I would agree that the article hides behind so much technobabble that it seems that the outcome of the evaluation is quietly pushed down the back of the settee.

Biggus

30th Jun 2015, 16:24

I came across this while looking for something else on the net, I don't know if it's already been posted here, and of course the accuracy of the content will no doubt be the subject of debate, still....

The F-35 Can't Beat The Plane It's Replacing In A Dogfight: Report (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248)

I also have no particular axe to grind with the F-35 one way or the other....

AreOut

30th Jun 2015, 19:43

it's not designed to be good in dogfight, therefor it's not good in dogfight, easy

rh200

30th Jun 2015, 20:29

Just because it's not been used for a while does not render it obsolete. There's always a chance where plinking away with BVR rockets won't be possible/acceptable...

The strategists determine whats obsolete, rightly or wrongly. Hence they accept the responsability of loosing assests in the hypothetical situation of getting into one.

Another words they determine the trade offs are worth the 1 in what ever chance of that occuring, versus advantages of what ever else they think is important.

Or more likely redefine as important as the true capabilitys of the new platform become apparent.:p

Courtney Mil

30th Jun 2015, 20:59

This thread is turning into a primary school debating society. For some reason we suddenly have a **** load of somewhat juvenile and, frankly, irrelevant posts about disjointed issues. We're currently on page 320 of this thread and all of a sudden we're seeing stuff we discussed at length months or years ago.

If we're still talking about the Green Flag "report" then just relax. None of us here have the faintest idea of the scenarios, ROE, orbats, missions, etc, etc. Of course it was a carefully scripted excercise, we've all been there.

Previous F-16 vs F-35 "engagements have no bearing on this. Nor have turn rate issues, SA, "dog fighting", the "helmet" or F-15s vs Typhoons. Polarised as this thread has become, normally the debate is fairly reasoned on both sides. Now it's just becoming bolleaux.

Just a short rant. Excuse me.

LowObservable

30th Jun 2015, 22:30

Stay tuned, CM. There is new stuff happening.

Courtney Mil

30th Jun 2015, 22:33

There had better be.

finestkind

30th Jun 2015, 22:43

CM, delightful that this was discussed on page abc; however a comment was made now regards to the dogfighting capabilities which allows a response. As much as you may find it tiresome to go over the same ground new blood in does not, in respect to having not been there (200 and X pages ago). As you rightly pointed out some 320 pages later posters are still bringing up the same tired arguments. The reason, I’m not particularly interested in reading all 320 pages. I have, probably like many others, peeked in on occasion but would point out is that the bolleaux is rightfully felt by those who have a) followed all 320 pages or b) still dream (wet) that dogfighting will once again become the chivalrous game of the “nights” (I jest) of the air. Anyone that still thinks that getting in close and personal, knife fight in a telephone box (haven’t seen a box for years, take that either way) is deep into reminiscing. You would have to have stuffed up seriously as would your opponent(s) to be into guns or it would be backs to the wall again with your opponent in the same position not to shoot and scoot.

My short rant. Excuse me.;)

FODPlod

1st Jul 2015, 08:39

F-35 as a dogfighter, herrumph! How's a pilot meant to use his Webley to shoot down the Hun with that sissy canopy in the way? They'll be giving them bloody parachutes next!

Maus92

1st Jul 2015, 11:40

it's not designed to be good in dogfight, therefor it's not good in dogfight, easy

But it was designed to be as maneuverable as the F-16, which it is apparently not. Anyway, when we generically say "dogfighting," what we really mean is ACM. Those who contend that ACM is antiquated or somehow irrelevant in modern aerial combat seem to be apologists for the program rather students of the craft.

Radix

1st Jul 2015, 12:46

...........

Bevo

1st Jul 2015, 13:02

It just becomes blatantly clear how incredibly important the stealth aspect is going to be in a conflict. Without it it's as dead as ...

With an RCS of a metal golf ball it's still invisible ... until Moore's law catches up.

No aircraft is “invisible”. An aircraft with a lower RCS will be harder to detect at various frequencies. How much harder depends on the aircraft's signature reduction techniques, frequency, and the detecting radar capabilities. In the case of the F-35 that frequency range is mostly at the higher frequencies used by ground and airborne fire-control systems. At the lower frequencies of the surveillance radars the F-35 will be relatively easy to detect.

And as with most aircraft, the F-35’s detection range by threat IRST systems will not be diminished much.

Low signature elements of an aircraft make it more survivable but definitely NOT invisible. Also, I hope the high frequency (X band) F-35 signature is lower than “a metal golf
ball”!

ps CM your post is right on!

Bastardeux

1st Jul 2015, 14:27

Bevo, a nice little summary!

And with the latest AESA radars, I've come to the conclusion that the whole doctrine needs to be re-evaluated; it's only a matter of time before the level of sensor fusion in hostile platforms becomes capable enough of tracking this generation of stealth aircraft...shockingly, I also fear the counter-capability will proliferate quicker than the aircraft, which will be a first! Then all we'll be left with is a very expensive sitting duck that we have hinged our entire air combat strategy upon.

Why not pile our future development into a handful of the next generation of 'stealthy' drones, let them take on the really nasty ground based A2/AD threats, and information hoovering ability, then get a whole lot more flexible and cheaper manned aircraft for all the other conventional roles?...data linked to the Int hoovering drones of course.

Just my two cents, obviously.

TEEEJ

1st Jul 2015, 18:32

Joint Program Office Response to “War is Boring” Blog

July 01, 2015
The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.

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.

The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.

The release of this FOUO report is being investigated. The candid feedback provided by our test community is welcomed because it makes what we do better.

The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35's capabilities.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-program-office-response-to-war-is-boring-blog?sf10503378=1

LowObservable

1st Jul 2015, 19:24

The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35's capabilities.

But we'll still shoot you if they leak out, so watch it buster.

Otherwise, the JPO and Lockmart are spinning like a Pitts Special. Why build the freaking thing for 9 g if ACM is irrelevant?

Wokkafans

1st Jul 2015, 20:17

Here's the test pilots notes on January's F-35/F-16 mock air-battle:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb?mc_cid=6b3a8a72fc&mc_eid=bbff1c7303

GlobalNav

1st Jul 2015, 20:35

Because it takes a lot of high-G maneuvering to to explain away all the data and what it really means.

GeeRam

2nd Jul 2015, 07:32

Why build the freaking thing for 9 g if ACM is irrelevant?

One has to ask the question, that if ACM is irrelevant, then surely so is any sort of single seat a/c of this type?.......might as well just have re-started the B-52 line up again, if all you want is a non-ACM bomb truck....:E as it still seems to be pretty good at that even for something knocking on half a century old.

John Farley

2nd Jul 2015, 08:47

Why build the freaking thing for 9 g if ACM is irrelevant?

I am not sure why folk should only associate high g with ACM.

A few of my former mates would have liked to have pulled more g as they flew into the ground. With FBW (unless an overide option is provided) you cannot pull more than the design g however much you might like to.

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2015, 10:41

Built for 9g? Maybe the A Model, but only when/if cleared.

Of course more g is good for ground avoidance, but the main reasons for manoeuvre are ACM and to reduce the effectiveness of incoming missiles at longer range - remember the old F Pol manoeuvre? The more g available, the greater and faster the vector change at greater speeds = greater manoeuvre demanded by the missile's guidance laws = greater energy bleed.

Back to the ACM question, given the F-35's relatively poor Vmax and acceleration, there will always remain the probability that an enemy will continue to close their range as an engagement matures. In the case of the B Model doing its defence of the fleet, continual "crank and pump" stops becoming an option against a raid at some point. After that, you either kill them all BVR or stand and fight. Until someone invents an AAM with a 100% Pk, no one can say ACM is obsolete. You may decide you don't WANT to do it (understandable if you're in a B Model), but that doesn't mean it's not possible that you'll end up doing it.

Hempy

2nd Jul 2015, 11:05

Even 'dominant' BVR only works as long as you have more missiles than they have aeroplanes..

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 11:12

Hmmmmm.

It seems to me there's a LOT more to ACM nowadays than just the ability to maneuver to point your nose at your intended target. With helmet sighting/cueing systems and IR dog fight missiles with wide field of regard sensors that can be cued to look in a specific direction and lock on, ultimate agility/maneuverability is not nearly as critical. Note the qualifier there. Not nearly as critical. In the first days/hours of an air war, IF your opponent has significant air defense assets (and the training not to mention the will to use them effectively), you send in air-superiority fighters (F-22 Raptor?) to sweep the skies before you send in your attack assets, or as escorts to protect your attack assets. The F-35 is NOT an air superiority fighter and was never intended to be, yet has pretty decent maneuverability/agility for self-defense in the event it gets jumped. It does a LOT of things VERY well. It does NOT do everything and was never intended to.

LowObservable

2nd Jul 2015, 12:14

KenV - Dominant BVR through stealth is the 5GenTM mantra, and Team JSF also talks about EO-DAS, HMDS and HOBS as the winning formula for WVR.

Can the F-35 do both on the same mission?

By the way: when reading the leaked report, prospective F-35B operators should add 3200 pounds of empty weight, concentrated behind the cockpit, and consider the effects of smaller H-stabs and flaperons.

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2015, 12:15

Ken,

You're overlooking the fact that it works both ways. You may not need to manoeuvre so hard to get a firing solution with HMS and other off-boresight features, but neither does your opponent. And you still need the g/turn rate/energy to defeat the bad guy's solution. Take the argument to its extreme (purely for illustrative purposes), do you think you can fly in straight lines shooting jets way off boresight and survive?

Off boresight is not new, we've been doing it for decades. It's an advantage if you're the only player in town that has it. Don't think it changes the laws of physics though.

IF your opponent has significant air defense assets (and the training not to mention the will to use them effectively)

Are you suggesting that we plan on NOT going against a foe that has any of those qualities? If that is the case then either the F-35 is not necessary or it is inadequate. It is certainly starting to become more obvious that its air-to-air capability is very weak.

you send in air-superiority fighters (F-22 Raptor?) to sweep the skies before you send in your attack assets, or as escorts to protect your attack assets

Fine if you have Raptor, or indeed any other Air Superiority assets available. The Royal Navy is getting F-35 as its only fast jet. Are you now saying that it won't do the job for them?

LowObservable

2nd Jul 2015, 12:34

Moreover, the F-35 business plan involves the elimination of all Western air-dominance fighters (except the F-22) in the long run. Certainly, few air forces can afford two fighter types, especially if one is F-35.

But as for flying in a straight line and shooting off boresight, that's old hat. Done years ago and worked abso:mad:inglutley fine!

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/456-Defiant/Defiant_II_AA436_DZ_V_of_151_Sqn_RAF.jpg

Willard Whyte

2nd Jul 2015, 12:52

Perhaps they should simply rename it A-35 and be done with it.

Maus92

2nd Jul 2015, 12:55

This situation certainly illustrates why the USN wants to retain their Super Hornets well into the 2040s, and suggests that they've known that the F-35 is bit of a pig all along. And by adopting some - if not all - of the proposed Advanced Super Hornet upgrades, you can safely reduce F-35C procurement - and save some money in the process.

The only winner in this fiasco is the USMC, who will certainly get a huge upgrade in performance (at great expense, but not as much as it could have been if it were not a joint development program) over their AV-8Bs. As for those who advocate ditching big deck carriers for LHAs with F-35Bs, a perfect illustration why not to do that.

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 13:15

You're overlooking the fact that it works both ways. You may not need to manoeuvre so hard to get a firing solution with HMS and other off-boresight features, but neither does your opponent. And you still need the g/turn rate/energy to defeat the bad guy's solution. Take the argument to its extreme (purely for illustrative purposes), do you think you can fly in straight lines shooting jets way off boresight and survive?Absolutely not. And exactly why we don't turn the BONE into a missileer. The F-35 is NOT an air superiority fighter. It is a strike fighter. It's primary role is air to ground, yet has a credible self defense capability. It is not designed nor intended to go up against an air superiority fighter.

Are you suggesting that we plan on NOT going against a foe that has any of those qualities? I don't know who "we" is in your statement, but USAF has a dedicated air superiority fighter to go up against such a foe, and it isn't the F-35. Once again, the F-35 is not an air superiority fighter nor was it ever meant to be.

If other air forces have plans to engage a foe that has 4+ generation air superiority fighters, then they should buy something other than the F-35. Can you name a 4+ generation air superiority fighter that is currently in production that they could purchase instead?

If other air forces only buy F-35s, then yes, I am suggesting they should not plan on going up against a foe that has 4+ generation air superiority fighters and the will and training to use them. How many such foes can you name?

The Royal Navy is getting F-35 as its only fast jet. Are you now saying that it won't do the job for them?Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what "the job" is. If the Royal Navy's "job" is to engage a foe that has 4+ generation air superiority fighters, then no, probably not. Just as the Royal Navy should probably not have planned on engaging a foe who had 3rd or 4th generation fighters when all it had was Harriers.

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2015, 13:34

Well, once again, I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet, Ken, but coming at the issue from opposite directions. To answer your question, "we" meant those nations that have been sucked into going down the all-purpose, single-type route.

No, it was NEVER intended to be a fighter, but I think its air-to-air capabilities were both over-stated in the early days and over-expected. I can't demonstrate that in public, but I was involved in the trials designed to evaluate that. They may have been valid trials had the specs not changed (for the worse) over the years and had the organisation running them not had a vested interest in maintaining their credibility in the short term.

My Royal Navy counterpart in those days was very clear that the Admiralty were convinced that a next generation SHAR replacement would do the job, despite evidence to the contrary.

I'm not as concerned about F-35 in RAF service because, in the short term at least, there will be better air-superiority fighters and other assets around to do as you suggest. But if the Navy wants its global power projection back it's going to need something to bridge its air defence gap. Somehow, I suspect the FAA just want to be back in the game.

Martin the Martian

2nd Jul 2015, 13:43

LowObservable:

:D

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 13:44

Perhaps they should simply rename it A-35 and be done with it. That's not the USAF way. The only USAF developed "A" aircraft was the A-10. All the other USAF air to ground fighters (like the F-105, F-111, F-117, etc, etc) had an "F" prefix. Yeah, they flew the A-7, but that was a US Navy bird.

After the Saber, the only USAF air superiority fighters were the F-15 and F-22, yet all but the A-7 and A-10 had an "F" prefix. USN tends to be more "honest" and develops and fields aircraft with an "A" prefix. And USN's strike fighter, the Hornet, has an F/A prefix. Maybe the F-35C should have a small "f" and big "A" prefix (f/A-35C ?) On the other hand, against 3rd and 4th gen fighters, the F-35 would consistently do well and could properly have a big "F".

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2015, 13:51

Unfortunately, Ken, the Brit Armed Forces can't be as honest. To give the "FA" prefix to anything there has a somewhat different connotation.

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 14:01

To answer your question, "we" meant those nations that have been sucked into going down the all-purpose, single-type route.

Sucked into? By whom? Their politicians who refuse to properly fund defense? If all you can afford to buy is one type, then an all purpose type is probably your best solution. Certainly, that's true in the case of the Royal Navy who for decades relied on the Harrier as its sole jet and then (sadly) on no jet at all.

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 14:14

No, it was NEVER intended to be a fighter, but I think its air-to-air capabilities were both over-stated in the early days and over-expected.

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on who you planned to fight. How many nations are fielding 4+ generation fighters? Against 3rd and 4th gen fighters, F-35 is damn good. Indeed, how many currently fielded Falcons, Gripens, Rafales and Typhoons have helmet mounted sighting/cuing systems and off bore sight weapons? Heck, the F-15C, still considered a front-line air superiority fighter, still uses steam gauges rather than multi purpose flat screens.

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2015, 14:26

Slightly off topic, but I'll bite. The "old F-15" cockpit with its gauges worked fine. The electronic displays only replicate the old dials. There are plenty of screens in the 15 where they are needed. Sure, screens are lovely, but they are not what defines the effective generation or effectiveness of a fighter.

Back on topic.

LowObservable

2nd Jul 2015, 14:37

GlobalNav

2nd Jul 2015, 14:40

"USAF has a dedicated air superiority fighter to go up against such a foe, and it isn't the F-35."

The trouble is we have so few of the "real" air superiority fighters, unless we continue to keep F-15 in service. F-16 is no slouch either by the way, but oh yeah, its a strike fighter too.

Dumb as dirt to stop building F-22's considering the immense cost of development. Stopped on the disingenuous premise that the JSF is less expensive! We should have 500 or more F-22s for air superiority. Don't expect the F-35 (or A-35 or whatever you want to call it) to fill the gap. Heck its a one seat flying keyboard of computers and displays. Did I mention we don't "quite" have the software right yet, and oh yeah the primary flight display - yeah its not quite there either.

To help afford it, and to free up maintenance personnel, can the A-10. That's a winner and of course, no worries, the F-35 can do CAS. Yeah, like we'll see them send that expensive vehicle to do what only the A-10 does so well.

Military procurement - a true nightmare, no matter which side of the Atlantic you are.

Willard Whyte

2nd Jul 2015, 14:50

That's not the USAF way. The only USAF developed "A" aircraft was the A-10. All the other USAF air to ground fighters (like the F-105, F-111, F-117, etc, etc) had an "F" prefix. Yeah, they flew the A-7, but that was a US Navy bird.

After the Saber, the only USAF air superiority fighters were the F-15 and F-22, yet all but the A-7 and A-10 had an "F" prefix. USN tends to be more "honest" and develops and fields aircraft with an "A" prefix. And USN's strike fighter, the Hornet, has an F/A prefix. Maybe the F-35C should have a small "f" and big "A" prefix (f/A-35C ?) On the other hand, against 3rd and 4th gen fighters, the F-35 would consistently do well and could properly have a big "F".

It was a joke.

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2015, 15:29

GlobalNav, in your own way, you make good points. Agreed.

ORAC

2nd Jul 2015, 15:39

Quote: To answer your question, "we" meant those nations that have been sucked into going down the all-purpose, single-type route.

Sucked into? By whom?

zOXtWxhlsUg

Turbine D

2nd Jul 2015, 16:20

Original quote by Courtney Mil: No, it was NEVER intended to be a fighter, but I think its air-to-air capabilities were both over-stated in the early days and over-expected. I can't demonstrate that in public, but I was involved in the trials designed to evaluate that.
When you pay for a sports car and family sedan is delivered by the dealer, that is a problem, isn't it? Years ago, the United States Department of Defense awarded a contract to Lockheed-Martin and Pratt & Whitney (engine manufacturer) over competition from Boeing and GE/Roll Royce. The announcement was followed by backslapping and champagne toasting by all winning partners involved. At that time it was touted that the following attributes were assured: the F-35 would be “four times more effective” than current fighters in air-to-air combat, “eight times more effective” than current fighters in air-to-ground combat and “three times more effective” than current fighters in recognizance and suppression of an enemy’s air defenses. Further, they claimed that F-35 would have better range and require less logistics support than existing fighters and be the “premier strike aircraft through 2040 and to be second only to the F-22 in air superiority.” In turn, the Pentagon states that the F-35 will be "the most affordable, lethal, supportable and survivable aircraft ever to be used."

The facts are to date that none of the assurances are true and most will never be true. The only one that might be true is the reference of the F-35 being second to the F-22 and even that isn't assured.

A measure of success are promises made and promises kept exhibited by the product delivered. So far success is Zero! So will we ever see success or just excuses as to why what was promised didn't happen?

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 16:48

Non-US fighters contemporary with the F-35 don't all have HMD, correct. At least not as yet, although I suspect more will by the time Block 3 is operational. (I believe Typhoon is getting a new HMD, and JAS 39E will have one.) On the other hand, IRIS-T is out there with a lot of customers, as is Python 5, and both have their advantages over AIM-9X.

All of which kind of makes my point. How many potential "foes" are actually out there that have 4+ gen fighters? Very few. And against 3rd and 4th gen fighters the F-35 does really well. The F-35 design is a compromise, with priority given to air to ground. The decision to buy F-35 is by definition a compromise of competing requirements. If the buyer's priority is air supremacy against 4+ gen fighters, F-35 is the wrong airplane.

And I ask again, if the buyer's priority is air supremacy against 4+ gen fighters, what aircraft currently in production should they buy?

Bastardeux

2nd Jul 2015, 16:49

melmothtw

2nd Jul 2015, 16:56

An interesting take on the Joint Program Office's rebuttal of the War is Boring article

Gareth Jennings ‏@GarethJennings3 58 mins58 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/616636387580882944)
#JPO (https://twitter.com/hashtag/JPO?src=hash) refutes @warisboring (https://twitter.com/warisboring) report that F-35 can't dogfight...by admitting F-35 can't dogfight http://www.janes.com/article/52715/jpo-counters-media-report-that-f-35-cannot-dogfight … (http://t.co/6GC4JO4GSv) pic.twitter.com/BKGa1S9n4U (http://t.co/BKGa1S9n4U)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CI67hrDWsAAmFJj.jpg
(https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/616636387580882944/photo/1)

Retweets 31
Favourites 24
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/485515887881908226/o9wbhjzA_normal.jpeg (https://twitter.com/FaisalbinFarhan) https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/599344628282818561/IT3YP2t7_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/salahwaisi) https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1228997627/Quickfire2byBaron150pxX108px_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/0SCHNELLFEUER0) https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/562850495341936640/sNm0ZpOt_normal.png (https://twitter.com/SteveCC) https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/607299973240233984/yJz8IraR_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/WillSoderlund) https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1792130950/minky100_normal.JPG (https://twitter.com/TeraEuro) https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/598269742214873088/oTXP8Vlz_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/Bordflugzeug) https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/615961587061551104/TepA7qTZ_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/WhalezEye) https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/540900362400460800/xk_kzf_S_normal.png (https://twitter.com/Derringer_Dick)

8:55 am - 2 Jul 2015 · Details (https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/616636387580882944)

View photo Hide photo (https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/616636387580882944) 31 retweets 24 favourites Reply
Retweet 31 Retweeted 31
Favourite 24 Favourited 24
More

PhilipG

2nd Jul 2015, 16:57

The other big problem as I see it is that the lateness of the project and the price increases, whatever price it comes out at it will with due respect be as cheap to purchase or cost less to run than an F16.
The late arrival at the ball of the F35 has meant that a number of countries have had to do major maintenance on their older generation aircraft reducing the available budget and the higher than anticipated running costs when factored into austerity budgets will no doubt reduce the number of airframes purchased.

I am sure that the F35 as initially puffed to the world, cheap to purchase, cheaper to run than your old aircraft, fantastic as a fighter even better at Air to Ground, that the project made eminent sense; sadly it seems to be late, over budget and not as capable as it was initially expected to be, not that we really know what it is presently capable of.

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 16:57

the F-35 would be “four times more effective” than current fighters in air-to-air combat,

Hmmm. When that statement was made "current" meant 3rd and 4th gen fighters. And it is.

Of course this depends on the definition of "effective". In this case it does NOT mean one-on-one against a 4th gen fighter in a close-in furball. F-35 probably only holds a slight edge in that scenario. But over the full spectrum of air-to-air combat, the F-35 meets or exceeds its design objectives.

Bastardeux

2nd Jul 2015, 17:06

Quote:
the F-35 would be “four times more effective” than current fighters in air-to-air combat...Hmmm. When that statement was made "current" meant 3rd and 4th gen fighters. And it is.

Is that not exactly the point. It isn't. It just got beaten by an F16...what would be the outcome if you put it up against an Su30?

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 17:10

Ken, you asked us to propose a 4+ gen aircraft as an alternative to the F35 for those nations only able to afford one aircraft type; well what about Typhoon, with its shiny new radar that from all accounts is going to be nothing short of frickin' badass. That surely would offer a cheaper, combat proven (sort of) alternative...plus its AA combat capabilities are known to be extremely capable.

If stealth does not contribute to "badass", then yeah sure. Super Hornet is pretty badass too, and probably more stealthy than Typhoon. Maybe the F-15 "Silent Eagle" is even more badass. But if you need serious stealth to attack a highly defended target on the first day of the war, who you gonna call? Super Typhoon, Super Hornet, Silent Eagle, or Lightining II? USN has chosen Lightning II as has USAF. But then again, USN also has bunches of Super Hornets and USAF has Raptors. Neither tries to make one aircraft do EVERYthing.

Bastardeux

2nd Jul 2015, 17:23

Don't know how the stealthiness of the airframe is linked to the power of the radar, but if it does, it serves only to be a detrimental effect as it limits the size of a nose cone you can fit it into.

And stealth is definitely not everything. Especially in an airframe supposedly expected to be in service 3 or 4 decades from now...the ability to detect stealthy aircraft is already in its infancy, give it another 10 years and it will be well developed. Guaranteed.

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 17:23

Is that not exactly the point. It isn't. It just got beaten by an F16...

Completely false.

July 01, 2015
The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.

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.

The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.

...what would be the outcome if you put it up against an Su30? Probably the same if AF-2 was used. VERY different if a fully operational and equipped F-35 was used.

melmothtw

2nd Jul 2015, 17:26

USAF has Raptors

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.

The old 'quantity and a quality...' thingemebob.

melmothtw

2nd Jul 2015, 17:30

That JPO response is all very good, so long as the F-35 gets to fight the fight it wants and on its terms. In citing the special stealth coatings and advanced sensors, the JPO does nothing to refute the premise of the original piece - that the F-35 cannot dogfight.

If dogfighting will never happen in the future, then all well and good.

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2015, 17:34

And there we have it. Even just two years ago we were being told it would be able to hold its own. No one was mentioning the things it can't do or the things it wasn't designed to do. Quite the opposite, in fact. I posted here the speed/altitude/turn rate/g/SEP graphs for other types which were misinterpreted by some posters here even though they clearly demonstrated pretty much what we see here.

Frankly, the JPO's "rebuttal" is nothing more than a bunch of excuses and, in equal measure, a series of admissions of the very points that were being made in the test pilot's notes.

Most of the 320 or so pages of this thread have contained a lot of very good information about the design, test point achievements and progress of the programme. Frankly, I understand (to a degree) why it is late, over budget and under-spec. Now we are starting to deal with the tactical and operational realities. Now we are starting to see the aircraft for what it really is. This is where I become less of a "neutral observer" and start to question the capability of the concept and the compromises that have gone, seemingly, unquestioned.

The "it wasn't designed for this" arguments should not sit well with the customers. They would do well to reassess what they need and how they are going to get it.

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 17:39

And stealth is definitely not everything.

Agreed. And neither is pure turning performance, which is (allegedly) the F-35's weakness and what this whole discussion is about. It's a PACKAGE deal, and right now the F-35 offers a very fine package that beats most everything out there in most every scenario.

Especially in an airframe supposedly expected to be in service 3 or 4 decades from now...the ability to detect stealthy aircraft is already in its infancy, give it another 10 years and it will be well developed. Guaranteed. Guaranteed? Tell that to the nations buying F-35 now and to Russia and China (and India?) who are very hard at work developing stealth aircraft of their own. Those efforts are pointless and a waste, huh?

glad rag

2nd Jul 2015, 17:40

Probably the same if AF-2 was used. VERY different if a fully operational and equipped F-35 was used.

please do give us a time and a date for this " fully operational and equipped F-35 " to appear.

The decade need be close enough for now...

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 17:42

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.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.

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2015, 17:43

If the airframe wasn't representative of the operational model, what was the point of the exercise? Apart from being able to use that as an excuse for the dismal performance, obviously.

KenV, I wish you had indicated whom you were quoting there. Without seeing the context I would agree with you entirely.

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 17:44

USMC is operating their's now.

glad rag

2nd Jul 2015, 17:44

So they can refuel and rearm whist airborne Ken, that is what the numbers game entails ..when your shot out you are suddenly at a significant disadvantage...

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 17:50

If the airframe wasn't representative of the operational model, what was the point of the exercise? You didn't read the item I quoted, did you? The AIRFRAME was representative. But that's it. The REST of the package (like avionics, display systems, stealth, sensors, sensor fusion, weapons, etc) was not. They were testing the basic AIRFRAME (including its control systems), not the entire aircraft as a weapon system. I'll wager that a WWII vintage Zero fighter can turn inside an F-35. That does not make the Zero a superior weapon system.

KenV, I wish you had indicated whom you were quoting there. Without seeing the context I would agree with you entirely.
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/join...g?sf10503378=1 (https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-program-office-response-to-war-is-boring-blog?sf10503378=1)

PhilipG

2nd Jul 2015, 17:52

As I understood it AF-2 was indeed used, it has been the lead aircraft in all the flight envelope expanding testing for the F35, so it would seem it is used to doing near dog fighting manoeuvres.

The statements about AF-2 not having the latest stealth coatings etc would seem to be unhelpful if the exercise was about dog fighting.

The Pentagon and the JPO have not come out and said that the statements made are economical with the truth, as I see it they have come out and given some forms of words that could be construed to be excuses. Implicitly thus the project owners are stating that the report is near to the truth and possibly not unexpected. This I would see as a tax payer in a country that is building aircraft carriers for the B is slightly concerning, if a car was being sold like this in the UK Trading Standards could get interested.

glad rag

2nd Jul 2015, 17:53

Hmm pedantic's now Ken..; why not do what I do and just call them a cab?

:E

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 17:54

So they can refuel and rearm whist airborne Ken, that is what the numbers game entails ..when your shot out you are suddenly at a significant disadvantage...

???? I have no idea what you meant with the above.

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 18:01

The statements about AF-2 not having the latest stealth coatings etc would seem to be unhelpful if the exercise was about dog fighting.

Two utterly false assumptions.

1. The exercise was NOT "about dog fighting". Read the quote.

2. To state that stealth, sensors, sensor fusion, displays and all the rest don't contribute in a dog fight is absurd. If the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball and turn performance is all that matters, we may as well go back to WW1 Spads and Fokkers. Even in the early jet age of Sabres vs MiGs, there was LOTS more to air-to-air success than eyeballs and turn performance.

PhilipG

2nd Jul 2015, 18:02

Ken, even an F35 that has fired its two internal missiles finds it difficult to shoot down enemy aircraft, particularly if they are a now totally unarmed B or C and we have just discussed how good the A is at dog fighting.

Bastardeux

2nd Jul 2015, 18:04

Neither is turning performance...the F35 offers a very fine package that beats most everything out there

Does it? Pretty sure it's just proven that without its cloak of stealth, it does very badly in a WVR environment...get back to me when it's joining the fight higher and faster than some of its 'inferior' 4+ gen rate fighter contemporaries.

Guaranteed? Tell that to the nations buying the F35 and to Russia and China

The UK had its heart set on binning it back in the last defence review, but politics prevailed. Just a quick, cursory glance at China and Russia's stealth aircraft make a mockery of actually calling them true stealth fighters.

As long as it moves, produces heat, and reflects even the most minute radar signal, it's still going going to be detectable, and the exponential expansion of processing power in computers combined with Russia's arch Nemesis relying entirely on stealth surely makes it an inevitability that detection and tracking will evolve very rapidly in the next decade.

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 18:27

Just a quick, cursory glance at China and Russia's stealth aircraft make a mockery of actually calling them true stealth fighters.

Aaaah yes, of course. Not only are they wasting their efforts developing stealth, what they have developed so far is "a mockery." And yet they continue to work at stealth and throw huge resources at it because stealth has no future in modern warfare. Yup, that makes perfect sense.

As long as it moves, produces heat, and reflects even the most minute radar signal, it's still going going to be detectableTrue enough. But no one claimed (well no one knowledgeable anyway) that stealth is the same as a Klingon cloaking device. Stealth is NOT about "invisibility". It is about signature reduction. Significantly reducing signature (including reflected RF, emitted RF, and emitted IR) provides a significant tactical advantage over a non signature reduced aircraft, which makes the stealth aircraft an overall more effective weapon system. It does not provide non detectibility.

LowObservable

2nd Jul 2015, 18:34

Of course sensors and weapons are important in air combat, and to imply that anyone thinks otherwise is a bit obtuse.

However, EM and controllability are also important, until the dawn of the CSBA-predicted age of UCAVs and LRSB-derivatives launching >100 nm-range AAMs at each other. And it was EM and controllability that this demonstration was about. The idea was to see how the F-35's characteristics would work out in live combat as opposed to test points.

It's also completely beside the point to bang on about Zeros. The F-35A is a transonic 9g airframe designed to shoot AIM-9s and AIM-120s; that is, either it's designed to go nose to nose with F-16s, Sukhois &c or a lot of time and money has been wasted.

Also, it's a bit confusing to argue on the one hand that "you're not going to fight 4.5 gen aircraft" (if you must use that thoroughly misleading taxonomy) and in the next moment defend stealth by citing the PAK-FA and J-20. Make your mind up, willya?

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 18:40

Ken, even an F35 that has fired its two internal missiles finds it difficult to shoot down enemy aircraft.
Hilarious. The outboard internal weapons stations can carry either air-to- ground OR air-to-air weapons. So F-35 can carry more than just two air-to-air weapons. And it has LOTS of external weapons stations.

...we have just discussed how good the A is at dog fighting. Utterly false. There has been lots of ASSUMPTIONS presented about F-35A dog fighting abilities (based on a misleading article) most of which are false if not downright absurd.

KenV

2nd Jul 2015, 18:55

Of course sensors and weapons are important in air combat, and to imply that anyone thinks otherwise is a bit obtuse. Obtuse? Really? This entire discussion is about the absurd notion that the F-35's inferior turn performance relative to the F-16 makes it an inferior fighter. All the F-35's other features are neatly and conveniently ignored. Now THAT in my opinion, is obtuse.

The idea was to see how the F-35's characteristics would work out in live combat as opposed to test points. Indeed. And NONE of those characteristics point to F-35 dog fight performance inferior to an F-16. That was a false conclusion leapt to by the ill-informed.

Also, it's a bit confusing to argue on the one hand that "you're not going to fight 4.5 gen aircraft" (if you must use that thoroughly misleading taxonomy) and in the next moment defend stealth by citing the PAK-FA and J-20. Make your mind up, willya? OK, I give up. This discussion has become both pedantic and pointless.

But for the record I did NOT "cite PAK-FA and J-20". Someone else did and I mocked them. As for the "misleading taxonomy" of the term "4.5 gen aircraft" I did not use that term. I used 4+ generation. Can anyone suggest a better term to use when referring to 4th gen fighters upgraded with 5th gen systems as well as 5th gen fighters. Didn't think so. Adios for now.

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2015, 18:57

Ken,

Suddenly you seem to be arguing with everyone, can't quite work out why. With so many arguments I doubt you'll get to this. My use of the term airframe was in the UK sense - common word for an aircraft. So, I was referring to the aircraft, it's hardware, software and so forth. The entire package.

Sometimes I think you just look for fights to pick. Doesn't exactly help the discussion.

melmothtw

2nd Jul 2015, 19:34

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.

That fantasy was explained to me by Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula (Retd) at the IQPC International Fighter conference in London in 2013.

I'm sure you're aware of his background.

LowObservable

2nd Jul 2015, 19:35

Ken,

Inferior turn performance (inferior EM, to be exact) makes the F-35 an inferior fighter, other things being equal, unless we decide that EM no longer matters.

The case that EM no longer matters is far from proven, and indeed, if it doesn't, we don't need the F-35 because it expensively embodies maneuvering performance. We need a Super F-117.

You can argue that other things are not equal, but you have not made that case. Other jets have HOBS missiles, and HMDs. If the F-35 is in stealth mode it doesn't have HOBS missiles.

So "dog fight performance" was demonstrated as equal or superior to the F-16? (Since you state that anything else is a false conclusion.) How do you make that argument from the content of the paper?

Why do we try to pigeonhole fighters by generation at all? We got by without it for 90 years before some marketing dipweed in Foat Wuff decided to crib a Russian term and slap it on his products.

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2015, 20:56

Obtuse? Really? This entire discussion is about the absurd notion that the F-35's inferior turn performance relative to the F-16 makes it an inferior fighter. All the F-35's other features are neatly and conveniently ignored. Now THAT in my opinion, is obtuse.

About 2 hours ago you were explaining how the F-35 is NOT an air superiority fighter. Now you're saying there are other features that we have ignored? Are you now saying it's better than the F-16? As a former F-15 instructor it pains me to say say this, but the 16 can certainly do that role.

So, which is it? It can't do a-a or it can?

You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing. And then claim we didn't read your post properly.

LowObservable

2nd Jul 2015, 21:10

Melmoth

Well aware of Deptula's views, which reflect USAF policy when he was active. But as they say, where you stand depends on where you sit. If you think you're going to get 1763 F-35s, and keep all your F-22s (that is, your fleet of Lamborghini single-mission air-dominance fighters is bigger than most people's entire fighter force), and get a new stealth bomber and a new super cruise missile for those hard to reach places, and arm everything in sight with JASSMs, you probably don't need to worry about whether the F-35 does everything best, or whether it has limitations.

The rest of the world doesn't have that luxury. And to be brutally honest (and it's above Dave's pay grade as well as mine) the USAF doesn't either.

rh200

2nd Jul 2015, 21:41

If dogfighting will never happen in the future, then all well and good.

Its not going to be the battle of Britain because it won't happen. In todays society we are that adverse to everything, that the very concept of dogfighting in the strategic sense will be avoided like the plague.

Hence from a strategic perspective, how much resources do you put into a platform that will have an small probababiltiy of doing it, or the game plan is to try an avoid it?

keeping in mind relative adversies and their size and tehnology gradients.

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2015, 22:03

Rh200,

I take issue with your claim that "because it won't happen."

It has nothing whatsoever to do with today's society or political will or such like.

Here is the point (and I am surprised that none of the RN guys has contributed to this debate), should the UK decide to send its warship and its entourage to an incident, skirmish, Falklands II, Iraq (ISIS) III, or whatever may happen in future decades, there is always a risk that the big ship will come under attack (if it won't then we don't need all the frigates etc to protect it). It's defence will rely heavily upon its organic air = F-35B. As I mentioned earlier (did you read earlier posts?) it is very easy to see how the carrier's only jets could end up "backs to the wall" with a raid closing on the capital ship that needs to be defended.

You assure me that such a situation could never happen and the the next questions are: then why do we need a Fleet Air Arm? If we don't have one, we don't need the carrier or the jets.

Today's society does not change the nature of warfare. Maybe today's society is saying we won't have anymore wars. That doesn't seem to be working, does it?

Maus92

2nd Jul 2015, 22:38

I'm curious if the US defense committees were aware of this (and other) pilot reports as part of their duty to oversee defense programs. My guess is that they were not. Perhaps we will have to reconstitute the special F-35 oversight committee that recently ran its course after the program's restructuring a few years ago. This (leaked) report is bad news for those who want to devise a block buy scheme to avoid the stiff requirements of a US multi year procurement program.

Courtney Mil

2nd Jul 2015, 22:43

Maus, my guess is that they were.

ZeBedie

2nd Jul 2015, 23:17

Can't be arsed to read this entire thread, but wonder if UK shoud have built a Harrier 2 ?

FODPlod

2nd Jul 2015, 23:40

KenV,
You have argued cogently and honestly against others who seem to have deliberately misinterpreted the facts to support their own viewpoint (e.g. claiming this trial was intended to demonstrate the dogfighting superiority of a properly kitted-out F-35 - so wrong in so many ways as even a cursory glance reveals).
Well done. Please don't abandon those of us who remain open-minded to a monopoly of people all too keen on distorting events to suit their own agenda, whichever direction it takes.

Darren_P

2nd Jul 2015, 23:53

But no one claimed (well no one knowledgeable anyway) that stealth is the same as a Klingon cloaking device. Stealth is NOT about "invisibility". It is about signature reduction

Which knowledgeable source wrote this then that you quoted?

Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar.

rh200

2nd Jul 2015, 23:54

Courtney Mil

I take issue with your claim that "because it won't happen."

Don't get me wrong and think that I'm saying it won't happen. I think it will happen in some context.

What I'm saying is, the strategic direction is such, as they want to minimise the chances of that happening. Hence when it does, they are prepared to suffer the consequences of that stance.

Whether the consequences as such. are greater than they anticipate etc. is another thing.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with today's society or political will or such like.

Actually it does, our whole defense posture etc. and what we spend, is dependent on political will. That is dependent on society and its views.

As I have said before, I don't like the F35 that much, but it seems to be the best there is, considring our particular circumstances.

What are those circumstances? We won't be getting into anything serious without being under the skirt of the Yanks. As such our defense and procurment revolves around supporting that relationship.

I realise the poms have the little problem with the Falklands, but in essence, without that issue, you guys should be in the same boat with regards to NATO.

Courtney Mil

3rd Jul 2015, 00:03

others who seem to have deliberately misinterpreted the facts to support their own viewpoint (e.g. claiming this trial was intended to demonstrate the dogfighting capability of a properly kitted-out F-35 - so wrong in so many ways as even a cursory glance reveals).

Lovely post and beautifully supportive, but lacking in substance and evidence. Who made the claims you attack? In what ways were their claims wrong (you claim there were so many of them)? What did your cursory glances reveal?

Way more important, in what way do you believe "the facts" we're misinterpreted?

You make a bold statement, now back it up and answer my questions.

Courtney Mil

3rd Jul 2015, 00:19

Rh200,

Ah, I see what mean now. Thank you for your response. Yes, the UK may expect to operate under the U.S. Umbrella. I prefer that metaphor to the skirt thing. And, yes, NATO is a significant and very important part of the way forward.

My point was slightly different. The RN claims it is rebuilding an independent capability and I for one would love to it do that. But as you and I have both mentioned, that capability looks somewhat flawed in isolation.

Perhaps more specifically, the RN has to expect that the carrier and its air wing will be deployed to potential hot spots. If not, why have a carrier group? This could be a unilateral deployment. If the UK is not prepared to do that, why pay for its own carrier and aircraft rather than sheltering under the U.S. skirt?

You see where I'm going. All of that COULD result in actual engagements. If it couldn't, why spend all that money?

LowObservable

3rd Jul 2015, 00:29

FOD

It is amazing that the Pentagon with its $600 billion budget and LockMart with its piffling $45 billion in annual revenues have had the brass :mad:s to stand up to a vast global conspiracy comprising three OCD Australians and a couple of journos. You do well to commend them.

Hempy

3rd Jul 2015, 06:54

a vast global conspiracy comprising three OCD Australians

I resemble that remark :}

As for ACM being 'old hat', I can think of at least a dozen scenarios where getting inside the 'BVR bubble' is completely feasible. It's ok to think that the Raptor might be there, but it's suicide to think that it WILL be..

As CM says, you can't use a bomb truck to provide fleet CAP (for e.g). The notion of air superiority based on 'technology' alone (even at mature AOC) is pure arrogance :ugh:

melmothtw

3rd Jul 2015, 07:19

...others who seem to have deliberately misinterpreted the facts to support their own viewpoint

When folks start attacking the messenger(s) rather than the message, you know their arguments are moribund.

Personally speaking, I have no agenda when it comes to the F-35 or any other aircraft. I didn't wake up one morning and decide, "You know what, I think I'm going to be a hater today." I really do want to believe the hype; that the F-35 will be all things to all men (which is certainly how it has been billed by the JPO, DoD, MoD, and others), but the facts and common sense unfortunately tell me otherwise.

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 11:55

Lovely post and beautifully supportive, but lacking in substance and evidence.

Wow. There's the pot calling the kettle black!

All this outcry over the (supposed) non-ability of the F-35 to dog fight is based on a single blog about a single test that had essentially NOTHING to do with dog fighting!!!

Hilarious.

Mil-26Man

3rd Jul 2015, 12:09

All this outcry over the (supposed) non-ability of the F-35 to dog fight is based on a single blog about a single test that had essentially NOTHING to do with dog fighting!!!

JPO: The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers (aka; dogfighting) to stress the system.

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 12:11

Ken,

Suddenly you seem to be arguing with everyone, can't quite work out why.

Nice try CM, but utterly false. There are a few folks on this thread who have chosen to engage me, by name (as you just did), and I have replied. So three comments:

1. You few folks are not remotely close to "everyone" as you (falsely) claim. Your hubris is showing.

2. Posting a reply to a post directed at me (oft by name) is (generally) being polite, not being argumentative. Ignoring another's posts and/or significant portions of its content while continue to harangue on and on (as you few folks have done) is both impolite AND argumentative. Some would call this troll-like behavior.

3. Making wild baseless claims and jumping to absurd conclusions can rightly be called a form of "arguing". You few folks have done plenty of that in this exchange. Pot vs kettle????

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 12:23

JPO: The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers (aka; dogfighting) to stress the system. Read ALL of what the statement says. The 13th thru 17th words are significant. "to test the flying qualities" is VERY different than testing dog fighting ability. Dog fight ability depends on NUMEROUS qualities/features. Flying qualities is but one of those features.

Are you familiar with the WWII Zero fighter? It could turn inside every allied fighter it came up against. EVERY one of them. The Zero racked up an impressive reputation and kill ratio before the allied pilots figured out how to use the strengths of THEIR fighters (like armor plating, self sealing tanks, much better dive performance, better high speed handling, more powerful engines, better weaponry, etc etc) to kill the zero in impressive numbers (or depressing if you were on the Japanese side.) You CANNOT compare a single feature and draw (absurd) conclusions about dog fighting from that single feature.

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 12:27

That fantasy was explained to me by Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula (Retd) at the IQPC International Fighter conference in London in 2013.

Sez you. And even assuming he really said that AND you accurately understood what he said AND he still holds to that opinion, what makes his single opinion magically better than the opinion of a LOT of other very experienced and VERY knowledgeable fighter pilots?

melmothtw

3rd Jul 2015, 12:45

Indeed, 'sez' me Ken (and there's no need to be capping up AND and LOT and VERY - I get where you're placing the emphasis).

I don't suggest that his opinion is 'magically better' than anyone else's, I was only pointing out that the scenario he played out was no fantasy of mine, as you suggested.

I've been away from PPRuNEe for a short while, but having recently come back to it I must say that I find you to be far more angry and irritable than I remembered from before. Lighten up man, it's an internet forum and you're arguing with strangers.

http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag380/garethjennings1/pic6_zpsvnbklzps.jpg (http://s1373.photobucket.com/user/garethjennings1/media/pic6_zpsvnbklzps.jpg.html)

glad rag

3rd Jul 2015, 13:00

Indeed melmothtw!

@Ken V

Q, have you "researched" a reply to my previous question?

A. "what question"

there I've done it for you as you seem incapable of both answering a straight question and following the flow of a thread [unless it means raging]..

over to you.
http://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/4/2/1427972487114/3bb72bd4-f013-44a2-9995-bc2a9b475052-1020x612.jpeg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&

http://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/4/2/1427972487114/3bb72bd4-f013-44a2-9995-bc2a9b475052-1020x612.jpeg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 13:02

It's also completely beside the point to bang on about Zeros.

Utterly FALSE. It is VERY applicable in this case because (as is always the case) we ignore history at our peril.

The zero was optimized for turn performance. And the designers succeeded brilliantly. The zero could turn inside EVERY allied (and Nazi) fighter. EVERY one. But it did so at some sacrifice. Like pilot armor, self sealing tanks, robust structure, etc etc. Once allied pilots figured out the zero's weaknesses and their aircraft's strengths, the zero's air dominance was wiped out and it was shot out of the skies. Japanese engineers (and Japanese procurement officials) tried valiantly to correct that mistake, but by the time they did, their air forces were in tatters, their Navy was sunk, and their nation was in ruins.

To put this in modern terms: the Flanker can do a Pugachev Cobra maneuver which no Western fighter can do. So of course all those Western fighters are doomed in a dog fight against a Flanker, huh? You're welcome to believe that fantasy.

Bottom line: a fighter has MANY features that make it a good (or bad) weapon system. Turn performance is but ONE of the features. If you are going to evaluate two fighters' dog fighting ability, you have to compare ALL their features, not just one.

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 13:10

@Ken V

Q, have you "researched" a reply to my previous question?

Have you read post 6444?

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 13:12

I must say that I find you to be far more angry and irritable than I remembered from before.

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

Mil-26Man

3rd Jul 2015, 13:15

Bottom line: a fighter has MANY features that make it a good (or bad) weapon system. Turn performance is but ONE of the features. If you are going to evaluate two fighters' dog fighting ability, you have to compare ALL their features, not just one.

So how do you account for the comments of the test pilot when he bemoaned the close-in (dogfighting) performance of his aircraft compared to the F-16?

You referred earlier to other very experienced and VERY knowledgeable fighter pilots. Would you not include this test pilot with prior F-15E operational experience into that category?

glad rag

3rd Jul 2015, 13:16

Pointless.

LowObservable

3rd Jul 2015, 13:17

Since we cross-posted I deleted the last one and will use some of the same content.

First, there is some truth to the Zero analogy. Basically, Japan's measly industrial capacity could never generate vast numbers of 2000 hp engines like the R-2800. Indeed I don't think they ever built anything in that class. So as the war progressed the US could build fighters with heavy armament, armor/self-sealing tanks, speed and maneuverability.

However, the tactics (as reported by the Japanese) were hit-and-run rather than a maneuvering fight at higher speed. The key was "engagement control": attack when the position is favorable and get the hell out before the stuation becomes more equal. Ideally suited to quickly trained pilots, and avoided getting nuggets killed in their first two or three fights.

But there was another huge factor: the Zero, very maneuverable with slow-firing but very lethal armament, was ideal for the ultra-elite pilots of the IJN in November 1941. Unfortunately all of the world's flying skill is -all use when you are sitting on an aircraft carrier that is on fire and sinking. The IJN never recovered from Midway.

The Su family - which no Western AF has ever fought for real - is not, in this context, an analog for the Zero, because it is agile, fast and heavily armed. And the F-35 is only an analog for the F4U if it has dominant speed, climb, acceleration and altitude.

OK, says Team F-35, but what about systems and weapons and stealth?

The F-35 (they say) wins at long range with stealth and LPI and in WVR with HOBS, EO-DAS and HMDS.

But it can't do both on the same mission because (unlike F-22. J-20 and T-50) it has no internal HOBS missile. So even if the untested notion of winning in WVR with inferior EM works, the F-35 is still not suited for air-to-air missions. It's a stealth bomber with self-escort, and if its boosters would accept that, I would give them an easier time.

As for "nobody will do WVR because nobody's done it in XX years": Nope, nobody has because there has not been anything like a peer-to-peer air conflict. In those situations (particularly where only one side has AWACS) engagements are more likely to get decided BVR, and the other side avoids WVR because they don't want to die. So the absence of WVR is situational and not an eternal truth.

TBM-Legend

3rd Jul 2015, 13:21

Air combat is more to do with tactics and pilot skill than raw aircraft manoeuvring. Both the Mig-17 and Mig-21 were superior "dog fighters" to the F-4/F-105 however while they achieved kills so did the USAF/USN. Actually my friend Skip Holme who flew Thuds and Phantoms in Vietnam also flew the Mig-21 at the then 'secret' place in Nevada. He told me that if they had realised just how potent the Mig-21 was a a fighter he would have been more scared.

The IDFAF did very well using the Mirage 111 vs. Migs and the Mirage is not known for 'dog fighting'...

So the F-35 will mature into a good aircraft hopefully flown by great operators skilled in tactics.

PS: Clare Chennault devised tactics to defeat much more manoeuvrable Zeros etc in 1942 with his P-40 Tomahawks...

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 13:39

It's a stealth bomber with self-escort....

Interestingly, that's essentially what I've been saying all along.

melmothtw

3rd Jul 2015, 13:41

Air combat is more to do with tactics and pilot skill than raw aircraft manoeuvring.

I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that the F-35 cannot perform air-to-air combat (not me, certainly), just that it does not appear to be able to deliver on its earlier promises of being a capable dogfighter.

“a single-pilot, survivable, first-day-of-the-war combat fighter with a precision, all-weather strike capability that uses a wide variety of air-to-surface and air-to-air weapons—and that defends itself in a dogfight.” John Kent, senior comms manager for the F-35 in 2003.

Both the Mig-17 and Mig-21 were superior "dog fighters" to the F-4/F-105 however while they achieved kills so did the USAF/USN.

Yes, but weren't the F-15 and F-16 born out of the experience of Vietnam, with a heavy emphasis on the ability to perform close-in 'dogfighting'?

The hard lessons learned (or not, perhaps).

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 13:57

First, there is some truth to the Zero analogy. Basically, Japan's measly industrial capacity could never generate vast numbers of 2000 hp engines like the R-2800. Indeed I don't think they ever built anything in that class. So as the war progressed the US could build fighters with heavy armament, armor/self-sealing tanks, speed and maneuverability.

I was not talking about "as the war progressed" nor was I talking about industrial capacity. I was talking about combat in 1942 and early/mid 1943 when the US was flying pre-war F4F Wildcats and P-40 Warhawks against the zero. The F6F Hellcat did not see action until September 1943.

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 14:01

So how do you account for the comments of the test pilot when he bemoaned the close-in (dogfighting) performance of his aircraft compared to the F-16?

There are LOTS of test pilots who place turn performance above all else. Same thing happened in mid 30s Japan. They emphasized turn performance above all else for the Zero. It worked brilliantly, until the allied fighter jocks figured out how to fly against it.

Mil-26Man

3rd Jul 2015, 14:04

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 14:11

“a single-pilot, survivable, first-day-of-the-war combat fighter with a precision, all-weather strike capability that uses a wide variety of air-to-surface and air-to-air weapons—and that defends itself in a dogfight.” John Kent, senior comms manager for the F-35 in 2003.

There is a HUGE difference between an attack aircraft that "defends itself in a dog fight", and an air superiority fighter. The F-35 is NOT nor was it ever intended to be an air superiority fighter.

Yes, but weren't the F-15 and F-16 born out of the experience of Vietnam, with a heavy emphasis on the ability to perform close-in 'dogfighting'?

Indeed. USAF's "fighter mafia" had a huge role in the development of those two aircraft, and they insisted on an air superiority fighter. The F-35 is not and was never intended to be an air superiority fighter. Think of the F-35 as a super duper A-7, which is of the same vintage as the F-15 and F-16. A-7 had eye watering air-to-ground performance and pretty damn good maneuverability. But it was never an air superiority fighter nor ever intended to be.

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 14:16

So, you're aware of this but a senior Lockheed Martin/USAF test pilot with previous operational experience of the F-15E Strike Eagle isn't?I have no idea what he knows about the zero and its development. And its pointless anyway. He was used to flying an air superiority fighter and anything with less than that kind of maneuverability is just simply wimpy. But the F-35 is not nor was it ever meant to be an air superiority fighter.

If an A-7 jock had written disparagingly of the F-35 turn performance, then you might want to take notice. Might.

melmothtw

3rd Jul 2015, 14:17

There is a HUGE difference between an attack aircraft that "defends itself in a dog fight", and an air superiority fighter. The F-35 is NOT nor was it ever intended to be an air superiority fighter.

No one ever said it was (though perhaps LM would like to remind those many countries that are buying it as an F-16 replacement), but as the quote very clearly states, it is meant to be able to defend itself in a dogfight.

I'm aware of what the A-7 is, thanks, but I'm just guessing that most of the countries signing up for the F-35 are not looking for a 21st century A-7.

Your argument that the F-35 is more of an A-35 is interesting, as that seems to be the argument that most of its detractors are making. The problem for most Western nations though (and the US to a certain extent) is that in the coming decades it will become the sole or predominant platform in their inventories. A certain bias towards attack is ok, but if it has to perform all missions (just look at the aircraft types that the JPO say it will replace) then it needs to be able to demonstrate that it is up to muster to do so (and that includes close-in dogfighting).

Unfortunately for the F-35, as the old adage goes; 'You can make a bomber out of a fighter, but you can't make a fighter out of a bomber'.

Given that it is meant to be multirole, it's interesting that even its proponents concede that it can't do CAS or ground attack as well as the A-10, and it can't do air superiority as well as the F-15/16. Beyond Day 1 of a total war, what can it do well?

He was used to flying an air superiority fighter

The F-15E is not an air superiority fighter.

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 14:36

As for "nobody will do WVR because nobody's done it in XX years": Nope, nobody has because there has not been anything like a peer-to-peer air conflict. In those situations (particularly where only one side has AWACS) engagements are more likely to get decided BVR, and the other side avoids WVR because they don't want to die. So the absence of WVR is situational and not an eternal truth.

Aaaaah, we're finally drilling down to reality. The F-35 is not nor was it ever intended to be an air superiority fighter. If an air arm that flies F-35 exclusively has to go up against an air arm that has modern air superiority fighters (and by that I mean has stealth, has multispectral sensors, has sensor fusion, has helmet sighting/cueing systems, and has off bore sight air-to-air weapons, AND has high maneuverability - does this pedantic description satisfy those who cannot abide the term "5th generation"?) then it is NOT a "peer-to-peer air conflict."

If the Royal Navy wants to go up against such a foe, they need more than the F-35. Sadly, their carriers can't handle anything other than the F-35. That does not make the F-35 defective.

Hempy

3rd Jul 2015, 14:43

Methinks KenV is trolling for responses. He starts by telling us that;

a. the F-35 is all things, as advertised, then;

b. the F-35 isn't really an 'F', just an 'A' with a little 'f', then;

c. claims the big 'F' is legit, it's just the nay-sayers who downgrade it and the reports about the big 'F'-35 versus other true mature big 'F's' are biased and unreliable, then;

d. tries to compare it with the AM-6. Which has no similarities or relevance to the argument whatsoever...

Either a Walt, a LM senior exec, or someone needing votes. Given it's PPRuNe I'd say it's the foremost..

melmothtw

3rd Jul 2015, 14:43

If the Royal Navy wants to go up against such a foe, they need more than the F-35. Sadly, their carriers can't handle anything other than the F-35. That does not make the F-35 defective.

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.

LowObservable

3rd Jul 2015, 14:45

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

But in that case, Mr V, where did anyone get such nonsensical ideas into their heads?

Step forward, Maj Gen Charles "Slick" Davis, F-35 program boss in 2008:

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.

Pentagon, Lockheed rebut F-35 fighter jet critics | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/20/us-fighter-lockheed-usa-idUSN1928742920080920)

Old stuff, you say? Billy Flynn, front and center, please!

Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

"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.

IN FOCUS: Lockheed claims F-35 kinematics ?better than or equal to? Typhoon or Super Hornet - 2/7/2013 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-lockheed-claims-f-35-kinematics-better-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-382078/)

Mil-26Man

3rd Jul 2015, 14:50

Given this is Wimbledon week, I'd call that Game, Set, and Match.

LowObservable

3rd Jul 2015, 14:50

And just to remind Melmoth again: the F-35B is 3200 lb heavier than the A. A bit like running into the fight with a Honda Accord in the bomb bay.

melmothtw

3rd Jul 2015, 14:53

Don't need reminding LO, thanks. You just (re)made my point as to the F-35 not cutting the mustard for the UK's naval air defence requirement.

KenV

3rd Jul 2015, 15:05

No one ever said it was (an air superiority fighter)Not in so many words, but you folks are certainly demanding it have the maneuverability of an air superiority fighter. It doesn't because it isn't.

I'm aware of what the A-7 is, thanks, but I'm just guessing that most of the countries signing up for the F-35 are not looking for a 21st century A-7.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?!!

The problem for most Western nations though (and the US to a certain extent) is that in the coming decades it will become the sole or predominant platform in their inventories. Yeah, that is a problem. But not one caused by any F-35 design fault. The airplane is (mostly) meeting all its performance requirements. If a "Western nation" has put all its eggs in the F-35 basket and finds that it comes short on capability, that is a political problem, not a technical one.

And about the US fighter inventory, the F-35 will NEVER be the sole or even "predominant" platform in the USN inventory. The USN will always (well, until they are retired) have far more Super Hornets than F-35s. And USAF is planning on keeping their F-15s flying till well into the mid-century when the next air superiority fighter should become available. And USAF will be flying the F-22 till later than that. So there are at least two Western air arms that fully understand what the F-35 is and what it is not and have planned their inventories accordingly. If other air arms don't understand that (as you allege, but which I rather doubt) then their leaders need to be sacked. Perhaps shot.

Unfortunately for the F-35, as the old adage goes; 'You can make a bomber out of a fighter, but you can't make a fighter out of a bomber'.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.

The F-15E is not an air superiority fighter. I my goodness!!! The F-15A thru D are air superiority fighters. The F-15E retains essentially ALL the A thru D air to air performance while adding significant air to ground performance the A thru D lack.